Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
139 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,495 Year: 7,243/23,288 Month: 1,149/1,214 Week: 161/303 Day: 1/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
Phat
Member
Posts: 13929
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1 of 111 (387627)
03-01-2007 4:02 PM


In this thread, I want to examine some of the philosophiesof the Bible that many people accept as inerrant and examine whether or not they are worthy of consideration.(add by edit: Also theologically as opposed to philosophically! :rolleyes:

Some examples:

  • Consider others better than yourself.

  • Turn the other cheek

  • The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

  • Whatever you do unto the least of these you do to me. (Jesus talking)

    Any scriptures are open for discussion.

    Faith/Belief?

    Edited by Phat, : emphasis on theology rather than philosophy


  • Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by kuresu, posted 03-01-2007 5:37 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:00 PM Phat has responded
     Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-01-2007 7:37 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 6 by Doddy, posted 03-01-2007 9:10 PM Phat has responded
     Message 7 by Jon, posted 03-01-2007 10:48 PM Phat has responded
     Message 8 by Yohuchanan562, posted 03-02-2007 2:04 AM Phat has responded
     Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 10:22 AM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:15 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 9 of 111 (387717)
    03-02-2007 7:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Doddy
    03-01-2007 9:10 PM


    Topic Synopsis
    Kuresu writes:

    seeing as how the whole bible has several different moralities (thou shalt not kill; kill your enemy and rape their women), it would be royally stupid to claim inerrancy of moral messages.

    I agree. I am not saying that the Bible is Inerrant.
    Here is an example of what I define to be a Biblical truism: Prov 3:5--

    Trust in the LORD with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;

    I realize that I am approaching the Bible from the perspective of how some would say....a giant quote-mine! ;)

    Ringo writes:

    How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

    Good point, Ringo. I have always maintained that some folks believe that the source of all human knowledge is human derived while others of us believe that the source of wisdom is God-derived...but you are correct in pointing out that we could never prove it since it is evident that we are human! :rolleyes:

    From the standpoint of this thread, the Bible is being discussed as a source of philosophy. A fundamentalist may believe the book to be inerrant while a liberal critically thinking person may view the book as simply a collection of writings.

    My stance in this thread is that while the book is not strictly innerrant, it is a source of wisdom and philosophy for many people. Given that this is so, I want to argue the position of why certain Biblically quote mined catch-phrases are used.

    Are these pearls of wisdom...uttered by Jesus Christ and by supposedly spiritually enlightened Biblical authors such as David (Psalms) Solomon (Proverbs) and Saul aka Paul (Many New Testament Books) relevant as a philosophy and as a world view in modern life?

    Tazmanian Devil writes:

    I fail to see the significance of this thread.

    While you may be correct in that there are many fundamentalists who simply do not think, I feel that by discussing Biblical Quotes...be they taken out of context or not---will give us an opportunity to discuss why the quotes that we revere are revered by us.

    Tazmanian Devil writes:

    What good is all this biblical moral high ground bullshit if the followers of this biblical moral high ground bullshit keep trying to oppress other people with their biblical moral high ground bullshit?

    Good point, and it offers me the opportunity to use a mined quote in my defense. (BTW...I am not suggesting that by using Biblical Quotes I am in any way occupying a moral high ground!)
    NIV writes:

    Phil 2:3-- Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

    This is IMHO a good bit of philosophy. A person can never get in too much trouble by being humble!

    Doddy writes:

    Anyway, you said I can have other scriptures, so I'd like to discuss the inerrancy of these two scriptures

    quote:
    2 Thessalonians 3:6
    "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly..."

    2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
    "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."


    How does one 'admonish as a brother', without keeping company and with withdrawing? To 'keep company' is to be friends with and to withdraw means to remove yourself from their presence but, even though Jesus kept company with sinners, Christians must somehow admonish the unbelievers or bad Christians, without being their friend or even going near them. How, exactly?

    Good example! The first quote suggests that Paul wanted the church to draw a distinction in behaviorism. As an example, I may have many rowdy friends who still love to smoke a dozen bongs and drink a case of beer. I may well go over and see them occasionally and show them as much love as I show to anyone in the "church". (I try not to be exclusivist!) If I were to sit around and do bongs with them, I would be angering my Holy Spouse! This is not an admonishment to any of you...it is just a personal thing with me...please understand.

    The second quote is keeping in line with Pauls discipline of the church and...the role of the church in regards to exclusivism. (Exclusivism is a topic unto itself! ;) )

    This brings up the opportunity for another quote! :D

    Jesus is praying in John 17. He mentions this in His prayer:

    NIV writes:

    John 17:14-15
    I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

    This is another example of exclusivity. Jesus apparently is pointing out that there is a difference...internally and spiritually...between those whom He chose as Disciples and the rest of humanity. I am not nearly as much of an exclusioner as I used to be, but I have experienced times when I was walking in my tip-top behavior and considered myself in touch with Jesus mission. I could feel a difference between myself and many other everyday people that I encountered. (Again, this is another topic. Keyword: Exclusivity. )

    Perhaps we are showing how a staunch adherence to Fundamentalist Biblical philosophy promotes a sense of privilege and exclusivity in the church community. My question would then become: Well what do you expect us to do? Go around and let it all hang out...cussing and drinking and laughing at dirty jokes?

    Another Quote popped into my head as an answer:

    NIV writes:

    1 Peter 1:13-16-- As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

    This seems like good advice as long as I don't get all uppity about it! I could see this philosophy as being of God. I mean, does He expect me to conform to my evil desires?

    Doddy, I know you understand the Bible better than most fundamentalists and that you have chosen to follow your own philosophy in life and not that of this book. And I know that because of this, you are not necessarily following your own "evil" desires just because you do not worship God.

    This could mean that

    NIV writes:

    Rom 1:20-- For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    This quote presupposes that morality and the knowledge of right and wrong are imparted into all peoples hearts whether or not they are believers.

    Of course, there is also a contrasting scripture:

    NIV writes:

    Matt 15:18-20- But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"

    On the one hand, the book is telling us that all humanity has an innate awareness of right and wrong. On the other hand, Jesus is telling us that our heart is apparantly the source of it all.
    NIV writes:

    Luke 6:45- The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

    This seems to suggest that our behavior and intentions is what allows our heart to be filled with what we want it to be filled with.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Doddy, posted 03-01-2007 9:10 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by ringo, posted 03-02-2007 11:23 AM Phat has responded
     Message 14 by kuresu, posted 03-02-2007 2:27 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 03-02-2007 3:37 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 11:34 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 10 of 111 (387719)
    03-02-2007 7:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Yohuchanan562
    03-02-2007 2:04 AM


    Re: Shalom All
    Welcome to EvC, Yohuchanan562! :) You must come from a church that really respects and revere the Lords name! Out of your list of scriptures, I had one jump out at me:

    NIV writes:

    Ps 14:2-3--

    2 The LORD looks down from heaven
    on the sons of men
    to see if there are any who understand,
    any who seek God.
    3 All have turned aside,
    they have together become corrupt;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.

    This one seems to mean that nobody does any real good in and of themselves...but that it is Gods Spirit within us that makes any good thing happen at all. Perhaps an atheist would take offense to this, but I am coming at it from the view of a-priori and a positive truth claim, anyway.

    I would maintain that a person could be in touch with God without even believing in Him.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Yohuchanan562, posted 03-02-2007 2:04 AM Yohuchanan562 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Yohuchanan562, posted 03-02-2007 10:34 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 11 of 111 (387720)
    03-02-2007 7:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
    03-01-2007 10:48 PM


    The Daily News
    Jonicus writes:

    Why can't we discuss slavery, rape, theft, murder...?

    Don't you get enough of that in the daily world news? Yes, it is true that the Bible is chock full of it...but....what would be the point of discussing that philosophy? I am not advocating the Bible to be 100% inerrant, remember. I am simply bringing up quotes that I would be so inclined to follow philosophically.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Jon, posted 03-01-2007 10:48 PM Jon has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 18 of 111 (388468)
    03-06-2007 6:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
    03-02-2007 11:23 AM


    Innerrant or Inane?
    Ringo writes:

    It is not "good philosophy" to take dictation from some external entity (which might not even exist) or to accept the "wisdom" of people who have a vested interest in our obedience. Philosophy (love of knowledge) ought to be about doing our own thinking.

    The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy is a muddled attempt by the Inerrant fundamentalists to explain why they prefer fundamentalism over critical thinking and why they ascribe to theology over philosophy.

    My intent within this topic was to examine scripture from a theological perspective more than from a philosophical perspective. Im sorry if I made this unclear at first.

    The scripture that is usually used to reaffirm this doctrine is

    NIV writes:

    2Timothy 3:16-All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Of course, the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is labeled as circular reasoning by logicians. I suppose it all depends on whether critical thinking trumps fundamentalist inerrancy or not in the mind of the layman.


    Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
    * * * * * * * * * *
    “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Our is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
    --General Omar Bradley

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by ringo, posted 03-02-2007 11:23 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 11:57 AM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 19 of 111 (388469)
    03-06-2007 7:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
    03-01-2007 6:00 PM


    You wicked, wicked monkey!
    Ringo writes:

    How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

    Hence this topic. We can never know...we can but believe...or not.

    The Bible would say:

    NIV writes:

    Rom 1:18-20--The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Of course, some would say that this is merely more circular reasoning!

    Apparently, suppression of the truth is the reason for the wickedness.

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:00 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by jar, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 AM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 24 of 111 (388592)
    03-06-2007 3:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
    03-06-2007 2:01 PM


    Re: Topic Synopsis
    Ringo writes:

    You also haven't made clear what the difference is between the "theological perspective" and the "philosophical perspective".

    Without looking up the definitions again, I can tell you what the terms mean to me.

    Theology is the study of religious beliefs. Philosophy is the study of wisdom.
    Anastasia quotes Wiki regarding the Dei Verbum document:

    quote:
    This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God.

    IMB, theology assumes God a-priori. Philosophy assumes nothing, except perhaps that humans own their beliefs based on logic. Theology allows no such freedom.

    The roots of this argument between the two extremes of human wisdom a-priori or Gods wisdom a-priori come to a head in Euthyphro's Dilemma which is explained by Christian apologist Greg Koukl. Read the article in the link for an explanation of his reasoning.

    Here is an excerpt of a lesson in a theology class that is philosophical as well:

    Philosophical Theology: Christology
    Dr. Garry DeWeese
    Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2001

    1. The incoherence
    1.1 The central Christian affirmation is that Jesus is God.
    1.1.1 This is an identity statement, not a predication. Somehow Jesus is
    numerically identical to God.
    1.1.2 How do we understand this identity statement?
    1.2 The second issue is the cosmological one.
    1.2.1 If God is the creator, what would it mean for God Himself to become part
    of that universe?
    1.2.2 Isn’t it demeaning for the Creator to become part of the creation?
    1.2.3 If there’s a good reason, a reason in consonance with the Creator and
    creation, then it can be explained.
    1.2.4 How is it an ontological possibility for the Creator to enter the creation? If
    all of creation is ontologically dependent on the Creator to sustain it, then how
    could God leave His supernatural perspective and enter what He is sustaining
    and still keep it in existence? Can He do this as a creature?
    1.2.5 The attributes of the Creator is such that they must be greater than His
    creation. So if the Creator assumes the nature of what is made, doesn’t that
    necessitate the Creator give up some of His attributes and no longer be the being
    He was?
    1.3 The epistemological issue
    1.3.1 If “Jesus is fully man” is true, then on what basis can we know the doctrine
    of incarnation is true? On what basis can we predicate deity of Him? It may be
    true, but how do we know it’s true because what we encounter is a man.
    1.3.2 There’s a major role for natural theology to play in this.
    1.4 The Trinitarian question--If the Trinity is true, how do we understand that if the
    second person of the Trinity becomes man?
    2. The nature of identity statements
    2.1 The “is” of predication (x is y): x is a particular or a class, and y is a property or
    a metaphor (qualities, properties, attributes).
    2.1.1 That necktie is stylish. “Necktie” is a particular. “Stylish” is a property.
    2.1.2 Neckties are torture. “Torture” is a metaphor.
    2.1.3 Analogical predication. That book is good. The book isn’t good in the way
    that God is good.
    2.1.4 Logic shorthand “Fx” – F is the property, x is the particular.
    2.2 The “is” of identity: x is numerically identical to y. x is a particular or class, and
    y is a particular or class.
    2.2.1 That animal is a dog.
    2.2.2 The statement should be made so that if x is a particular y is a particular, or
    if x is a class then y is a class, too.
    2.2.3 Jesus is God could mean that God is a class and Jesus instantiates all of the
    qualities of God. But that’s not what orthodoxy holds. This would imply that
    the qualities of God could be multiply instantiated. Jesus is the only instance of
    God that we can point to.
    2.2.4 It’s better to say that both Jesus and God are particulars.
    2.2.5 The green necktie is Ed’s. They are numerically identical.
    2.3 Identity statements have certain properties.
    2.3.1 Reflexivity: a=a. Something is identical to itself.
    2.3.2 Symmetry: (a=b) then (b=a)
    2.3.3 Transitivity: [(a]
    2.3.4 Liebniz’ Law of the indiscernability of identicals: Necessarily, for any
    objects a and b, if a is identical to b, then for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b
    exemplifies P. (a)(b)[(a]
    2.3.4.1 This creates a problem for the Trinity. If Jesus bears the property of
    dying for our sins, then the property of dying for our sins is necessarily true
    of anything Jesus is identical to, i.e., God.
    2.3.4.2 This also creates a problem for the hypo static union. If Jesus as man is
    identical to Jesus as God, then the attributes of man would be shared by God
    and visa versa. How can limited knowledge be compatible with
    omniscience? How can limited location be compatible with omnipresence?
    2.3.5 Not Liebniz’ Law of the identity of indiscernibles: Necessarily, for any
    objects a and b if for any property P, a exemplifies P iff b exemplifies P, then a is identical to b.
    2.3.5.1 This is hotly debated whether it’s true or not.
    2.3.5.2 If it’s true, it’s true for pure property is anything that doesn’t depend
    on another for its identity. Relations are impure properties because there is another involved.
    3. Christology
    3.1 Christological distinctions
    3.1.1 Christology from above and Christology from below
    3.1.1.1 From above is Alexandrian Christology
    3.1.1.1.1 Alexandria was a center for Platonism and philosophical study, so it tends to be more philosophical.
    3.1.1.1.2 Starts from Jesus’ divinity and works to His humanity. It takes
    for granted Jesus’ divinity and tries to work out His humanity. How can God Himself (taken as a presupposition) take on full humanity?

    3.1.1.1.3 John’s Gospel is Christology from above.
    3.1.1.2 From below is Antiochene
    3.1.1.2.1 Antioch was a center for theology in the Greek world early on.
    3.1.1.2.2 The epistemology is from Jesus’ humanity to His deity. How
    can a human being be God incarnate?
    3.1.1.2.3 This is the Christology of the synoptics.
    3.1.1.3 You have to choose one of these starting points. Either starting point
    can yield a fully orthodox Christology. This class is Christology from above,
    which tends to be the approach of philosophical theology.

    3.1.2 High vs. Low Christology
    3.1.2.1 High Christology puts the emphasis on the divinity of Christ, but
    doesn’t necessarily result in the exclusion of His humanity.
    3.1.2.2 The danger is the docetic heresy, He appears to be a man but is not.
    3.1.2.2.1 Jesus didn’t experience real temptation. If He couldn’t sin then
    He couldn’t be tempted.
    3.1.2.2.2 It seems undignified for God to live as a man.
    3.1.2.3 Low Christology puts the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity to the virtual
    exclusion of Jesus’ divinity.
    3.1.2.3.1 Because of anti-supernatural presuppositions, this has been the recent trend in theology.
    3.1.2.3.2 The danger is the Ebionite heresy, the beginning of the
    adoptionistic idea. There is no ontological distinction between Jesus and every other human being.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 5:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 45 of 111 (388783)
    03-07-2007 5:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
    03-06-2007 10:51 PM


    Re: Topic Synopsis
    Taz writes:

    .. jesus didn't come up with the golden rule. It existed long before jesus was ever born.

    It is the belief of some that Jesus has eternally existed.

    Thats another topic, however. ;)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 48 of 111 (388830)
    03-08-2007 5:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
    03-06-2007 11:57 AM


    Re: Innerrant or Inane?
    Jar writes:

    The only way to knowledge is through understanding of the world and universe we live in.


    knowl•edge- n 1 : understanding gained by actual experience 2 : range of information 3 : clear perception of truth 4 : something learned and kept in the mind
    Two questions:
    1)Is knowledge gained through experience or perception?
    2) How do we judge whether or not a scripture or sentence from any book an understanding of truth or just an opinion of another?

    The Bible addresses wisdom:

    wis•dom n1 : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : knowledge; also : insight 2 : good sense : judgment 3 : a wise attitude or course of action

    NIV writes:

    Prov 1:7- The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
    but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

    This presupposes the Lord, of course. An a-priori argument.

    Nemesis writes:

    I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.

    Clusty Info writes:

    Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error in the original autographs. This view was ably expressed in 1978 in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational statement of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward neo-orthodox and theologically liberal conceptions of scripture. It proclaims: "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church." Article XII states: "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."

    On a more practical level, I am reading an excellent book on addictions and how the Bible addresses them. To me, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is too all or nothing.

    The book, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave, states that "what really guides the thinking of many people who struggle with drugs or alcohol is a syncretistic set of beliefs that combines AA, pop psychology,pieces of scripture, and miscellaneous features of American culture." The author emphasizes practical theology as the guideline--in that one needs to ask themselves how scripture addresses the problems facing us today.

    Ringo writes:

    You also haven't made clear what the difference is between the "theological perspective" and the "philosophical perspective".

    The philosophical perspective questions everything. No fundamental beliefs are allowed to form. Theology takes a stand. Belief is expressed and everything else is compared and contrasted with the belief.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 11:57 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 49 by ringo, posted 03-08-2007 10:21 AM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 50 of 111 (388860)
    03-08-2007 11:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
    03-08-2007 10:21 AM


    Re: Innerrant or Inane?
    Ringo writes:

    Your definition of theology seems to presuppose that we "know" what to "believe" - we decide what to trust. The question is: how can we know what "God's wisdom" is? How do we decide which version of God's wisdom to believe?

    Keyword: Decide. The wonderful thing about being human is that we have the ability, the obligation, and usually the desire to make our own decisions in life. Some Calvinists would assert that we are incapable of choosing Gods way without His help. That book that I'm reading says that "..Sometimes it is not so much that we are poorly taught or unaware of what Scripture says, but it is that we don't want to believe the truth we already have. Even though we know the truth, we don't always want it to guide our lives."

    The book goes on to use an a-priori truth that Jesus Is Lord. Even though many Christians embrace it, sing it, and taught it...throwing in an occasional amen for good measure, it was not practical theology when their desires conflicted with the Scripture.

    Another example would be a husband who says he loves his wife, but by his actions actually loves flirtatious work relationships or even pornographic habits.

    Jim may sing "Jesus shall reign", but his drinking indicates that he wants Jesus to reign only when his desires and God's commands do not conflict.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by ringo, posted 03-08-2007 10:21 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by ringo, posted 03-08-2007 2:56 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 75 of 111 (389033)
    03-10-2007 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
    03-09-2007 1:08 PM


    Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
    Ringo writes:

    There can not be any meaningful comparison between our wisdom and God's wisdom unless we know what God's wisdom is. And how can we know what God's wisdom is if our wisdom is so stunted?

    I dunno...its kinda like a talent scout knows talent. hey can just smell it. Im not sure if we are programmed to be in touch with Gods wisdom or not, though.

    Not everyone is a talent scout! ;)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by ringo, posted 03-09-2007 1:08 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by ringo, posted 03-10-2007 11:06 AM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 77 of 111 (389042)
    03-10-2007 11:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
    03-10-2007 11:06 AM


    Wisdom Scouts and Preconceptions
    Ringo writes:

    If we were "programmed" to be in touch with God's wisdom, wouldn't that make our wisdom closer to His instead of farther?


    Yeah.

    I gotta go to work, but when I get home, I'll bring up some scriptures that would qualify as my preconceived teaching. (what I was taught) Then we can put our noggins together and see if it all makes sense or whether P.T. Barnum was right! :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by ringo, posted 03-10-2007 11:06 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 84 of 111 (824554)
    11-30-2017 11:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
    03-01-2007 6:00 PM


    The Chicago Statement Revisited
    ringo writes:

    How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

    You had a good argument ten years ago.

    Lets discuss the Chicago Statement.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:00 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:20 AM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 86 of 111 (824560)
    11-30-2017 11:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
    11-30-2017 11:20 AM


    Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
    I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it.

    Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:20 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 11:31 AM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 92 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2017 5:36 PM Phat has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 13929
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 90 of 111 (824569)
    11-30-2017 12:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 89 by LamarkNewAge
    11-30-2017 12:12 PM


    Re: Jar said this on another thread.
    It appears to me that the desired focus of your discussion is earlier than the Reform Movement (Sproul topic) and not Eurocentric. Please clarify your position as to what your argument is. I was preparing to discuss The Chicago Innerancy statement here. What is it that you wanted to discuss?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-30-2017 12:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020