Biblical Authority

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
Daniel is often too far to the left for me to agree with. But he's hit the nail on the head with this last post. The need we often feel to validate our brother's faith for ourselves blinds us to who really decides if his faith is real-Jesus Christ. Yes, the scriptures do point us to salvation in Jesus Christ, but they do not provide the salvation, Jesus does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not really that hard of a question.
Since the conservatives believe that Christ is revealed through scripture, the question is simply: "How does the moderate/liberal, who doesn't necessarily trust scripture, see the revelation of Christ apart from scripture?"

Just because the conservative takes the stand that Christ is revealed through scripture does not imply that there is no experience to accompany that revelation. But the conservative uses scripture to validate experience. If the experience is contrary to scripture, then the experience is wrong (or misunderstood). The scripture is the yardstick that experience is measured.

Without scripture, how does the moderate/liberal validate experience?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
I pity you if you have not experienced any knowledge of Christ apart from others have written. That is the essence of Christianity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I feel the same. But notice that I have not been inconsistent with it.

You still have not told us how you accept anything at all about Christ based on your opinion that the records of his life are indeed flawed and errant. You might believe in a Christ who does not exist, or at least does not exist as we are told of him.

When you fail to explain in a coherent way how you accept any thing about Christ, then you have failed the test. What if the accounts of life are indeed mythological? What if the story of his resurrection is indeed concocted by his followers who were living in the "inspiration" of a life lived for a purpose? How do you know they are not?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
Yes, the scriptures do point us to salvation in Jesus Christ, but they do not provide the salvation, Jesus does. The scriptures were not nailed to a cross, died, then resurrected. The Holy Word of God Jesus was. Our personal relationship is with Christ, not his "biography". <HR></BLOCKPUOTE>

David, It doesn't seem like you are in the same type of conversation we are having here. No inerrantist believes they are saved "by the word" so to speak. It is by the word that the message is communicated. Our relationship is with Christ but the point is that we do not know anything about Christ without his "biography." This is the point that Daniel does not seem willing to reconcile. This is not about a selfish decision to validate faith or find a speck or any such thing. This is about the truth itself.

 

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Just because the conservative takes the stand that Christ is revealed through scripture does not imply that there is no experience to accompany that revelation. But the conservative uses scripture to validate experience. If the experience is contrary to scripture, then the experience is wrong (or misunderstood). The scripture is the yardstick that experience is measured.

Without scripture, how does the moderate/liberal validate experience?[/QB][/QUOTE]&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Paul did not need scripture to "validate" his Damascus Road experience. If he did, then his experience was not valid until what he wrote was cannonized. Do you see the absurdity of your position? That Paul's Damascus road experience was invalid until someone far removed from the experience voted to include it with other works and call it scripture? Who's validity did Paul need, yours or Jesus'?
Yes, you are right, conservatives do use scripture to validate a person's experience.And that is why they are wrong. But it is scripture that must be validated by experience, not the other way around.
Scripture is only valid because it points us to the Christ that lives in our hearts. Christ, the Inerrent Word of God, does not need a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers to decide the authenticity of his life, death, and resurrection, or someone's faith in it. He is our saviour NOT BECAUSE scripture says so. Scripture says he is our saviour because HE is our saviour. Before it was written down, he was our saviour. Before the printing press, he was our saviour. Before there was a written gospel, he was our saviour, Before there was us-you and me and anybody in the world, he was our saviour. In the BEGINNING was the WORD, and the WORD was GOD. AMEN.
Jesus doesn't need a bunch of words on paper to be my saviour. He doesn't need me to claim every word produced by human hands, doing their best to be faithful to the Word, is inerrent, for him to be my saviour. He is my saviour because he IS. And that is what its all about.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
The issue is this: You validate Christ by the Scriptures; I validate the Scriptures by Christ. I know the accounts of Jesus' life are based on truth because I know Christ. You say you know Christ because the accounts of his life are based on truth. I think our arguments go beyond semantics - but not much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are really having a hard time here getting Daniel to answer the questions. How do you even know about Christ without the Scriptures? The answer is you don't. I think our arguments go way beyond semantics. YOu want to interpret the Scriptures by Christ but that is a totally meaningless statements. How did the OT believers interpret Scripture? It wasn't by Christ. If you interpret the Scripture by Christ then you are in an inherently circular argument because all you know of Christ comes from the Scripture. Experience changes; Scripture does not. When we interpret Scripture according to our experience, we know nothing. We become existentialists. It is bad theology.

 

Well I went into the woods for 3 days & contemplated stuff. I'll admit, I've been guilty of being nasty towards some of our moderate/liberal posters. But I have to say, my mind has not changed. I still believe God has preserved his word for me, and I believe his word is sufficient.


I'm just not willing to argue it anymore. All the fight was frozed out of me this weekend.

 

I get it now. All of the moderates have had "Damascus Road" revelations identical to the one Saul/Paul had. That would make all moderates Apostles! No wonder they so stubbornly defend their viewpoint.I feel SO left out - all I have to base my faith on is the testimony of scripture.

But I don't remember Christ teaching Paul anything other than who He really was. It was up to Ananias to further explain things to Paul. Then again, since I wasn't there, and I only have scripture to fall back on, how would I really know what happened - or if anything really happened on the road to Damascus?

I guess my faith that the scriptures are accurate and true is better than a brief revelation. At least I don't have to wonder if any of the recorded events are true or not.

 

Daniel, they just don't get it. Moses didn't need the Bible because he was led by God, and David didn't need to read Psalms-he wrote them. God has been leading us all this time independent of any book. I submit that those who "need" the bible to know Jesus have forgotten which of the two belong in the trinity. Who do you feel guiding you? Who speaks to you in times of trouble? Who healed people with the touch of his hand?
Don't confuse the transcript with the miracle. We walk down an aisle of invitation because Christ LIVES in our hearts, not becasue we liked an account of his life way back when.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
Moses didn't need the Bible because he was led by God, and David didn't need to read Psalms-he wrote them. God has been leading us all this time independent of any book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God lead these men through revelation. Moses did not need the Bible because God was directly revealing himself to him. However, Moses wrote part of the Bible down because the people after him needed it to know how to come to God. David loved the law; it was his meditation; it was his delight; etc. What was the law he loved? It was the revelation from God that Moses wrote down. Are you accusing David of worshiping Scripture? Because our attitude towards Scripture is just the same as his was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I submit that those who "need" the bible to know Jesus have forgotten which of the two belong in the trinity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know a trinity exists?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
can there be two perfect revelations,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

2+2=4 and 5+5=10. They are different and they are both perfectly true. The problem would be if these revelations contradicted each other. Then only one can be true. However, Christ and Scripture do not contradict.

I can reveal to you that I am 6 feet tall. I can also reveal to you that I have blue eyes. Which one is true? They both are.

I could at the same time send you a picture of myself or better yet, meet you in person. Then you would have not only a written revelation but also a physical one. But they would not contradict.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and, if so, which should we worship?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should worship only God. Scripture (one of the perfect revelations) directs worship to God alone.

However, that may be one of those parts of Scripture that is in error, so maybe we can't even make that statement.

Accepting something as inerrant does not ascribe worship to it. Once or twice in my day I scored a 100% on a test. It was inerrant. I certainly didn't worship it. You have simply bought into a bad line of thinking because you apparently did not fully consider the implications of what you were being taught.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
Let me clarify: 2+2=4 is inerrant; 5+5=10 is inerrant; the test you took in 6th grade and made a 100% on was inerrant; the Bible is inerrant; God revealed in Christ is inerrant.....

Does anyone else see a problem here? Larry, your reasoning requires you to place your 6th grade test on par with the Bible and Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why??????? This is a serious flaw in logic and a total non-sequitur. Just because two things can be described with the same adjective does not make them on the same level.

 

We are not talking about a book. We are talking about the word of God.

And please define a "Good Christian" as I have yet to meet one. If we were "Good" why would we need Jesus ?

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

Okay felluz, I understand what Daniel and David are saying. It is sort of like a CIA company picnic. You know, the conversation sort of goes like this: 1st guy: Well, if I had a son, he might be doing okay. 2nd guy: That sounds like it might be good. I might be thinking of maybe working elsewhere if I wasn't possibly working for a small government group that might be in Virginia.

Daniel and David, what would you say if I took the following position: I know Jesus by experience primarily and He has led me to embrace inerrancy and to rely on the Scripture as my rule as to whether or not I correctly understand what He is saying?

Since Jesus embraced inerrancy (see the thread for several examples), why shouldn't I believe in it also?

The problem is one of authority. The scripture is authoritative on everything it touches. Moderates and libs don't want any authority. They are the perfect mix of Sadduccee and Antinomian (just a big word for against law) theology. It is sort of like the spoiled teenager who never grew up. "I will not do what you say." By using the ultra vague and highly subjective "Christ criterion", you have convinced yourself only to follow what you think you need to follow.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
But can the word inerrant as it is used by fundamentalists? I think not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it can. You have created an issue that does not exist. Nobody who understand words has a problem knowing that two things can be without error.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And every good Christian knows that there really is only one completely perfect thing or person - and it's not a book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about God? What about Christ? What about the Holy Spirit? Which one is the perfect one and which two are not? I say all three are. Yet by your own definition you cannot because only one thing or person can be completely perfect.

Clearly, there is no problem saying that two things can be inerrant. This is purely a straw man.

 

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreachtheWord:

Daniel and David, what would you say if I took the following position: I know Jesus by experience primarily and He has led me to embrace inerrancy and to rely on the Scripture as my rule as to whether or not I correctly understand what He is saying?

Since Jesus embraced inerrancy (see the thread for several examples), why shouldn't I believe in it also?

The problem is one of authority. The scripture is authoritative on everything it touches. Moderates and libs don't want any authority. They are the perfect mix of Sadduccee and Antinomian (just a big word for against law) theology. It is sort of like the spoiled teenager who never grew up. "I will not do what you say." By using the ultra vague and highly subjective "Christ criterion", you have convinced yourself only to follow what you think you need to follow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. I would say you are right to rely on Jesus and your personal relationship with him to lead you. And its best to start with the scriptures for your understanding of what he is saying to you. They are part of the foundation of our faith. But I would caution against the view of scripture as inerrant because not all scripture is created equal-When Jesus says "you have heard it said...but I SAY to you", he is pointing out that his words, such as turn the other cheek, are superior to an eye for an eye.
2.I disagree that ALL moderates and liberals don't want any authority. The scriptures, although seemingly contradictory on some points, ultimately point toward Jesus as our saviour and a moral ethic based on love for God and our neighbor. I think conservatives are simply scared that if people feel free, they'll all turn gay and start acting anyway they please. That's nonsense. People, when they receive God's grace through our faith in Jesus Christ, want to please God. They want to live, as Paul directs, in such a way that whatever they do in word or deed, they can do it all in the name of Jesus, giving thanks to God. It is like being a child who wants to please his parent-he is so caught up in pleasing his loved one that it doesn't occur to him to be bad (or, at least, it occurs to him less often).
Moderates (whom I consider myself to be) feel like the obsessions with doctrine,inerrancy, and most of all, authority, interfere with what our true mission is: to take up our cross and follow Jesus. Does allowing people to follow their conscience mean that they might disagree with others on matters of faith? sure it does, and they might get it wrong. But Jesus did not ask us to score a 100 on our orthodoxy test. He asked us to take up our cross and follow him, loving God and our neighbor. That is what matters most.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]