Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,247 Year: 6,504/9,624 Month: 82/270 Week: 78/37 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 18 of 331 (397737)
04-27-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
04-27-2007 11:14 AM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Hi, Phat.
I read this whole thread. After reading it, there are two things I don't know. One, am I an evangelical by your definition, and two, what exactly is the topic you want to discuss.
I consider much of early Genesis to be tales handed down over centuries. I object to what I consider Bible worship among most churches, and I consider their attempts to follow the Bible to be one of the main reasons they are unsuccessful.
On the other hand, I submit to the Scriptures and I believe them to be breathed by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. My morality is based on the New Testament. In fact, my objection to the way most churches try to follow the Bible is based on the Bible, which says that the sons of God are to be led by the Spirit of God, not the Scriptures. (John 5:39,40 apply here very well.)
There's nothing I like better than discussing the Scriptures as authoritative, though I believe Christians that treat them as authoritative are as rare as cheetahs in 8000 BC. Most would much rather disagree with the clear wording of Scripture than with their denomination or favorite Christian reformer.
Anyway, what's this thread supposed to discuss, and am I among those who's allowed to discuss in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 11:14 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 6:32 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:19 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 28 of 331 (397960)
04-28-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
04-28-2007 2:19 AM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Do you consider only the red letter words to be actual scripture?
No. I believe all 39 books of the OT are Scripture, and I believe all the apostles' writings, including Paul's, are Scripture. If we found writings of Thaddeus or more letters by Peter, for example, and they were verified as real, I'd want to add them to the canon.
Just being honest, I struggle with Hebrews, as I'm not sure it represents apostolic belief in all areas, and it expressly says it's not apostolically written (Heb 2:3,4).
Just being further honest, I don't think that makes me different than most American Christians who don't show any indication of believing Heb 10:26 or Heb 6:6. They dodge it with explanations, whereas I would assign Hebrews a place alongside the letter of Barnabas and the Didache.
Rose Creek Village, on the other hand, which I am part of, would definitely consider Hebrews Scripture.
What is your definition of scripture and in your belief is it only applicable to Jesus?
Scripture, to me, is the inspired writings of God's people. While I do not believe that Genesis is literal, that the earth was created in 7 days, or that the flood story is historically accurate, I do believe that God inspired all of it, on purpose, and that he has things to say through those stories.
An example would be the story of Jacob going to see Laban. There's a part there where he had a dream, awoke, stood a stone up, anointed it with oil, and called it Bethel. You'd have to have been through the experiences we've been through to understand the incredible application of that story to our lives, but we believe God knew, three thousand years in advance, that those things would happen to us, and he made sure that story was worded in such a way that it would speak to us in the 20th century.
Personally, I believe Scripture is way more powerful than the literalists know it to be.
One more example, so you have an idea of how I read Genesis. I believe that God called the sun a greater light and the moon a lesser light on purpose. He wanted us to get a more applicable lesson than that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. The greater light is the light of God, and the lesser light is the light of the church. The moon has no light of its own, but it reflects the light of the sun. So the church has no light of its own, but it shines with the glory of the Son. Jesus spoke of this when he said, "The night is coming when no one can work." He was the light of day, and now the church lights the night (or it's supposed to, at least) with his light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 3:03 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 194 by Phat, posted 06-12-2013 5:03 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 107 of 331 (398641)
05-01-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
05-01-2007 8:33 PM


I should point out in this thread what I've pointed out before, which is that for all practical purposes, there is really very little significant differences in the canons of the churches that care a lot about canons.
Yes, Jewish sects will vary a lot from Christian sects, but in a Christian discussion about the Canon, that's insignificant. The Orthodox canon adds several OT books. For most evangelicals that's only slightly significant. The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East leaves off the books from 2 John onwards. That would probably be THE most significant difference in canon in any church that would fit into the Christian pale by most mainline definitions.
Anyway, though jar is right about no exact canon, I can't agree that there's really much significant difference in canons.
This despite the fact that I am among those who heartily disagree that a canon should ever have been sent. I commonly tell people who ask that the only part of the Bible I object to is the cover. It's a limit I don't think God acknowledges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 05-01-2007 8:33 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Equinox, posted 05-02-2007 1:16 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 138 of 331 (399032)
05-03-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
05-03-2007 8:54 AM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
The standard that must be used to judge the Bible is context, the world we live in and reason.
If evangelicals are the descendants of the early catholic churches, as they claim to be, then this isn't true, though I know most of them would agree with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 8:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 2:21 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


(1)
Message 141 of 331 (399048)
05-03-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Phat
05-03-2007 3:40 AM


Re: Spongs Liberal Theology
The man is a towering intellect, however
Chances are, Spong really is a towering intellect. I haven't read his writings, so I wouldn't know. However, on the matter you are quoting him, he is simply and factually wrong.
Spong per Phat quote writes:
So the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is itself a non-scriptural term and indeed was imposed on the texts of the Bible at a much later time to meet the need of church leaders to have an ally in their struggles to clarify their authority.
This is nonsense. It was not "imposed on the texts of the Bible...to meet the need of church leaders...to have an ally in their struggles to clarify their authority."
Start however early you want in the writings of the church, and they regard the apostles as authority. They didn't need to make the NT texts "the inerrant Word of God" in order to appeal to apostolic authority. In fact, the reason the apostles' writings became Scripture was because they were the apostles' writings. Irenaeus appealed even to churches with apostolic origins as having authority to speak on what is true.
To the early church "The Word of God" was Christ. They didn't refer to even the OT Scriptures as "The Word of God." You'll find the same thing true even in the apostolic writings. You won't find the NT writings saying "The Word of God" as a reference to the Scriptures anywhere. I don't know when that practice started, but you won't find it in the 2nd century writings, either.
Lists of what books of the NT could be included with Scripture began as early as AD 161, where we have the Muratorian fragment giving a canon very similar to the one decided on in the 300's. Church leaders had no need at that time to declare anything to be the word of God for the purpose of authority. At the end of that century they assigned that sort of authority right to the councils.
Spong's description of the Scripture becoming "the inerrant Word of God" for the purpose of enhancing the authority of church leaders is simply inaccurate history, completely made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 05-03-2007 3:40 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 142 of 331 (399053)
05-03-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
05-03-2007 2:21 PM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
Other than the three things I mentioned, what else is there?
Spiritual revelation.
I was mostly objecting to the word "context." The NT writers regularly pull Scriptures out of context, and all the early fathers followed right in their footsteps. How much more out of context can you get than Isaiah's prophecy about the virgin birth? Anyone can read Isaiah 7 and see that Isaiah could not possibly, in context, have been talking about a virgin birth 700 years in the future. A birth had to occur before Hazael and Pekin stopped being king, because Emmanuel's ability to discern good from evil was to be the time when those two men stopped being kings. Yet the whole early church believed that was a prophecy, completely against context, for nigh on 3 centuries, then made it official doctrine of the universal church at Nicea.
If the 1 Cor 1:20-27 represents Christian doctrine, then the Scriptures are not for the wise, but for the simple. The things of God, says Paul, are spiritually discerned, and it is through spiritual discernment that the early churches taught that food laws were given by God to teach us that we are to be in fellowship with those that ruminate on the Word of God and part from the world, not so that we would avoid pork.
Context would completely disagree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 2:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 05-03-2007 3:07 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 144 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 3:30 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 145 by Equinox, posted 05-03-2007 3:47 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 146 of 331 (399068)
05-03-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Equinox
05-03-2007 3:47 PM


Equinox,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have to say that I was quite surprised by your honesty as well, and the respect is mutual.
I’m not sure Spong is factually wrong. He could be thinking the same thing Truthlover is thinking.
My argument was that Spong said the PURPOSE of calling Scripture the inerrant Word of God was to give power to church leaders. I don't think there's even a hint of that. I'd call it a conspiracy theory.
Irenaeus argued for the authority of the catholic (Pre-Orthodox or PO, per our terminology last time) churches, while being able to assume the authority of the apostles. He didn't have to argue for a closed canon or "the inerrant Word of God" to do so.
Tertullian was the same. His _Prescription Against Heretics_ argues that the "heretics" have no right even to use the Scriptures. They belong to the catholic (PO) churches.
Far, far later, the Roman Catholic church also had no need to bolster its authority by arguing for "the inerrant word of God." They argued for their own authority.
And, come on, the Scriptures say that the church is the pillar and support of the truth. In what way does "the inerrant word of God" bolster the authority of church leaders? Look at history! Appealing to "the inerrant word of God" has been almost exclusively the domain of those who are in rebellion against church leaders. They appeal to Scriptural authority to overthrow traditional authority.
The whole idea that Scripture became "the inerrant word of God" to bolster church leaders' authority has lots of evidence against it and not one bit of evidence for it that I can see.
And as for the time frame, Spong's terminology seems to limit him to no earlier than the 4th century, because that's the first time there was a church-wide declaration about the Scriptures. Even then, it was not concerning their authority, nor concerning whether they were inerrant, but simply concerning which books were Scripture. At that point the vast majority of the books chosen were not at question, though some of them may have been a century or two earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Equinox, posted 05-03-2007 3:47 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Equinox, posted 05-04-2007 4:34 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 147 of 331 (399072)
05-03-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
05-03-2007 3:30 PM


And my answer to that is until it is tested, how can we know who the revelation is from?
Perhaps the most debated question on earth.
My answer is that you'll know a prophet by his fruit. For ancient Christianity (for equinox' sake: the Pre-Nicene, "catholic" fathers and the churches they represent) truth resided in the church/churches, not in individuals. The church is the pillar and support of the truth, it says in I Timothy. "Ye" (plural, not singular) know all things, John writes, and need not that any man should teach you, but the anointing teaches all things.
Where the church is, in all its power, its life stops the mouth of gainsayers. Thus, Paul's confidence and boasting. There, my confidence as well.
Others believe differently. It's debated everywhere. That's because the church Paul knew about has been so rare and difficult to find in modern times. It has the power to eliminate debates.
Edited by truthlover, : Minor grammatical editing for clarity's sake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 3:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 10:53 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 11:30 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 182 of 331 (403803)
06-05-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
05-04-2007 11:30 AM


Re: Common Union
So in other words, truth (if it can be found at all) is found in a communion rather than an individual. The critics would say that whole groups of people (churches) could also be wrong, however.
So they would. However, those who claim to believe the Bible really are obligated to believe that truth can be found in a communion of people. Individuals are told that they need others in order not to be deceived (Eph 4:13-15), and that if they're not exhorted every day, they will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Heb 3:13). The communion of the saints, however, is told that the church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and that the Holy Spirit (the Anointing) will teach them all things and it will be true and not a lie (1 Jn 2:27, where the you is plural, not singular).
If someone claims to be a Bible believer, then they ought to believe these things; or so it seems to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 11:30 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 10:07 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 184 of 331 (403838)
06-05-2007 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jar
06-05-2007 10:07 AM


Re: Common Union
One potential error...
There's potential errors in everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 10:07 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024