Is this a contradiction?

Michelle, you falsely accuse people of saying we do not have God's Word. This is a libel from you that should be called, and I'm calling you on it. You claim people are willing to accept extra-biblical teachings. Take a look at KJVo ism. It is just that. You keep using the mantra "faith", as if you are the only one here who has it. Grow up, little girl. You aren't. You need to stop making false allegations against others. It's not our fault you cannot defend your position historically, or even with the KJV itself.

 

And if that's your faith, then your faith is in an extrabiblical statement, not a statement of scripture.

Absolutely noone says you have to accept textual criticism above faith, just that true faith doesn't assert as dogma something not found in scripture. No one (at least here, where we all ought to have a high view of scripture) asserts the findings of textual criticism as dogma. They may use the finding of textual criticism as evidence for their opinions about things, but they don't assert it as dogma. Its not a RULE. There is a difference between something being possibly (or even probably) true, and it being a RULE.

No, as I just explained above, I don't accept them as a rule of my faith and practice. I may hold them as probably true in my opinion, but I hold them with light fingers, and I would never insist that anyone else cowtow to extrabiblical opinion.

No, nothing extrabiblical is authoritative. Nothing extrabiblical can ever go in my absolutely correct statement of doctrine.

So, to give an example of what I mean:

Scripture tells us something about the process of the divine inspiration of what the original authors wrote. It tells us that they spoke as they were moved by the Spirit. It tells us that they were given to us by God exhaling the writings.

It is perfectly legitimate, then, for me to put in my doctrinal statement that the original documents of scripture were without error, because that assertion follows directly from what scripture clearly states to us. I can make it a rule of faith.

But since scripture tells us nothing about the process of preservation--it never tells us that the translations of the any particular version, or even translations in general were exhaled by God--I can't dogmatically speak to that. I can say, "That's the way I think it must be" or "That's what makes sense to me at this point", but I can't make it a rule of faith, because at it's core, it's an extrabiblical theory. It may be a true theory, it may be an educated theory, it may be a common sense theory, but I can't assert it as absolute doctrine without a plain statement from God in his word that it is so.

I happen to think that a certain sort of text is probably closer to what was originally God-breathed than another sort of text. But it remains simply my opinion. I think it's a reasonable opinion; I even think its an opinion that the Holy Spirit guided me to, but I still won't state it dogmatically. I won't insist that all who are truly listening to the Spirit need to agree with me, and I won't make it a rule of faith, because it's EXTRABIBLICAL. The evidence for it comes from things outside the Bible, because it's simply an issue the Bible doesn't speak to. And since the Bible doesn't speak to it, I won't speak dogmatically on it. It would be wrong of me to do so.

That's what the reformers meant by "sola scriptura". The Roman church asserted as dogma all sorts of extrabiblical things because they made things other than scripture the rule of faith. If we aren't careful to keep on adhering to sola scriptura, we'll find ourselves needing another reformation.

 

I'll take an extrabiblical teaching (eg, 1+1=2) over your "FAITH which is contrary to the scriptural truths" any day. Faith that is based on evidence and history might be right, but faith which is contrary to the scriptural truths is necessarily false.

 

The argument that the KJV is God's Word because the KJV says it is God's Word is circular and false. It would just as easily justify the Koran.

If we lived in a world where there was no Israel, and all of history and science showed that the places of the NT never existed but it was just a fairy tale, would you believe it is 100% literally true or would you look at the "extrabiblical" evidence?

 

Do you have ANY concept of the accusations you are making here, Michelle?

 

False, michelle,

John says that he was prompted to write of what "our eyes have seen and our ears have touched." Luke says in the introduction that he is writing to record what had been handed down to them by word of mouth, including eyewitness testimony. He also says specifically that HE has investigated these things from the beginning in order to write them out in consecutive order. You can even tell from reading the first chapters of Luke that he is using an interview he had with Mary, most likely in Ephesus, where Paul lived, or, if not Mary directly, most likely from Paul, since Paul was in Ephesus and John, we know was in Ephesus, and Jesus gave Mary into John's care, so she would have been in Ephesus as well. He and the other writers did this as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Did you think that they all had some sort of epiphany or that the New Testament was somehow dictated? If so, then you are ignoring the witness of Scripture itself. Yes, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit who brought to mind the things that Jesus said and did, but He used many things in order to inform their writings. He even used the other gospels. For example, Matthew and Luke both contain every word in Mark.

I've got news for you michelle, the Bible is like Jesus, the Word of God. Jesus was not all God only. He was fully God and fully man. Not two persons as in dualism, but two natures in one person without contradiction. The Bible is fully God's Word and fully the Word of man in the exact same way. To say that source material was used in no way whatsoever diminishes the role of the Holy Spirit.

To deny the human part of God's Word is to deny the Incarnation. The Scriptures are the Word of God in the same manner as Jesus is. Just as He was FULLY God and FULLY man, so is the Bible FULLY from God and FULLY from man.

The Christian life is lived the same way. We are simultaneously dependent on the Holy Spirit and His work in us and on Jesus and what He did at the cross and the resurrection and responsible to pursue holiness and godliness. We are simutaneously saints and sinners in that respect. The same apostle that wrote "In his great mercy he has given us new birth...into an inheritance that can never perish (1 Peter 1:3-4) also wrote "Therefore my brothers, be all the more eager to make you calling and election sure.(2 Peter 2:10. Paul says nothing "will be able to separate us from teh love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:29) also wrote "I beat my body and make it my slae so that after I have preached to ohers, I myself will not be disqualifed for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:27).


By denying the human component to Scripture, you indirectly deny the Incarnation. You deny the way the Christian life is lived. In the same way we live that life, in the same way that Jesus is fully God and fully man, the Son of God and the Son of man, so is Scripture simultaneously the Word/s of God and the Word/s of Man, without error in all that it affirms. To say otherwise is as much heresy as it is to say it is the word of man only.

[ October 21, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

KJVo-ism is an extrabiblical teaching. The Bible teaches us that the Geneva Bible is 100% God's Word in English. Because the other translations differ with it, none of the other translations are 100% God's Word. The King James VERSION is not the Bible - the Geneva BIBLE is the BIBLE. There is no such thing as the King James Bible, just an imperfect VERSION of it.

The Bible shows us that God gave us his Word. That is why we must accept the Geneva Bible and reject the new translations. To accept the KJV and other modernist translations will cause confusion about God's Word.

 

You should have a child-like faith, but not a childish faith. Simplistic answers to serious issues does nothing to glorify God.

 

The REAL bottom line, Michelle, is that you have half of the time (or more) when you pick scripture it is specific scriptures written to "correct and reprove mostly wise men" now, why in the world would you use THOSE particular scriptures if you didn't feel you were trying to "reprove and correct" those who do not believe the way you do? You know why?

Because that is what you ARE doing. If we disagree with you, you have already made insinuations that we may not be listening to the "right" Spirit. Then you throw out verses slamming wise men, etc.

Then you turn around and act so innocent by saying "God is doing the reproving and correcting, not me." You know what you are doing and it is obvious to every body else on this site.

Then on top of that you ignore the questions such as What was the Word perfect Bible in 1590? Well, what is it Michelle, I have only asked the question about 9 times. You cannot answer it unless you ignore it, give me a smart answer (How do we know, we didn't live back then?) or some other irrelevant remark.

You are hanging on to a theory that has been proven without a doubt to have no scriptural nor historical backing and you cannot stand to loose. So, now you are getting out of line with some of your answers. When you start questioning the Spirit the posters on this site are listening to when they say they are listening to the Holy Spirit, you yourself are stepping over the line. I was wondering when this would happen, but you suprised me and started doing it before I expected.

If your posts continue in this direction, you need to reconsider your motives.