CBF Teenaged girl makes ignorant statement and shows the error of CBF's teaching

Would hardly consider the work the BGCT is doing as scrambling. It is taking steps to be more relevent then ever and respond to the needs of the churches. </font>[/QUOTE]Overall, I think you're right... their intention is to be more relevant than ever. However, I am pretty skeptical about their ability to actually make the changes required because of the difficulty of the process.

I may just be too skeptical. Time will tell.

 

Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

 

Amen gb....

 

Thank you for proving my point gb. You can't say anything authoritative about true religioun apart from Scripture.

 

1. Jesus is the supreme interpreter of scripture because He is God incarnate.

- Jesus is the true Light, who enlightens everyone. (John 1:9)

- Jesus the Son has made the Father known. (John 1:18)

- “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways
by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a
Son whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also
created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the
exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his
powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:1-3a)

2. The Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and the New Testament writings are the
testimony of Christ and instruction in the life of Christ in which the New Testament
church abides.

3. Paul (and all of the other New Testament writers) are disciples of Christ and teach
in strict accordance to the principles and life of Christ presented by Him directly and
preserved in the Gospels. To read and interpret the New Testament without taking
into account the supernatural life of Christ living through the church and speaking
through the pages of the scripture is to deny the very authority of the text.

You’ve shifted the question… You say, “you know nothing about Christ apart
from Scripture.”

That’s not the assertion. Even if we didn’t know Christ intimately and personally in a way
that’s distinct from our head knowledge of him, we have the life and teachings of Jesus
preserved in the Gospels – therefore, your objection is completely baseless unless you
reject the legitimacy of the Gospels.

It is impossible to “prove” anything to anyone who doesn’t want to consider another opinion.

If I have not “proved” my point to your satisfaction, what sort of evidence would be
“proof” for you?

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

God preceded Christianity and the Bible. So where does that put God? Where does that put the Bible? How did God speak to Moses and Abraham without a Bible? Remember Abraham was a polytheist. There was no Bible either. What does scripture say about true religion before the Bible existed? In fact man preceded the Bible by at least 1500 years. So are you saying that it was impossible for true religion to exist before the Bible was complete in about 90 AD?

 

Well, I see that GB and go2church have reached an all-time low in their understanding of the nature and importance of God's Word.

1. First things first - the Bible is not simply a record of God's revelation, IT IS GOD'S SPECIAL REVELATION OF HIMSELF TO MANKIND. Don't think so? Then consider the words of Paul: "All Scripture is God-breathed (Gr. - theopneustos)" (2 Tim. 3:16). If all Scripture is the very Word of God (which Paul plainly declared that it was), then it can't just be a "record" of revelation, it MUST BE REVELATION ITSELF. Come on folks, this is Theology 101. Think about what's at stake here. If you say that the Bible is just a "record" of God's revelation, then you certainly couldn't say that it is inerrant or even that it is authoritative. If it is simply a record, then God is not the Author of the Bible, but 40 well-meaning individuals over a span of 1500 years are the actual authors of Scripture. Either it is the Word of God or it's not, and if it's not then it is certainly not authoritative. Basic theology.

2. I can't believe that I actually read some posts that said that one doesn't need to know anything of the Word of God in order to be saved. As evidence of this heresy, one person posted Rom. 10:13, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Parenthetically, I found it odd that someone would post that God's Word is not essential for someone's salvation by quoting from the Bible - lol!) Guess they missed v. 14 though: "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" So then, someone must tell the infidel who stands "without excuse" (Rom. 1) what they must know in order to confess Christ. And where does that salvific knowledge come from? Glad you asked..."Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). If the poster who said that the Word of God is not a necessary component of someone's salvation would've just read the rest of Rom. 10, I would think that this discussion would'nt even be necessary right now. How would any one of us know that Jesus is the only way of salvation were it not for the Word of God? Rom. 1 only proves that all men know that there is a God to whom they must give an account. They can't be saved apart from the revelation of God's Word though - Romans 10 spells that out in a way that is irrefutable.

3. The fact that God existed in eternity past before the Bible was ever composed doesn't change the fact that it's revelation is still necessary for a person to be saved. The question was asked about Moses and Abraham. First of all, Moses had the Law (which was/is God's revelation of Himself to Israel and all of mankind). Thus, arguing that Moses didn't have any written revelation is wrong. As for Abraham, God spoke to Him directly (with words). Therefore, Abraham did have the Word of God, which by the way is revelation. No one here is saying that "true religion" (or saving faith) couldn't have existed before the formation of the Bible. Obviously, the people could place their faith in God because He spoke directly to them throughout the OT, and eventually even gave them written revelation in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The point is very clear - men can't be saved apart from the revelation of God's Word (Rom. 10:17)!

4. I wasn't aware of the fact that Abraham was a polytheist - care to fill me in on the details of that one? What I do find about Abraham in God's Word was that "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to Him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). Where do you guys get this stuff?

What really saddens me about all this is the way in which the nature and importance of God's Word is almost completely relegated to a place of no salvific significance by some who post here. How can someone say that the knowledge of God's Word (revelation) is not absolutely essential to a person's salvation when they know good and well that they themselves could've never been saved apart from that same revelation? Who among us would've known that Jesus Christ is the only "way, truth, and life" (John 14:6) were it not for His Word? This is very disheartening!

 

If you want to define revelation as the disclosure of God Himself then I will settle for that. But if you want to define revelation as encompassing all of God then I will not buy into that. Certainly God made himself known before any Bible existed. To say that the Bible is total revelation is to put God in the past only. It is contrary to Jn 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." It is also contrary to Heb. 4:12.

Heb. 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

 

Absolutely. Now that you've said that, I would like to ask why did God put Abraham to the test to offer up Isaac in Gen 22? Would that not be against one of the ten commandments?

While Abraham lived the Bible did not exist. But God still revealed Himself. There was no Bible and no written revelation as we know it. You are looking back. But go the other direction from the time before the Bible existed and look forward. Then ask the question about how people were saved. People had to know enough to be saved before the Bible ever existed. Don't you think God made His will known to those who would believe?

 

Studies of religion around the time of Abraham show he was most likely a polytheist before he walked with God. Gen. 22 also gives a clue of his background. Polytheism believed in human sacrifice.

One of the classic books on the subject of Israel is A History of Israel, by John Bright

 

If the Bible's revelation was necessary for salvation, then was nobody saved until the NT was completed?

 

Quite frankly, it doesn't really matter what John Bright thinks about Abraham. The Word of God says that "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to Him for righteousness" (Rm. 4:3). Since when did we start putting more faith into the words of human authors than in the Author of God's Word? Further, the fact that Abraham lived in a polytheistic society only proves one thing: That he lived in a polytheistic society. To jump to the conclusion that Abraham must've been a polytheist is not only illogical, but it is unbiblical.

Obviously, the answer is no. We've already mentioned Abraham, and we could list a myriad of others who were also believers in Jehovah (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, etc.). The fact that OT believers didn't have access to the complete written revelation of God's Word doesn't mean that God didn't reveal Himself to them. In fact, what God has chosen to reveal of Himself in the Bible is not everything there is to know about God, creation, etc. God hasn't revealed everything there is to know, but he has plainly revealed to us those things that we must know in order to be saved and to be sanctified. And how do we know? "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rm. 10:17).

That begs the question: How were folks saved before the complete written revelation of God's Word was given to men? They were saved by accepting that revelation which they had access to, and obviously since Abraham was saved through such revelation, then we know that belief in said revelation was sufficient for one's salvation.

There is no salvation apart from the knowledge of God's special revelation in Christ and His Word!

 

Maybe I'm a little slow, but it seems to me that gb and Todd are in agreement on this.

 

Michael, I don't know about that. What I've been trying to say though is that there is no way that someone can be saved today without the salvific knowledge that is contained in the Word of God (Rm. 10:17). If someone can prove me wrong, then I'd love to see it.

 

Todd, you aren't wrong.

I Peter tells us that we are born again by the word of God. In times past, that referred to his audible voice (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.). However, once Scripture was penned, the knowledge of God is in his word.

 

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Certainly, salvic knowledge is contained in the Bible. However, the totality of the Word is not limited to the Bible. Christ Jesus is the Word. We are saved by Christ. Thus, we are not saved by our knowledge of the Bible, but by accepting the One of whom the Bible bears witness. If every copy of the Bible were destroyed, the Word would still be able to save. I'm not sure how that would work, but I trust that He does.

Just thinking (writing?) out loud.