Bible verses be treated as conditional instead of absolute statements. True or false?

4UallPraise said:

Are you saying that only perfection exists in the bible? I hate to break it to you but manmade imperfection is described by God in the bible too, so I think your argument is without wings. Try again.

Click to expand...

All right. Here's my latest try. See if you get this one. Humans are fallible, but God is not. Similarly, it's not adequate to decree that God is infallible while arguing that his word is flawed. Not misunderstood by some readers but flawed at the source.

What's more, the question that was put to us here didn't just ask it the "mistakes were made" theory could be correct; what was asked was if Christianity might not see fit to accept that theory. Well, no, it cannot do that without denying the faith all round.

Bouan Philippe said:

No, because the people who wrote it are still human, and they can still make mistakes like any humans.

It doesn't reflect on God's perfection at all, but it's indicative of their human nature which is imperfect.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that it is the Spirit of the Word that is dependable and not the letter?

Your post reminded me of a discussion that I had with a beloved great uncle of mine, concerning human and divine perfection.
He humored me because I was only 10 at the time.
I insisted that it was impossible for a man to be perfect, or to perform any act perfectly, because he was human.
My wise great uncle reminded me that a person's intent is also visible to God, (as are that person's actions) and both should be judged accordingly.
Having lived to be his age at the time of the conversation, I can now see that he was right, and I appreciate even more his forbearance with my arguments at the time.

Bouan Philippe said:

Bible verses be treated as conditional statements instead of absolute statements in order to resolve the apparent contradictions between different verses in the Bible.

Click to expand...

True. God made several Covenants with the chosen people ,Israel , on the condition they kept that Covenant. In other words, it is an agreement between two parties and when broken penalties were paid like the Dispora. Be blessed.

Bouan Philippe said:

Bible verses be treated as conditional statements instead of absolute statements in order to resolve the apparent contradictions between different verses in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Welcome to CF!

Bouan Philippe said:

Bible verses be treated as conditional statements instead of absolute statements in order to resolve the apparent contradictions between different verses in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I think I got your post wrong with my comment. Maybe it will have some value.
Anyway.....So as I now understand, you are speaking of contradictions in scripture ?

Albion said:

All right. Here's my latest try. See if you get this one. Humans are fallible, but God is not. Similarly, it's not adequate to decree that God is infallible while arguing that his word is flawed. Not misunderstood by some readers but flawed at the source.

What's more, the question that was put to us here didn't just ask it the "mistakes were made" theory could be correct; what was asked was if Christianity might not see fit to accept that theory. Well, no, it cannot do that without denying the faith all round.

Click to expand...

Here’s mine, the texts of terrors/tares (sad) combined with Manna texts (edible) in the bible, reflects on the condition of mankind personally and corporately as the church. God is not fallible and it is His body (morally) with His Head (spiritual) in control and not the world (flesh)
The word is flawed to those who are fed the word in an oppressive manner. Oppressive on this forum is to say one is not a Christian. Even if it’s defined with a badge that says Christian doesn’t mean it’s manna that is being fed.

Bouan Philippe said:

Ultimately, it is still God that decides who will go to heaven, and who will not.

Your argument is an obfuscation which is clearly false, because God's pronouncement of "Everlasting hell" (Matthew 25:41) still contradicts
the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only "eternal" and "unforgivable" sin in Mark 3 and Matthew 12, yet in Matthew 25vv42-43 we have clear examples of lesser sins which are not forgiven (Matthew 25vv45-46).

Click to expand...

That would be your idea.

Please show where Scripture states it is the "only" eternal sin.

So far, no man has seen God except the Son, regardless of whether or not he is counted amongst the transgressors in Isaiah 53,
God is still running this show, which no one else can claim.

Click to expand...

And?

Bouan Philippe said:

Ultimately, all the above passages are the same (Matthew 12 & 25 and Mark 3), for they are beyond redemption, which means that
God won't give them a second chance to be redeemed.

Click to expand...

And?

You cannot argue with God who is Sovereign and He is the Final Judge.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Albion said:

Would that not amount to a rejection of the belief that Scripture was divinely inspired, that the Bible is the word of God?

Click to expand...

That's the point of the false argument.

4UallPraise said:

The no exceptions clause to the jist of your post does not account for
Romans 1 or 2 that says that those who by nature do these things are justified,

Click to expand...

Romans 2:14-15 states that conscience is the law of the Gentiles, sometimes accusing them; i.e., they did not perfectly obey their own consciences.
It does not state anyone is justified.

Present chapter and verse of your assertions that the Scriptures may be examined.

without a hearing knowledge that they could reject.

Click to expand...

Without what "hearing knowledge". . .that they could "reject" what?

Those who do not those things, by the new nature, in the reverse logic, would be the unsaved, assuming they did hear and rejected.
Inclusion and exclusion, without a defining term, is simply speculation.

Click to expand...

The defining term is "the law" (Romans 2:12-15), it is the measuring rod.

If you don't have rock solid truth behind your conviction you just have a reasonable doubt being played out that is sadly lacking any conviction at all.

Click to expand...

The rock solid truth behind no justification by law keeping is the word of God in Romans.

Of course Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and He knows who are His. Is that really your business to decide who is elected by the Father? Not even the Son is said to know who will be seated next to Him until the end.

Click to expand...

Is it really your business to deny what the NT authoritatively presents?

It is my business to believe the revelation of Paul, received from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-5), that only those who believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice (i.e., not guilty) are his.

Bouan Philippe said:

That doesn't change the fact that people are still unsaved and eternally condemned for the other categories of sins in Matthew 25vv42-43.

Also, the only type of repentance acceptable to God for the purpose of salvation is "godly sorrow repentance" in the Book of Corinthians, which is such a high bar that the majority of people will fail to reach it.

Click to expand...

No type of repentance is acceptable to God for the purpose of salvation.
Only one thing is acceptable to God for the purpose of salvation--faith by the Holy Spirit in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., not guilty.

Obviously, I reject all arguments to the contrary because God is sovereign over Salvation and nothing can make him change his mind once the pronouncement is made (Matthew 25:41).

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't understand the NT Scriptures.

Carl Emerson said:

Are you suggesting that it is the Spirit of the Word that is dependable and not the letter?

Click to expand...

"The letter" (2 Corinthians 3:6) is the law, it is not the word of God written.

pdudgeon said:

Your post reminded me of a discussion that I had with a beloved great uncle of mine, concerning human and divine perfection.
He humored me because I was only 10 at the time.
I insisted that it was impossible for a man to be perfect, or to perform any act perfectly, because he was human.
My wise great uncle reminded me that a person's intent is also visible to God, (as are that person's actions) and
both should be judged accordingly.
Having lived to be his age at the time of the conversation, I can now see that he was right, and I appreciate even more his forbearance with my arguments at the time.

Click to expand...

Which does not alter the fact that fallen man cannot be perfect, "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10)

4UallPraise said:

Here’s mine, the texts of terrors/tares (sad) combined with Manna texts (edible) in the bible, reflects on the condition of mankind personally and corporately as the church. God is not fallible and it is His body (morally) with His Head (spiritual) in control and not the world (flesh)
The word is flawed to those who are fed the word in an oppressive manner. Oppressive on this forum is to say one is not a Christian.

Click to expand...

Who made that rule?

Even if it’s defined with a badge that says Christian doesn’t mean it’s manna that is being fed.

Click to expand...

Nor does it mean that it is not.

Clare73 said:

"The letter" (2 Corinthians 3:6) is the law, it is not the word of God written.

Click to expand...

Correct, I was thinking of the Canon of scripture. Scripture in the wrong hands can be dead or dangerous...

Bouan Philippe said:

Why is God's pronouncement of "Everlasting hell" (Matthew 25:41) not the same punishment as the "eternal" sin in Mark 3 and Matthew 12?

By definition, they are the same in terms of the severity of punishment; "eternal hell" is still "eternal hell", no matter what you call it.

Click to expand...

Let me put it a different way. One's experience of the same Lake of Fire is not the same as another's experience of it; to my mind it might even be analogous to the experience of one person in Heaven being different from another's. Just how that works in the LOF, I don't know, but I know God is just.

Bouan Philippe said:

Here is one example:-

Mark 3

28 “Assuredly, I say to you, ALL SINS WILL BE FORGIVEN THE SONS OF MEN, AND WHATEVER BLASPHEMIES THEY MAY UTTER; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Matthew 12

31 “Therefore I say to you, EVERY SIN AND BLASPHEMY WILL BE FORGIVEN MEN, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 25

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘DEPART FROM ME, YOU CURSED, INTO THE EVERLASTING FIRE PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 3 and Matthew 12 has claimed that “all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”.

They are conditional statements, which are only true in the absence of the Exemption Clause concerning “Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”.

Thus, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only “eternal” and “unforgivable” sin according to Mark 3 and Matthew 12.

Nevertheless, God's pronouncement of “Everlasting hell” in Matthew 25:41 is equivalent to the “eternal” and “unforgivable” sin in Mark 3 and Matthew 12, because those who are condemned cannot be redeemed once God has made such a pronouncement.

However, Matthew 25vv42–43 provides a few examples of transgressions which are not Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but they still carry the same penalty of “Everlasting torment in hell” simply because God has made his pronouncement of “Everlasting hell” to those who are condemned.

But if Mark 3 and Matthew 12 are conditional statements which only allows for Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit then there is clearly no room for God's pronouncement of “Everlasting hell” in the context of Matthew 25v41.

That is just one example of an apparent contradiction, which can be easily understood and resolved by arguing that the Bible is not accurately written to include Matthew 25v41 in the Exemption Clause of Mark 3 and Matthew 12.

The problem of supposed contradiction is easily understood and resolved by positing that Mark 3 and Matthew 12 are not accurately written to include Matthew 25v41 in the Exemption Clause.

Obviously, it is only one example of an apparent contradiction within the Bible, but there are several more examples that I could provide.

Click to expand...

You seem to have not taken into account that Matt 25:31-46 is the final judgement after people have died and been resurrected. Anyone/everyone can repent while they are still alive but once they stand before the throne it is too late.