1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus the Word or the Bible the Word?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Matt Black, Jun 14, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Still waiting for an answer on that last one, guys! Remember, the scenario is this (child having presumed to have died shortly after meeting Jesus):-

    Imagined conversation between this 8-year-old and Jesus on the Last Day, -

    8-y-o: I know you don't I?
    JC: Yes. We met.
    8-y-o: That's right. You blessed me. Can I come into heaven now please?
    JC: Hang on, did you during your earthly life acknowledge me as Lord?
    8-y-o: Erm ... what do you mean, exactly?
    JC: I thought not. Go to hell.

    (Angels fling the screaming child "But you blessed me ... you blessed me!!! ) into the flames. JC sits back in satisfaction at this demonstration of his justice, majesty and glory.)

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #41 Matt Black, Jun 24, 2004
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    *Bump*

    Is no one interested in this issue? Or don't we have an answer...?!

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #42 Matt Black, Jun 25, 2004
  3. BCrowe

    BCrowe New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt: You seem to be enjoying your expression of the point too much!

    Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought?

    In the latter days there will be much effort to confuse the elect, if that were possible. The Scripture states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.

    Bob
     
    #43 BCrowe, Jun 27, 2004
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Thanks, Brother Bob! That's the sort of answer I was looking for. I pressed the question because I was concerned about it and even more concerned that no-one seemed willing to tackle the issue. So, thanksfor wading in again!

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #44 Matt Black, Jun 28, 2004
  5. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom Guest

    of course they are talking today:) They are in the Bible!!! That always has something new to say :D


    Ok i'm being corney :D
    -thinks she's loved that way- [​IMG]
     
    #45 amixedupmom, Jun 28, 2004
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Just thought of a problem with the above:

    Of course one can be blessed by Jesus and not love him. "Bless those who curse you" was presumably his practice as well as his preaching; and of the ten lepers healed, didn't only one have sufficient love to return and thank him?

    And the doctrine of total depravity/ the Fall/ original sin doesn't recognise what you call
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the innocence of a child before God
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to original sin, there is no exception for children who do not acknowledge Christ as Lord in this life. This holds true to the theology behind original sin, too, which asserts that children are far from innocent ("a sinner was I conceived"; "all have sinned"; etc) and that they, like the rest of us, "deserve" hell.

    So, how does justice, mercy and love fit into this picture?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #46 Matt Black, Jun 30, 2004
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Another thought: in the explanation put forward by Bro Bob, either God must deliberately choose all the people He sends to Hell by not blessing them, thereby proving He doesn't love all His creation and can't be Love; or Hell doesn't exist.

    Again, how to square the circle of justice and love?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #47 Matt Black, Jun 30, 2004
  8. BCrowe

    BCrowe New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Matt:
    Yes, children are under the same issue of original sin as we adults. The difference is that accountability is different. Our Lord does not hold us accountable for that which we are not capable of understanding. A child is operating in a concrete world … concepts are not understandable to them. They understand the results of a concept but not the concept itself (being loved vs. what love is). You must understand the concept of sin to know you are a sinner. You must understand the concept of love to recognize that love has been exercised toward you. There is in most Christian belief systems a point where a person is accountable before God. This differs as to the person and environment the child is raised in, but most see it near 12 years of age. Matt, we all deserve the pit and always will deserve it … young and old, child or adult … but grace is about receiving what we do not deserve as the gift of God.

    Basic Reformed Theology states that God elects those who will be saved. We all are blessed with life, breathe, capabilities of mind and body (and revelations of who made us). We exercise these blessings every moment … every heart beat and breathe of God’s longsuffering and patience toward us who are sinners. What I have learned is that to know (I mean really KNOW God) is to be blessed … and how can someone who has really known God not love Him? There are those who knew the person of Jesus and crucified Him. But did they really know Him? I don’t think so. To know God is to have the ability to crawl up in the lap of the Father and know Him as “Abba.” How can such an intimate relationship not cause us to be changed in our most core, basic level?

    I am convinced that this is the problem with the modern church. We are into church without honoring and loving God. We have our programs, services, and fellowships; yet, most Christians are unchanged in the basic person. If we were knowing and loving God it would change us. Real study of God’s Word demands application and change of who we are at the basic level. Most churches do not worship God today. Our focus is on us and we make a very poor substitute for Jesus.

    Bob
     
    #48 BCrowe, Jun 30, 2004
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Hi, Bob

    So, if an eight-year old dies, Heaven or Hell?

    The problem I have with the Reformed concept of God to which you allude is that, if He does elect some to salvation and others to damnation, how can He be said to be loving?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #49 Matt Black, Jun 30, 2004
  10. BCrowe

    BCrowe New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt: Does your 8 year old know just facts or can he/she understand concepts? Once right and wrong (basic concepts) are understood, there must be a decision concerning God's provision.

    We do not know who is elected, only God does. The argument can be made that a person responses to the stimulus of the Holy Spirit. That stimulus indicates God is making a way for them. God does this for all people. As D.L. Moody once said, the "whosoever wills are the elect, and the whosoever wont's are the non-elect." Every person who is not saved will have only himself to blame; God will not send anyone to hell, but many people will choose to go there by exercising their free will to reject Christ.
    We are not called to understand God, only to believe Him. I am a free moral agent, responsible for my own sin, hopelessly lost. Jesus not only died for me, He drew me to Himself with bands of lovingkindness and grace, convicted me of my sin, gave me the power to call Him Lord, and will one day present me faultless before His presence with great joy. I am, by His grace, His child. And yet, I am still free to walk with Him or not to walk with Him. And what applies to me, applies to every human being. Jesus died for all of us and desires fellowship with all of us. Whosoever will may come and receive of His forgiveness and grace and salvation. Innocent babies who die are safe in heaven. God's election excludes no one; Jesus' atonement includes everyone. As has been pointed out, we are looking at two sides of the same coin. Election is God's side, free will is our side. Someone once said that as we enter life, we see emblazoned over the gateway the words "Whosoever will may come;" then as we enter and look back at the backside of the same gateway, we see inscribed what the words "Elect from the foundation of the earth." Election is God's side of the coin we call salvation, human responsibility is our side.
    Bob
     
    #50 BCrowe, Jun 30, 2004
  11. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I have a question for any here who would seek to drive a wedge between Jesus and the Bible and assert an apparent contradiction between OT and NT, and an apparent contradiction between "Jesus the Word/ supreme revelation of God" and "The Bible the Word/ supreme revelation of God" positions. I say 'apparent', because the difficulty for those who assert that there is such a contradiction is that Jesus Himself drew no such distinction. On the contrary, time and again in the Gospel narratives He refers to and quotes from the OT as being authoritative; the apostles do likewise in the later NT.

    Here are some examples of how Jesus affirms the OT , so brace yourselves for some unashamed proof-texting... :-

    First, the quote from Matt 5:17-18: "not one jot or tittle..." . This comes before the "you have heard it said....but I say to you" passages in the Sermon and IMO therefore those subsequent passages (Matt 5:21ff) should be interpreted in the light of this 'intro'.

    In Matt 19:4, He quotes from Gen 2:24, attributing those words to God.

    On other occasions, He speaks of His actions, particularly His death, being in fulfilment of the Scriptures eg: Matt 26:24, 53-56, Mark 8:31, Luke 18:31, Luke 22:37 (quoting Is 53:12)

    In similar vein, the apostles refer to the OT as binding, authoritative and the words of God: Acts4:25, Rom 1:2, 9:17, Gal 3:8. (The apostles claimed a similar authority for their own NT writings: I Cor 2:13; 11:2; 14:37-38, Gal 1:1,8; 2:7ff)


    The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this, when neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?

    Now, what some liberals seem to have been arguing is that the final moral authority is not Scripture but Jesus and that we must judge Scripture 'through the lens' , as it were, of the revelation of God in Christ, because that revelation effectively 'judges' Scripture; thus we are free to accept those parts of the OT which are in harmony with Jesus and reject or minimalise those which are apparently not. Only one, absolutely fundamental problem with that: Jesus does not do that . Far from being the 'judge' of Scripture in this way,He obeys, fulfils and endorses it, as I hope I have demonstrated with the above small selection of quotes. Those who state that Jesus is the final authority on matters must, like Him, equally acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, we 'create' a Jesus outside of Scripture, a Christ that is a product of our human imaginations and wishful thinking; this amounts if we are not careful to idolatry. It's ironic that there are those who would accuse fundamentalists and others of idolatry because they regard the Bible as inerrant; this accusation would hold water if Jesus had been similarly idolatrous...

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #51 Matt Black, Jul 29, 2004
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a distinction, in my mind, between reading about Jesus and accepting Jesus as persona savior. There is a distinction between acknowledging the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and responding to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    The letter kills; it is the spirit that gives life.

    But we have no other incarnation of Jesus to study and believe other than what is shared with us through His Bible. We have to understand that at the same time we stress the importance of the need for direct personal relationship with God through Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit.
     
    #52 Paul of Eugene, Jul 29, 2004
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I have a further related question: is sola scriptura in the context of 'knowing' the Incarnate Jesus sufficient? I would suggest not for the following reason: a Christadelphian will know his Bible really well, and say he bases his entire faith on it. He certainly claims to be a Christian, but he does not believe in the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, precisely because he cannot see either of these beliefs plainly stated in the Bible. For many of us those two beliefs are foundational, but a prima scriptura approach does not lead you to them automatically. How to answer this?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #53 Matt Black, Sep 3, 2004
  14. DavidFWhite3

    DavidFWhite3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus is the Word of God. The scriptures bear witness to him. But the scriptures do not need to be perfect in order to be more than adequate. To equate the Bible to Jesus is pure nonsense. The insistence that the Bible must be perfect and totally uniform in all matters of doctrine in order to be adequate is to reveal a sad insecurity, and a lack of trust in what God has done in Jesus. Those who insist the Bible is perfect obviously don't read it, or when they do they refuse to accept what they are reading. But those who think the Bible is not adequate, because it is not perfect are also misguided, for the Bible culminates with the story of Jesus, who is perfect.
     
    #54 DavidFWhite3, Sep 10, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...