Post by d***@aol.com1. =3DA0You've not done your home work
Typical... If you read this, and this, and this and this.....you will
obviously see that I am right
Tell me something, would you hire a surgeon to
operate on you who not only read the right books
but actually understood what was in them? NO!
And yet physical surgery is infinitely of less value
that spiritual surgery. The right physical surgeon
might gain you a few more decades but the wrong
spiritual surgeon will grant you an eternity of woe.
Biblical theology is the science of rightly dividing
the word and will of God. Too many presume
themselves practitioners when they have had
little or any training to qualify them to be so
bold as to teach others. James 3:1 is a most
serious declaration especially when we study
Christ's condemnation, Paul, Peter, John and
Jude condemnation of false teachers. And as
bad as false teachers are, if people would learn
the basics of scripture, they would not be so
easily led astray.
Post by d***@aol.com2. =3DA0You're obviously no a man of faith
Ah, yes, you read minds now! Yet you would proclaim that the Holy
Spirit (God in fact and present here on Earth today) does not suffice
for guidance toward God although John says it is He that testifies.
No. It is more simple than that. As Paul wrote in his first
letter to the Corinthians, one must first be spiritual before he
can understand spiritual things.
Now as to your presumption that new revelation comes
from God apart from the Scriptures, what do you do with
the last paragraph of the Bible? "if anyone adds.." Duh!
The canon is closed. Revelation is closed. The reality
is, there isn't any reason for any new revelation.
Are you one of those who conjure up some sort of
distinction between rhema and logos? I'm sure $5
would get me ten thousand that you disavow the
biblical teaching of total depravity.
Post by d***@aol.com3. =3DA0You seemingly have no regard for the depravity of man
And exactly how does that follow?
If you were learned you would easily follow the
argument. It has everything to do with not so
much keeping from Platonic tendencies but
Platonic heresies, the very heresies that required
the writing of most of the NT epistles.
Briefly, as dealing with our discussion... this
paradigm either denigrates or excludes things
like reason and reasonability (physical) for the
supposedly higher spiritual realm. But the very
basis of the division is in error. No where do
we read Christ or the scriptural writers teaching,
"Let go and let God."
God declared His physical creation, "Good."
After the fall, it was not it's opposite, "evil",
it was rather, corrupt. Man, all men, became
their own final arbitrators as to what was
true and what was false, what is right and
what is wrong. But, as Paul seeks to teach in
the opening chapters of 1 Cor, because of the
entrance of sin and the fall of man, man cannot
be the final arbitrator. Man needs something
outside of himself. Something objective because
if it is subjective, man will corrupt it. It's hard
enough to keep the objective free from corruption.
Is this not obvious to you?
Post by d***@aol.com4. =3DA0You seemingly have not pondered the reality of Finitum
non capax infinitum - the finite cannot comprehend the
infinite. =3DA0Therefore, the Infinite must reveal Himself. =3DA0If it
isn't written down, its subject to all sorts of error. =3DA0Just look
at how men manipulate the objective written word. =3DA0Can
you even imagine how subjective and relativistic any
thing other than black and white written word would be?
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is neither subjective nor
relativistic, I would suggest you get in touch.
It is ENTIRELY subjective apart from the Scriptures. It
is through them and them alone that He illuminates the
unbeliever and teaches, reproves, corrects and trains the
believer. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the
Word of God." Everyone in that day knew exactly what
the "Word of God" was in reference to. It was to the
Scriptures. What of those of the transitionary period
after Pentecost, when the activity of the Spirit was
expressly signal, yet before the NT canon was closed,
validate the truth of the Gospel message? Acts 17:11.
"more noble-minded... received the word [testimony
of the apostles] with great eagerness, examining the
Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
Tell me this, how do you "test the spirits" apart
from the Scriptures? How do you know that the
"spirit" that you are listening to isn't 1) your own
corrupt inclination, 2) a doctrine of demons, as
opposed to 3) the Spirit of God? Apart from the
scriptures you CANNOT objectively discern,
"examine" or divide them. Apart from the Scriptures
you can only make yourself the arbitrator. Now
you're right back to being lead by the flesh, not
the Spirit. The Spirit leads according to the
Scriptures, not the traditions of men let alone the
subjective feelings of men. Did you never realize
this part of Lewis Carrol's commentary between
Scrouge and Marley?
Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comIt doesn't add anything to the truth of what is written, which could
be just as compelling if it were men, like you and me, writing down
what happened as they remember best.
Not! =3DA0Never been on a jury, have you?
I think you are missing the point. If it is truth, it is truth whether
it is written by men or by God. God would not forget who did what as
seems to occur at least once in the Gospels, nor would he mess up
counting as did the lister of the begats in Matthew.
Errors in the Bible is you whole presumptive basis of
argument instead for a subjective truth? Again, there
are several books, good books, even books for dummies,
which explain *reasonably* the so called errors. Have
you ever sought out an answer to your presumption?
Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comThat is the way it reads, not
like the supposed Divine pronouncements included in the scriptures of
other faiths. Making the Bible God's own word seems to make it less
credible to me, not more; I wonder who came up with that idea anyway.
That's the easiest one of all to answer -God. =3DA0After all, being The
Creator, He created not only the written word, not only the spoken
word, but He designed communication period. =3DA0Not really thought
this through to any great degree have we!
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying God came up
with the idea that He wrote scripture because He is the font of all
communication? Wouldn't that make all writing "The Word of God?" My
question was who started calling the Bible "The Word of God"
God. Have you not read the Bible? Might I suggest you
read, reread, study, ponder Jere. 36. Nothing compares to
the "Word of God."
Also, "Word" as in John 1:1, is logos. In v 18, the logos is
defined as the "explaination" or more literally, the exegete.
The 2nd Person of the Trinity has the office of expression.
It is through Him that God discloses Himself. We'll probably
never see either the Father or the Spirit. But in the God-man,
we have God condescending to reveal Himself expressly.
Hebrews 1. Pauline writing, that the "Word is living" in that
the written word is in unison with the Word of God. "Is My
hand too short?" Not only can He create man so as to
know Him but He can design the means of, the availability
of, the need of, the result of and the basis for this undis-
closing, decloaking of God, but also the accountablity for
disregard. The Scriptures are clear as to the necessity of
the revealed word, the written word, and the rightly dividing
of the word. It doesn't attest to how we can get in tune
with ourselves to leap into some higher spiritual plane of
spiritual knowledge. That is nothing short of gnosticism.
Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comThis =3D3D3DA0is why the Scriptures are mandated. =3D3D3DA0Only
God, capital "G" is omniscient and outside of time.
Only He can declare absolute truth. =3D3D3DA0This is why
the written word is required.
Why not just listen to God?
"And you being DEAD in your sins," how are you to know
that it is The God who is speaking to you and not something
else? Paul addressing this problem in 2 Cor 11:13,14. How
do you "Test the spirits" as John implores?
Post by d***@aol.comYou don't have to rely then on copies of
copies of manuscripts that may contain refrences and idioms that we no
longer understand, translated by people with their own point of view
to support.
And here you again reveal your lack of study, either
formal or informal. "How did we get the Bible" I believe
is an actual book title which will introduce you to something
which you seem totally naive to.
As to multiple manuscripts, again the question must be
asked, "How big is your God?" If He reveals His truth,
is He not capable of keeping it pure? Also, you seem
to have no appreciation as to what is involved in the
rendering and publication of most [not all] translations.
There are literally hundreds of scholars involved. It is
not the work of one man. And as to you objection that
its "old news", you dismiss that it is alive. The basic
doctrines are there and available to all to understand
and believe.
Earlier you dismissed the trained theologian but here
you yourself provide the reason why formal training is
of express help in determining the Truth.
Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comThat obviously isn't true, there was no Bible, as we have it, for man=
y
Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comyears and still people were brought to Christ.
Again, your words betray an amazing naivette. =3DA0Prior to the
Jewish oracles God spoke directly to His people. =3DA0He spoke
directly to Moses who began the writing of the canon. =3DA0The
early Church hand not only the Jewish canon but they also
began to receive letters from the apostles which eventually
were gathered into what we call today, the New Testament.
Eventually is the key here, that and the strange assumption you are
making that God has stopped speaking directly to His people.
Heb 1:1 ,2
Rev 22: 18ff
Post by d***@aol.comDo you not hear from Him?
"heard" requires definition. Audibly? I doubt
even you would admit to that. Then how? "Feelings?"
It might sell a few million records if Barry Manilow
sings it but your not going to edify anyone but yourself.
This is the old argument ( 1Cor 12) about tongues.
"Sign" gifts ended at the end of Apostolic era because
the need for them ended. That need even Christ, prior
to the giving of the Spirit to indwell the believer (a new
dispensational paradigm) alludes to being strictly for
the Jews. "Ye always desire as sign." Once the NT
letters were written, the last being John's apocalypses
of Christ's Apocalypse, all direct revelation ceased.
This idea of apostolic succession is pagan and nothing
more than a ploy of ecclessiastical power.
enough. I doubt seriously that I or anyone else here
will provide you with enough information to actually
make you knowledgeable of all this subject touches
upon. ALL doctrines are related. You begin to
touch one here and you will invariably skew another
there. Get some books and read.
Post by d***@aol.comIf all your Bibles and books were lost tomorrow do
you mean to say you would lose touch with God? If that is true, then I
am truly sorry for you.
Daryl