Grace and Truth

[Volbrigade]

Where does the heart of Christianity lie? What is Christianitys central message? What does it mean to be a Christian?

These questions have sparked a debate that has raged throughout Christendom since the 19th century. It was during that century that the seeds of materialism and humanism, planted during The Enlightenment, bore the fruit of Darwinism and Marxism. Those philosophies, and the atheistic worldview that they are the expression of, have had a profound influence " and not just in the halls of secular academia and the popular culture. They have also exerted their influence on the church, in the form of ideological movements that have become pronounced among liberal theologians, and within the seminaries of many mainline denominations.

There is a marked spirit of compromise that affects large segments of the church today. It can be expressed by an attitude that says where The Bible comes into conflict with accepted ideas of natural and social science, the Bible must give way. This is referred to as conferring to modern science a magisterial (or ruling) role over Scripture; that is, where there is perceived disagreement between the two, science must prevail. When in fact, The Bible " which is the immutable, unchanging, inspired Word of God " is in a magisterial role in regard to science. Science, and the facts it presents, are constantly changing. The accepted science of today are the discredited theories and beliefs of tomorrow. The proper role of science is in a ministerial (subordinate) role to the eternal truth of Scripture.

Too often, however, this is not the view that prevails in local congregations, or is expressed from the pulpit. And well over a hundred years of encroaching compromise and relativism within the mainline churches with regard to the authority of Scripture have taken their toll; as manifested in the weakened influence of Christianity, and its relevance within the culture; its adulterated evangelical mission; and in the undermined faith of countless churchgoers. The result has been dwindling church attendance; the rise of postmodern movements that seek to redefine Christianity (such as The Emergent Church); and the open embrace of anti-Biblical positions (e.g., same-sex marriage).

We live in a time when the central question what is the heart, message, and meaning of Christianity? has escaped the confines of academia, and is being wrestled with among disputing factions of all those who call themselves Christian -- factions that in many cases propose fundamentally differing versions of what that term means, and what the truth of Jesus Christ is.

The fallout associated with conceding a magisterial role to science over Scripture is widespread. Even many conservative evangelicals join with their traditional counterparts in seeking to define and interpret whole passages of Scripture in a way that corresponds with the accepted science of our time. Nowhere is this tendency to compromise more pronounced than with the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. Whereas the Bible is explicit in referring to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six ordinary 24-hour days, successive generations of believers who have been indoctrinated into a billions of years paradigm (which is grounded in materialism) have sought to reconcile the Bible with accepted scientific fact. This attempt at reconciliation " which includes ideas such as the Day/Age Theory, the Framework Hypothesis, and various Gap theories " has led to great confusion within churches. It calls into open question some of the central doctrines of Christianity.

But God is not the author of confusion (1Corinthians14:33). And we know that Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word, by whom all things were made (John 1:3), dwelt among men in grace and truth (John 1:14); and that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

Self-evident from these passages, and many others " indeed, from the whole counsel of God " is that central to what we believe, as Christians, are these dual realities of grace and truth. They are, metaphorically speaking, as essential as time and space " and are as likewise inseparable.

It has been said that Justice is getting what we deserve; Mercy is not getting what we deserve; and Grace is being given what we dont deserve. We know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and that the soul that sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20); we also know that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), because sin entered the world through one man (a real, historical Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12). Therefore, we are all under judgment and condemnation; and justice demands that we pay for our sins.

And that is what Jesus did for us on the Cross " He paid the price for our sins " a price we could never hope to pay. This unmerited grace: this giving of what we dont deserve, the pardon of our sins, and reconciliation with God, and the gift of salvation unto eternal life (John 3:16), is the central redemptive reality of Christianity; its meaning and its message. It is the integrated message of the entire compilation of books that we call The Holy Bible.

But what about truth?

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Are we not then, having received grace through faith in Jesus Christ, to walk in truth? This, indeed, is a major focus of the Apostle Johns third epistle. Writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he says I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. (v. 4). While this obviously applies to our personal conduct in regard to the 9th commandment, and bearing false witness " does it not go beyond that, with a clear implication that we are to adhere to a standard of reality; the body of real things, events, and facts: actuality in all things? Are there boundaries to the Truth of Jesus Christ? To quote Pauls phrase (Romans 6:2,15, NKJV): Certainly not!

How, then, can we who have accepted the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ, as revealed in His inspired Scripture, not accept His truth in regard to earthly things (John 3:12)? And instead, accept theories, and a worldview, that purports billions of years of evolution " theories that are grounded in the idea that God does not exist?

It is vital that believers -- those who have receive(d) the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10) " equip themselves with the information they need to counter the prevailing materialist and evolutionist myth. There are many outstanding informational and expository ministries that are easily accessible for that purpose.

Christians are the recipients of the grace and truth of Jesus Christ. In all things, including science, we should strive to be in union with that truth. It is exciting to live during a time when science, operating in its proper subordinate role to Scripture, is pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 4b,5a) " specifically, the long-age Evolutionary myth. It is a matter of great urgency that all believers are acquainted and equipped with information to counter their evolutionist indoctrination. In this age of deceit, when materialist presuppositions have crept into every facet of our culture, from science to education to entertainment, many Christians have never been exposed to the truth concerning accepted theories of the origins of life; its purported development from randomly assembled single cells; the geologic and fossil record; radiometric dating methods; cosmology and astrophysics; genetics. Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields and others is pointing directly to Gods Biblical truth.

If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. -- John 8:31b,32

Code: Select all

[u][/u][u][/u]

[tariki]

[Replying to post 18 by tariki]

Again, I understand you perfectly, tariki. How else could I discern our areas of disagreement?

I assume you mean "now", as it was perfectly clear that you did not before when you said you did.

Love the Merton quote, by the way. And totally agree. Are there more frightening verses in the Bible than Matthew 7:21-23?

Regarding authority: I readily acknowledge that there are far more scholars who extol the unexceptionalism and uninspired quality of the codified texts (as well as the legitimacy of the apocryphal and fraudulent ones) than maintain that they are singular and Divinely inspired. It would be surprising (albeit gratifying) if it were otherwise.

Similarly, there are far more scientists who default to the position that "nothing + time + chance = everything" than who acknowledge the creative act of a Supreme Being. What of it?

So in effect you take back what you claimed in your OP? That "all leading authorities" back your opinions?

The question is: where does truth reside?

Indeed!

The old saw about the thief not being able to find a policeman applies. If you are looking to discredit the Biblical text, based on your unbelief, you are unlikely to discover its supernatural origins (there are notable exceptions, of course). Likewise, if you are looking to discover mechanisms for how the information in the genome could increase to transform bacteria into microbiologists, you will find them -- if only in your mind (the only place they exist).

I do not seek to discredit it. Once again, you claim to understand me yet demonstrate a complete lack of understanding by saying the above. I spoke of the FACTS. Such FACTS do not necessarily discredit the Bible. What they do is to discredit any one who would seek to find the text as it now stands inerrant and infallible. You may see this as discrediting the Bible - many devout Christians see it as a liberation of the text to allow the Living Word to speak. To experience the presence of Christ it is often necessary to distinguish between the word as text and the Living Word.

To add, if you read one or two books by such scholars it is revealed that they first approached the text not to "discredit" but as firm believers in its inerrancy. It was the FACTS they subsequently found that led them to call such into question.

So -- you have your authorities, I have mine. The fact that yours outnumber mine troubles me not in the least (nor does my OP being arbitrarily moved by a mod to RR It seems to me to be a very cozy little room for us to enjoy our chat).

Then why claim as you did in your OP?

Each of those authorities is working with the same Septuigent, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian Codices, etc. (presumably). What we must be vigilant in terms of, is the presuppositions that they are bringing to their examination of the texts.

If we seek truth, that is.

I am satisfied that The Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain, as I mentioned. In fact, I stake my life on it. If you are not -- well, so be it. You are not without company. Lots of it.

A little bit of circular reasoning here, or at least a circular claim. I.e. the implication that those who end with YOUR claims are true seekers, and if one comes to any other conclusion but your own then their dedication to truth is in question.

Now -- on to the legitimate complaint about the brutality of the Old Testament.

This has been covered so many times, in so many places, that I will merely touch on it here, unless you insist on a rehash in our cozy little RR chat room.

Let us first lay the groundwork, which is covered in 1 Corinthians 10, and summed up here:

"Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (v. 11)

The Old Testament narrative is an unvarnished account of the evil and wickedness that necessitated the extreme measures Our Lord went to on our behalf, to rescue us from the sin which has metastasized throughout our (human) race. That includes, during Israel's conquest of the Promised Land, the genocidal elimination of people who had given themselves over to idolatry (which entailed numerous vile practices, including child sacrifice).

I don't particularly like that passage, either. In fact, I am now in 2 Kings in my current rotation through the Old Testament -- and a dreary litany of wicked kings and evil doings it is.

It is also history. And it is an amazing, magnificent history; a message from antiquity that screams of the need for the grace offered by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You totally miss the point of what I said, thus demonstrating again that your claims to understand me are bogus. Please try again, this time addressing the point I clearly made.

Thanks

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 18 by tariki]

Again, I understand you perfectly, tariki. How else could I discern our areas of disagreement?

I assume you mean "now", as it was perfectly clear that you did not before when you said you did.

Well... it was clear to you. (Note: I hope the formatting works out okay here; I'm using the "quote" function, but am unfamiliar with html prompts (is that what they are? I'll use a green font to try to delineate my comments ]

Love the Merton quote, by the way. And totally agree. Are there more frightening verses in the Bible than Matthew 7:21-23?

Regarding authority: I readily acknowledge that there are far more scholars who extol the unexceptionalism and uninspired quality of the codified texts (as well as the legitimacy of the apocryphal and fraudulent ones) than maintain that they are singular and Divinely inspired. It would be surprising (albeit gratifying) if it were otherwise.

Similarly, there are far more scientists who default to the position that "nothing + time + chance = everything" than who acknowledge the creative act of a Supreme Being. What of it?

So in effect you take back what you claimed in your OP? That "all leading authorities" back your opinions?

That's not what I said. Are you referring to where I claimed (accurately, of course) that "leading research in those fields and others..." points to Biblical truth? No, I don't take that back.

The question is: where does truth reside?

Indeed!

The old saw about the thief not being able to find a policeman applies. If you are looking to discredit the Biblical text, based on your unbelief, you are unlikely to discover its supernatural origins (there are notable exceptions, of course). Likewise, if you are looking to discover mechanisms for how the information in the genome could increase to transform bacteria into microbiologists, you will find them -- if only in your mind (the only place they exist).

I do not seek to discredit it. Once again, you claim to understand me yet demonstrate a complete lack of understanding by saying the above. I spoke of the FACTS. Such FACTS do not necessarily discredit the Bible. What they do is to discredit any one who would seek to find the text as it now stands inerrant and infallible. You may see this as discrediting the Bible - many devout Christians see it as a liberation of the text to allow the Living Word to speak. To experience the presence of Christ it is often necessary to distinguish between the word as text and the Living Word.

To add, if you read one or two books by such scholars it is revealed that they first approached the text not to "discredit" but as firm believers in its inerrancy. It was the FACTS they subsequently found that led them to call such into question.

Here is a persistent problem with the English language, that is especially aggravated by forums such as these. There is no satisfying distinction between the ubiquitous "you", and the personal form of the same word. I was using the former here -- I did not intend to say that YOU, personally, were attempting to discredit inerrancy through your own scholarship. "You" (ubiquitous) can use the word "one"; but that's a little stilted and formal in an informal setting such as this. I try to be more careful about that -- but tend to forget to be.

Anyway -- serious attempts have been undertaken for decades, if not centuries, to undermine the validity, inerrancy, and inspiration of that singular collection of works, written over a period of 1,700 years by 40 authors, that we call the Holy Bible. And, indeed, some minor variations of usage have been uncovered among translations that are in many cases centuries apart.

And yet -- there it sits. Unchanged, unmoved, and totally indifferent to the attacks against it. If it is what it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16), then the information and message it contains is of the utmost value and importance. If not -- if it is "just another book" -- it's value is of a questionable, and subjective, character.

I'll take the former. The latest dissertation by a Doctor of Theology candidate will not dissuade me. If we can move on past that point -- fine. If not... so be it.

So -- you have your authorities, I have mine. The fact that yours outnumber mine troubles me not in the least (nor does my OP being arbitrarily moved by a mod to RR It seems to me to be a very cozy little room for us to enjoy our chat).

Then why claim as you did in your OP?

Because it is... well, true (see above).

Each of those authorities is working with the same Septuigent, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian Codices, etc. (presumably). What we must be vigilant in terms of, is the presuppositions that they are bringing to their examination of the texts.

If we seek truth, that is.

I am satisfied that The Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain, as I mentioned. In fact, I stake my life on it. If you are not -- well, so be it. You are not without company. Lots of it.

A little bit of circular reasoning here, or at least a circular claim. I.e. the implication that those who end with YOUR claims are true seekers, and if one comes to any other conclusion but your own then their dedication to truth is in question.

Well, takiri, it would be a bit absurd to claim that I have arrived at truth; but so have those whose conclusions are 180 degrees out of phase with mine -- wouldn't it? I mean, that's the sort of thing you would expect from a relativist. Surely you can see I'm not one of those?

Now -- on to the legitimate complaint about the brutality of the Old Testament.

This has been covered so many times, in so many places, that I will merely touch on it here, unless you insist on a rehash in our cozy little RR chat room.

Let us first lay the groundwork, which is covered in 1 Corinthians 10, and summed up here:

"Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (v. 11)

The Old Testament narrative is an unvarnished account of the evil and wickedness that necessitated the extreme measures Our Lord went to on our behalf, to rescue us from the sin which has metastasized throughout our (human) race. That includes, during Israel's conquest of the Promised Land, the genocidal elimination of people who had given themselves over to idolatry (which entailed numerous vile practices, including child sacrifice).

I don't particularly like that passage, either. In fact, I am now in 2 Kings in my current rotation through the Old Testament -- and a dreary litany of wicked kings and evil doings it is.

It is also history. And it is an amazing, magnificent history; a message from antiquity that screams of the need for the grace offered by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You totally miss the point of what I said, thus demonstrating again that your claims to understand me are bogus. Please try again, this time addressing the point I clearly made.

Perhaps your point is just too subtle and nuanced for my blunt, absolutist understanding?

Thanks

[tariki]

1 Well... it was clear to you. Wink (Note: I hope the formatting works out okay here; I'm using the "quote" function, but am unfamiliar with html prompts (is that what they are? I'll use a green font to try to delineate my comments ]

2 That's not what I said. Are you referring to where I claimed (accurately, of course) that "leading research in those fields and others..." points to Biblical truth? No, I don't take that back.

3 Here is a persistent problem with the English language, that is especially aggravated by forums such as these. There is no satisfying distinction between the ubiquitous "you", and the personal form of the same word. I was using the former here -- I did not intend to say that YOU, personally, were attempting to discredit inerrancy through your own scholarship. "You" (ubiquitous) can use the word "one"; but that's a little stilted and formal in an informal setting such as this. I try to be more careful about that -- but tend to forget to be.

4 Anyway -- serious attempts have been undertaken for decades, if not centuries, to undermine the validity, inerrancy, and inspiration of that singular collection of works, written over a period of 1,700 years by 40 authors, that we call the Holy Bible. And, indeed, some minor variations of usage have been uncovered among translations that are in many cases centuries apart.

5 And yet -- there it sits. Unchanged, unmoved, and totally indifferent to the attacks against it. If it is what it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16), then the information and message it contains is of the utmost value and importance. If not -- if it is "just another book" -- it's value is of a questionable, and subjective, character.

6 I'll take the former. The latest dissertation by a Doctor of Theology candidate will not dissuade me. If we can move on past that point -- fine. If not... so be it.

7 Because it is... well, true (see above).

8 Well, takiri, it would be a bit absurd to claim that I have arrived at truth; but so have those whose conclusions are 180 degrees out of phase with mine -- wouldn't it? I mean, that's the sort of thing you would expect from a relativist. Surely you can see I'm not one of those? Cool

9 Perhaps your point is just too subtle and nuanced for my blunt, absolutist understanding?



Difficult to extract question and answer here, but I have copied your comments and will answer by number.

1. No comment.

2. After speaking of a literal reading of genesis and of an inerrant Bible you claimed......Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields and others is pointing directly to Gods Biblical truth.

3. Me or anyone else, point stands. And if you reread what I said this is obvious. I spoke clearly of the very scholars you sought to discredit.

4. I have given you the facts. Address them or avoid addressing them. Your choice. They are not MY facts.

5. It sits "unchanged"? Indifferent to the attacks upon it? You quote 2 Timothy, which in context refers to the Scripture the Christians then had, i.e the OT, not the NEW. Leaving that aside, vast numbers of perfectly devout Christians have long ago left the "inerrancy/infallible literalist/fundamentalist" bit behind - those that upheld it in the first place. That you prefer to ignore the FACTS is your choice.

6. You have not addressed the point.

7. See above.

8. Yet you seek to set conditions and parameters to the search for truth that many have found and do find obstructive.

9. My point was clear and simple. I was not addressing the "brutalities" of the OT as such but said......


In the Bible we have God depicted as ordering the total annihilation of an entire culture, men, women, children, babes in arms, even the cattle. And this His chosen favorites do to His satisfaction. He then incarnates upon earth and tells us that we must be like Him and treat all alike for He "makes His sun to shine on both good and evil alike", and further, tells us the merciful are blessed.

Facing such apparent contradictions many will look the other way, while others will INTERPRET the text. That this is not easy is born out by the undeniable FACT that those who follow Luther's sola scriptura and the Protestant Reform tradition have splintered into over 1000 different groups who are unable to agree on the most basic and fundamental issues.

I was thus relating God's words and acts as recorded in the OT with the words of God Incarnate who speaks of Himself. Then, of the consequences of seeking to interpret such.

So there we are.

(And please remember that Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, is the same "yesterday, today and forever")

[tariki]

Anyway, getting back to the main point and OP that sought to argue - or at least imply - that the sole vehicle for Grace is via an inerrant and infallible text (i.e the Bible)

If such was not the claim then there is no argument from me.

If such is the claim, I disagree.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 23 by tariki]

Sorry for the formatting issues. I am somewhat unacquainted with the formats on this site; and all the parentheses and slashes are a little confusing to a cave man like me. In any event, long exchanges tend to get unwieldy, no matter the format. I appreciate your taking the time to enumerate your responses.

2. After speaking of a literal reading of genesis and of an inerrant Bible you claimed......Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields and others is pointing directly to Gods Biblical truth.

Please look again at my OP. The fields I'm referring to are scientific ones:

"...many Christians have never been exposed to the truth concerning accepted theories of the origins of life; its purported development from randomly assembled single cells; the geologic and fossil record; radiometric dating methods; cosmology and astrophysics; genetics. Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields..."

5. It sits "unchanged"? Indifferent to the attacks upon it? You quote 2 Timothy, which in context refers to the Scripture the Christians then had, i.e the OT, not the NEW. Leaving that aside, vast numbers of perfectly devout Christians have long ago left the "inerrancy/infallible literalist/fundamentalist" bit behind - those that upheld it in the first place. That you prefer to ignore the FACTS is your choice.

A valid point regarding Paul's epistles. Did you know that Peter gave them the weight of Scripture?

"...and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation"as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." -- 2 Peter 3:15,16

Don't you think the Holy Spirit knew which of the Gospels and epistles would be canonized?

And I have already conceded that there are far more that DON'T accept the authority and inerrancy of Scripture than do -- including many who present themselves as Christians (and may in fact be). That was part of the dual thrust of my argument in the OP.

9. My point was clear and simple. I was not addressing the "brutalities" of the OT as such but said......


In the Bible we have God depicted as ordering the total annihilation of an entire culture, men, women, children, babes in arms, even the cattle. And this His chosen favorites do to His satisfaction. He then incarnates upon earth and tells us that we must be like Him and treat all alike for He "makes His sun to shine on both good and evil alike", and further, tells us the merciful are blessed.

Facing such apparent contradictions many will look the other way, while others will INTERPRET the text. That this is not easy is born out by the undeniable FACT that those who follow Luther's sola scriptura and the Protestant Reform tradition have splintered into over 1000 different groups who are unable to agree on the most basic and fundamental issues.

I was thus relating God's words and acts as recorded in the OT with the words of God Incarnate who speaks of Himself. Then, of the consequences of seeking to interpret such.

So there we are.

(And please remember that Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, is the same "yesterday, today and forever")

Indeed He is, praise God. My apologies for misunderstanding your point -- I thought it was the brutality that Jesus authorized in the OT that you found objectionable and inconsistent with His message in the NT.

If that's not the case, then your point remains opaque to me. But since my understanding of it is a common objection, I will address THAT, for the benefit of the one or two lurkers who may have sojourned into our cozy corner of the internet.

It bears keeping in mind that God is perfect in both His judgement, His justice, and His mercy. He is long-suffering -- the Flood, if I'm not mistaken, was preached for 400 years. But His judgment and justice were sure, and devastating.

Also -- remember, when He commanded the Jews to eliminate their enemies (not leaving any vestige of them -- a picture, or type, of us as individuals; we are not to make any concession to our sin nature, but to totally mortify it [a process that won't be completed in our current mode of existence, obviously), He was not taking their lives from them. Those were destined to end, regardless. He was commanding the Israelites to take their time from them (to cut short their wicked, idolatrous lives).

Don't you think the Holy Spirit knows who is going to hear His voice; and who is going to remain in rebellion?

Lastly: God's mission on the earth, "veiled" in the flesh as Jesus Christ, was a singular occurrence; a work established to achieve one objective: victory over sin and death, obtained by the obedience to God's plan of the Lamb of God. A victory that we can share in, through our faith in, and belief on, Jesus Christ.

How do I know that? Because the Bible tells me. And the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And inerrant.

But check out the Book of Revelation. There, we have the "unveiling" of Jesus Christ. And we see some very familiar aspects of His perfect judgment and justice.

They are rather frightening. It is our duty, as Christians, to spread the Good News of His perfect mercy -- while there is still time.

[tariki]

[Replying to post 23 by tariki]

Sorry for the formatting issues. I am somewhat unacquainted with the formats on this site; and all the parentheses and slashes are a little confusing to a cave man like me. In any event, long exchanges tend to get unwieldy, no matter the format. I appreciate your taking the time to enumerate your responses.

2. After speaking of a literal reading of genesis and of an inerrant Bible you claimed......Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields and others is pointing directly to Gods Biblical truth.

Please look again at my OP. The fields I'm referring to are scientific ones:

"...many Christians have never been exposed to the truth concerning accepted theories of the origins of life; its purported development from randomly assembled single cells; the geologic and fossil record; radiometric dating methods; cosmology and astrophysics; genetics. Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields..."

I accept your explanation. However, the opinions expressed by those on YEC websites - or in books that support such - are not "all leading authorities." You claim too much. One has only to put in any claim by a YECreationist stated to be a "fact" onto Google and you will often find a host of counter arguments by equally "leading authorities". Sorry, your claim is the product of only being interested in whatever suits your current opinions, which is not the way to find truth.

5. It sits "unchanged"? Indifferent to the attacks upon it? You quote 2 Timothy, which in context refers to the Scripture the Christians then had, i.e the OT, not the NEW. Leaving that aside, vast numbers of perfectly devout Christians have long ago left the "inerrancy/infallible literalist/fundamentalist" bit behind - those that upheld it in the first place. That you prefer to ignore the FACTS is your choice.

[Replying to post 23 by tariki]

A valid point regarding Paul's epistles. Did you know that Peter gave them the weight of Scripture?

"...and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation"as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." -- 2 Peter 3:15,16

Don't you think the Holy Spirit knew which of the Gospels and epistles would be canonized?

And I have already conceded that there are far more that DON'T accept the authority and inerrancy of Scripture than do -- including many who present themselves as Christians (and may in fact be). That was part of the dual thrust of my argument in the OP.

And are you not aware that 1 and 2 Peter are considered by "all leading authorities" in the field of Biblical Studies to be "pseudepigraphical", that is, forgeries, not written by who they claims to be written by? You may wish to identify a human being willing to lie about their identity with the "spirit of all truth". I do not.

Really, this sums up the rest. You are unwilling to accept the FACTS uncovered and found by the last 200 years of Biblical Scholarship, preferring instead to hide your head in the sand. Your choice.

9. My point was clear and simple. I was not addressing the "brutalities" of the OT as such but said......


In the Bible we have God depicted as ordering the total annihilation of an entire culture, men, women, children, babes in arms, even the cattle. And this His chosen favorites do to His satisfaction. He then incarnates upon earth and tells us that we must be like Him and treat all alike for He "makes His sun to shine on both good and evil alike", and further, tells us the merciful are blessed.

Facing such apparent contradictions many will look the other way, while others will INTERPRET the text. That this is not easy is born out by the undeniable FACT that those who follow Luther's sola scriptura and the Protestant Reform tradition have splintered into over 1000 different groups who are unable to agree on the most basic and fundamental issues.

I was thus relating God's words and acts as recorded in the OT with the words of God Incarnate who speaks of Himself. Then, of the consequences of seeking to interpret such.

So there we are.

(And please remember that Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, is the same "yesterday, today and forever")

[Replying to post 23 by tariki]
Indeed He is, praise God. My apologies for misunderstanding your point -- I thought it was the brutality that Jesus authorized in the OT that you found objectionable and inconsistent with His message in the NT.

If that's not the case, then your point remains opaque to me. But since my understanding of it is a common objection, I will address THAT, for the benefit of the one or two lurkers who may have sojourned into our cozy corner of the internet.

It bears keeping in mind that God is perfect in both His judgement, His justice, and His mercy. He is long-suffering -- the Flood, if I'm not mistaken, was preached for 400 years. But His judgment and justice were sure, and devastating.

Also -- remember, when He commanded the Jews to eliminate their enemies (not leaving any vestige of them -- a picture, or type, of us as individuals; we are not to make any concession to our sin nature, but to totally mortify it [a process that won't be completed in our current mode of existence, obviously), He was not taking their lives from them. Those were destined to end, regardless. He was commanding the Israelites to take their time from them (to cut short their wicked, idolatrous lives).

Don't you think the Holy Spirit knows who is going to hear His voice; and who is going to remain in rebellion?

Lastly: God's mission on the earth, "veiled" in the flesh as Jesus Christ, was a singular occurrence; a work established to achieve one objective: victory over sin and death, obtained by the obedience to God's plan of the Lamb of God. A victory that we can share in, through our faith in, and belief on, Jesus Christ.

How do I know that? Because the Bible tells me. And the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And inerrant.

But check out the Book of Revelation. There, we have the "unveiling" of Jesus Christ. And we see some very familiar aspects of His perfect judgment and justice.

They are rather frightening. It is our duty, as Christians, to spread the Good News of His perfect mercy -- while there is still time.

Sorry you again miss the point. An unchanging God shows no mercy and orders the destruction of His enemies, using his favorites to do it. Then Incarnates and tells us TO BE LIKE HIM, PERFECT treating both good and evil alike and making the sun shine on all alike.

To sum up. You claim that the Bible is unaffected and indifferent to its detractors. No, not so. It is YOU who are indifferent to any argument and fact that would make you think about your claims and enable you to move on to a more mature faith.

All the best

[tariki]

Volbrigade,

Just to finalise.

Your words....

I do claim that the way to truth lies in understanding the Biblical text in its fullest sense -- symbolically where symbolic; literally where literal. And I believe that the Bible is an integrated message system,

Your words.....

Don't you think the Holy Spirit knew which of the Gospels and epistles would be canonized?

So we have an "integated message system" that has been Canonised by the direction of the Holy Spirit. You mention just the "gospels and epistles" but I assume that a totally "integrated message system" would involve the entire Biblical Canon.

So. Which Canon?

Each of the following has their own, each different from the others...

Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox , Coptic Orthodox, Orthodox Tewahedo, Assyrian Church of the East.

So what exactly needs to be "integrated" with what in order to find the truth of the message?

Perhaps we can say that the "main" one is such and such, but as you have already intimated and implied, truth need not be democratic. Perhaps the "fully integrated message system" is held by the Orthodox Tewahedo? Perhaps you can claim that God would have ensured that what was needed for his full message would be there for each denomination? But this is to add an epicycle to the "message" from the ourtside.

Anyway, my point is not destructive. My point is that often what can only be called Bibliolatry can cloud the Presence of Christ, that the word as text can obscure the Living Word.

Christ can be found in all the worlds Faiths as can the Living Word.

Many devout Christians have found such to be the case and have matured in their Faith and understanding of the "work of Christ".

Anyway, I'm off to the Pure Land to hug a few trees.......

Sincerely, all the best

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 27 by tariki]

Regarding post 26: again -- you have your authorities, I have mine. I believe that those who deny Peter's authorship of his epistles are in error. As are those who claim (e.g.), that there are "two Isaiahs". Both are the result -- in my opinion -- of academic arrogance that occludes, rather than illuminates, truth. Similarly, there are those who cling to discredited theories about molecules becoming men, simply because to abandon them would open the possibility of a Designer -- and who knows where that would lead? Maybe even to that mean ol' Jehovah God!

You are free to accept either, or both, any, or all positions.

You are not free to claim them as true, where they do not correspond with the truth. Unless, of course, you want to be in error with them.

So we have an "integated message system" that has been Canonised by the direction of the Holy Spirit. You mention just the "gospels and epistles" but I assume that a totally "integrated message system" would involve the entire Biblical Canon.

So. Which Canon?

Each of the following has their own, each different from the others...

Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox , Coptic Orthodox, Orthodox Tewahedo, Assyrian Church of the East.

So what exactly needs to be "integrated" with what in order to find the truth of the message?

An interesting, and valid, point.

I respond by suggesting that we focus on those writings that are accepted across the Body of Christ. Of course, certain groups, sects, and cults -- anyone, really, who dons robes and vestments, and hangs a "Church of..." sign on the door -- may include other writings, based on their sectarian preferences; why not include the works of Dan Brown, Stephen King... Jacqueline Suzanne? Joe Smith?

I notice in most of the examples you cite (I haven't chased them all down), there are 66 books that are held in common; with varying extra additions.

Why not focus on the codified texts of the Hebrew Scriptures; circa, say the Septuagint; and those New Testament writings that had obtained the status of authority among the Body of Believers by, say, the mid- 2nd century? That would exclude, of course, the gnostic Gospels, which (Dan Brown's fantasy notwithstanding) were considered spurious early on (and which were, for the most part, fabricated after the acceptance of the basic body of our NT, in any event)?

If a particular sect wishes to include the Book of Maccabees among the canon -- I see no real harm.

I do think its very interesting that among the millions of extant copies of Scripture, the vast majority are variants of Textus Receptus (the copies of the RSV and NIV that I've seen annotating their differences with it; and vice versa). I point that out because not only does the fact speak for itself; but also that it will be very difficult to locate and destroy all of them -- or to take a pen knife and excise the parts that particular special interest groups find offensive and objectionable in every copy. Make of that what you will.

Otherwise, if this the is ultimate message between us, I must point out that you have pretty much glossed over my argument in regard to the "veiled" and "unveiled" images of Jesus that are expressed in Scripture.

I would ask you to reflect on, rather than react to, that critical factor. And to give consideration to who, in fact, is "interested only in whatever suits (their) current opinions."

[tariki]

[Replying to post 27 by tariki]

Regarding post 26: again -- you have your authorities, I have mine. I believe that those who deny Peter's authorship of his epistles are in error. As are those who claim (e.g.), that there are "two Isaiahs". Both are the result -- in my opinion -- of academic arrogance that occludes, rather than illuminates, truth. Similarly, there are those who cling to discredited theories about molecules becoming men, simply because to abandon them would open the possibility of a Designer -- and who knows where that would lead? Maybe even to that mean ol' Jehovah God!

You are free to accept either, or both, any, or all positions.

You are not free to claim them as true, where they do not correspond with the truth. Unless, of course, you want to be in error with them.

Hi again, so we are now at the usual point in dialogue with Biblical Literalists where those who by study - and yes, even prayer - come to conclusions other than their own are termed "arrogant", thus implying their own "humility" in accepting the text as given in a fundamentalist sense.

And again, the usual trick of mentioning "authorities" and "bias" as if both are of equal proportion. Such is not the case. I have given you the facts and conclusions that virtually ALL reputable authorities have come to. The facts are there, the books that list them are there.

So we have an "integated message system" that has been Canonised by the direction of the Holy Spirit. You mention just the "gospels and epistles" but I assume that a totally "integrated message system" would involve the entire Biblical Canon.

So. Which Canon?

Each of the following has their own, each different from the others...

Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox , Coptic Orthodox, Orthodox Tewahedo, Assyrian Church of the East.

So what exactly needs to be "integrated" with what in order to find the truth of the message?

[Replying to post 27 by tariki]
An interesting, and valid, point.

I respond by suggesting that we focus on those writings that are accepted across the Body of Christ. Of course, certain groups, sects, and cults -- anyone, really, who dons robes and vestments, and hangs a "Church of..." sign on the door -- may include other writings, based on their sectarian preferences; why not include the works of Dan Brown, Stephen King... Jacqueline Suzanne? Joe Smith?

I notice in most of the examples you cite (I haven't chased them all down), there are 66 books that are held in common; with varying extra additions.

Why not focus on the codified texts of the Hebrew Scriptures; circa, say the Septuagint; and those New Testament writings that had obtained the status of authority among the Body of Believers by, say, the mid- 2nd century? That would exclude, of course, the gnostic Gospels, which (Dan Brown's fantasy notwithstanding) were considered spurious early on (and which were, for the most part, fabricated after the acceptance of the basic body of our NT, in any event)?

If a particular sect wishes to include the Book of Maccabees among the canon -- I see no real harm.

I do think its very interesting that among the millions of extant copies of Scripture, the vast majority are variants of Textus Receptus (the copies of the RSV and NIV that I've seen annotating their differences with it; and vice versa). I point that out because not only does the fact speak for itself; but also that it will be very difficult to locate and destroy all of them -- or to take a pen knife and excise the parts that particular special interest groups find offensive and objectionable in every copy. Make of that what you will.

Sorry. You appear desperate. Comparing actual legitimate Christian Churches that are older than your own Protestant Reform tradition with the writers of pulp fiction is beyond the pale. In effect this is what you do.

My point was relating what I wrote with your own claims that the Bible consisted of an "integrated message system". My point remains valid though no doubt you will claim otherwise. The point being that if "integrated" one must know exactly which books - and it must needs be, logically, ALL of them - are to be part of such integration. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Again I repeat the FACTS. Of the oldest texts we have - over 5000 - there are over 200,000 variants to be found, some crucial. The texts after this are translations of such. There is NO WAY of recovering the original text. Even the majority of Conservative Christians have acknowledged such.

As I have also said, such need not lead to loss of faith, but would and can lead away from the danger of Bibliolatry that many fundamentalists succumb to, reaching a point where the word as text overcomes the Living Word. And following on from this, refusing to see the Word of Christ in anything other than their own book or in any human being who does not share their own exclusive creed.

[Replying to post 27 by tariki]

Otherwise, if this the is ultimate message between us, I must point out that you have pretty much glossed over my argument in regard to the "veiled" and "unveiled" images of Jesus that are expressed in Scripture.

I would ask you to reflect on, rather than react to, that critical factor. And to give consideration to who, in fact, is "interested only in whatever suits (their) current opinions."

In effect I have spoken again and again on this. The implication of my words is that the Bible as word and text can in fact serve to "veil" Christ, at least to the natural man. You seemed to appreciate the words I quoted of Merton. Maybe you need to reread them. My apologies for being so blunt, but really it is desperately sad when there remains in this world those determined to hold to "exclusive" "truth" that can be found only in THEIR book and those who share its "message" as interpreted by them. One would have thought that a brief look down the road of human history would cause a halt to such claims. But no. It goes on and on and on. More, the actual lives of those of other Faiths are so evident of the fruits of the spirit as spoken of and listed by St Paul that once again, the mind boggles at the claims of those who insist "salvation" comes only via acceptance of their own creedal formula.

Again, my own life has been a path of constant self judgement and change. I am never satisfied by "current opinion." You are free to accept that or not.

All the best.

[tariki]

Anyway, I will end it here as far as these Random Ramblings are concerned.

All the best.