Who gets to decide the theological parameters of SBC Seminaries?

Many years ago, a preacher made this comment: "Liberals believe the scriptures are inspired in spots and they are inspired to spot the spots."

 

lol...wow...you're a liberal boy...get it right!....we make the policy for heaven around here!

wow, the credulity of some people...

You know there is so much more that we hold in common than what separates most of us. You'd think (maybe that is part of the problem) that we could celebrate our agreement more than labeling someone.

 

There are certain differences of opinion I am prepared to accept. Differences in regards to what entails God's Sovereignty, eschatological differences, ecclesiological differences, and such, can be overlooked.

However, to question the innerancy of the thing which is the very basis for our knowledge, is unacceptable. All scripture is "breathed out" by the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit does not breath out error.

Frankly, the idea that God's children would question His Word, because of mens' words, is kind of sickening.

 

I know why I believe them as well. You are implying what you do not know about me. I believe the entire Bible to be true and authoritative to my life, but there are errors. For example, how did Judas die? (Matt 27:5, Acts 1:18) I will send you an intriguing article from a conservative scholar who speaks of inerrancy. See I do not equate inerrancy with authority. I see the Bible as completely authoritative to my life.

 

I do not know a liberal who does not say the same thing.

 

Who said that I believed the bible was inspired in spots, it is fully inspired.

 

Yeah, I know I am a raging liberal. (sarcasm added)

 

I know some that do not believe it is authoritative. Some believe it is simply literature and in an attempt to return to the original subject, they teach at protestant seminaries.

 

So what doctrine is in error as delineated in scripture?

 

Neither of these verses are in conflict. But liberals like to make conflict on scripture where none exists.

 

One says he hung himself, the other says he fell headlong and released his bowels, but they are not in conflict!

 

The so called different accounts are the same. People who fall, do not have their bellies burst, and their bowels gush out. People who hang dead in the sun for several hours, and fall from their place of hanging, very well CAN have their stomach explode, and their bowels gush out.

Micheal,

You act as if this is the first time I have ever heard of contradictions in scripture. I am a street evangelist: you cannot tell me of one that I have not heard. I just usually hear them from atheists, not brothers in Christ.

The fact that you think God could lie (since the scriptures are breathed out by God Himself), is troubling, and is indeed liberal.

 

Well, God has been using instruments that have errors since the beginning of time, but the doctrine is in the message. What is the message the author is conveying?

 

The doctrine is expressed in words. If those words can not be trusted when we CAN check them, their is no reason to trust them when we cannot.

Either the word is true, or it is not.

 

Who said God lied! I did not. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and is authoritative to my life. I never said these are the first time you have heard them.

 

Then explain why it says he fell head long...if the rope broke he would have fallen feet first.

 

Apparently you do not know much about the human body. When a person dies, after a short while, Rigor mortis sets in. They become as stiff as a board. The human body also tilts forward, slightly when it is hung by the neck.

Additionally, bacteria in the heat of the sun, working within the stomach, and gastrointestinal tract causes the abdomen to swell up; in many cases bursting.


Had Judas hung himself, it is very likely that he would fall, his feet would hit the ground, and he would plunge forward, head first, bursting his guts out on the ground.

Similar things have been described in books on Western 1800 American culture. This is common.

 

I do not insult your intelligence and ask you not to insult mine. I do not agree that this is how it happened, but I can see your point of view. Now tell me about the field of blood, who purchased it? One says the Scribes did, the other said Judas did. One says it was named because it was bought with "blood money" the other says it was named because he spilled his blood there.

 

The Spirit "Breathed out" the scriptures. This being the case, if their are errors in it, God knowingly "breathed" lies into it.

2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

Jewish law demanded that this silver be returned to the donor (Because it is blood money). But it allowed that if the person giving it could not take it back, it must be used for something for the public good (which is why they bought it as a public burial place).

As far as Judas "aquiring" the field, their are several answers:

Vines says:
Judas did not purchase the field, but the priests did with the money which he returned to them, (Mat_27:7).
The expression means merely that the field was purchased with the money of Judas.

Also, I would like to add, that the Jewish laws of Korban would still mean that the priest's purchasing the field with Judas' money, would technically mean the field is still his.

As far as the nickname of the field, if one person heard it called "Field of Blood", and didn't know why, he might call it so because of the blood money paid by the priests. The other, knowing the whole story, would call it so because of Judas' blood spilling out.


These are different accounts, of the same incident; not contradictory, but complimentary. The same story told from two different perspectives.

But not contradictory.