My Beliefs- GDR

No, I apply the commonly accepted historically accepted definition of what it means to be a Bible believer: believing the entire Bible as God-inspired without exception. You are not a Bible believer as the term has always been understood. "ALL scripture is God breathed," it says elsewhere in scripture. ALL scripture. That includes Moses. A Bible believer reads everything in the Bible in the light of everything else in the Bible. I have NO idea what that means to you. My definition of a heretic is someone who disagrees with the historical teachings of Christianity back 2000 years. That makes you a modernist AND a heretic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All the Reformers, the originals and today's as well, starting with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale, also the Waldensians (Peter Waldo), the Albigensians and millions of others who were persecuted and killed by the RCC for being Bible believers. All of today's evangelicals who haven't gone liberal, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, all the Puritans such as John Owen, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter and many others; A W Pink, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill. John MacArthur, R C Sproul, John Piper, Alister Begg, Alistair Grath, other names that aren't coming to mind. I'm just touching a few names off the top of my head, probably about a tenth of the ones I might list given more time, not even mentioning local preachers nobody's heard of or various ministers that aren't preachers (oh such as Chris Pinto, Jan Markell, Eric Barger, Brannon Howse, Jimmy DeYoung, Kay Arthur.) All the preachers I regularly read and listen to are Bible believers according to the definition I gave. Ravi Zacharias, K P Yohannan, Bakht Singh, Zac Poonen. Watchman Nee, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Bishops Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Cromwell. Look at the list of names of preachers at Sermon Audio.com and Sermon Index.com. I won't say all of them fit the definition but at least 95% of them do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : keep thinking of names to add.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was supplying evidence of the common definition of Bible believer as believing the whole Bible. All those I listed accept that definition and some of them preach on it. John MacArthur comes to mind.Of course I take into account the Biblical interpretation of other men, the more the better. That's why God gave the Church preachers and teachers, as scripture tells us He did. My faith isn't in THEM, it's in God's word and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.Scripture itself says ALL of it is inspired by God, I already said that earlier.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How do YOU know? You haven't a clue. My point to GDR has been that my sources go back to the apostles, and his are all very recent. What kind of nonsense is that? We MUST make use of the interpretations others who know more, read the Bible more deeply or consistently than we do. There's a Biblical proverb that says there is safety in many counselors: you shouldn't ever put all your trust in just one or a few when it comes to understanding the word of God or anything important. Nobody takes the words of commentators and exegetes as gospel truth, that's why it helps to read many of them and decide among many points of view where there are differences. For cryin out loud what do YOU know about what I put my faith in? Of course I can only understand as I understand, that's true of anyone. That's why everybody is always demanding evidence, BECAUSE one's personal take isn't enough. That's why I'm referring to a great many back 2000 years who understand what it means to be a Bible believer, which disagrees with GDR's much more recent and much shorter list of authorities.No other book has ever said it's inspired of God that I know of. People may believe other books are inspired of God, but the Bible is the only book that SAYS it is. The only reason I'm saying this is that you seem to think if it doesn't say they aren't sure of the message they have no choice but to say it's inspired of God. Weird logic there it seems to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My sources "regular people?" Most of them I listed are big names in Christianity. Of course everybody starts out as "regular people." What's your point?This idea that because I personally share these views makes them bogus is ridiculous. That could be said about ANYBODY, certainly about you. So let's start with the premise that since EVERYBODY shares views with some block of others that ALL the views are bogus. That means yours too. Either that ends all discussion right there or we might as well ignore that obvious point and go on and discuss the issues from the reasonable perspective that it doesn't matter who agrees with whom, the facts are separate elements unto themselves.

Thanks for that quote from Wright. A raving heretic if there ever was one. Yikes.

You really don't know? That's hard to believe. But OK I'll try to spell it out. Bible believers are not materialists. Correct me if you or Wright have some other definition but materialism is generally understood to explain all things from a primarily materialist standpoint, which he goes on to do. Now there is a problem here in that he's explaining "religion" in which I suppose he's including Christianity, but a Bible Christian makes a huge distinction between Christianity and all other religions. If to some extent we might agree that the other religions may be explainable in terms of his categories (but only to some extent as most of the man-originated religions were prompted by demons), we certainly aren't going to agree that Christianity can be so explained. We regard the Bible as revelation to humanity from God Himself, of course speaking in familiar human terms but not having its origin in human beings at all but in God. It begins with God choosing Abraham to father a nation for Him, and goes on from there about many other leaders chosen by God Himself for His purposes. It's ALL God-originated, had nothing to do with politics, economics, technology etc., all GOD-originated, and everything else follows on that basic fact.So his first paragraph is straight heresy.Wright goes on: I'm sure a case can be made for materialist-based "religious worldviews" that could be said to be "in some meaningful sense religious." But Christianity isn't one of them. Simply lumping Christianity with "religions" is heretical on top of his materialist perspective.And more: About as far as you can get from Bible Christianity which is no illusion but the revelation of a reality we would have known little or nothing about without the revelation -- the nature of God Himself first, the nature of humanity, the Creation, the Fall, the plan of redemption, the promise of the Messiah to save us from our sins, and then the coming of the Messiah, His sinless birth of a virgin, His sinless life, His being God but humbling Himself as a man, His miracles, His teachings about the holy life, His death, resurrection and ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, which are all evidence of His being God as well as man, and all for the salvation of those who believe on Him, and the defeat of the Satanic hordes who owned this planet since the Fall. I suppose his book tries to prove this but of course in the context of Bible Christianity it's just an absurdity. What a strange idea, an illusion becoming real? What universe does Mr. Wright live in anyway? Well, the part you quoted didn't include anything about the resurrection, but in the context already given the idea would be very out of place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NEITHER of us is "placing faith" in "a group of people." Sheesh.

So I went back and read the quote from NT Wright about resurrection. It's a typical piece of liberal scholarship but on this subject at least I'd agree with most of it.It's typical in that he accepts the dating of modern "scholarship" which is based on nothing more scholarly than a refusal to believe in prophecy. That is, Daniel is called "the latest book of the Hebrew Bible." Bruce Metzger, who came up with that notion, admitted that it was based strictly on his unbelief in prophecy, so he dated it AFTER the events Daniel prophesied. Pure subjective tampering with the Bible by an unbeliever who should never have been allowed into that position. Of course Daniel CANNOT be the last book in the OT because it is clearly written during the Babylonian exile -- 6th century B.C. -- and to date it later falsifies all the information that pertains to that period of time. Six OT books were written after Daniel, after the Babylonian exile: Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.This is a side issue of course but it helps pin down N T Wright's frame of reference. Christianity Today, by the way, long ago lost credibility with alert Bible believers.His case for bodily resurrection, however, ought to be convincing to those who hold to onifre's belief that all Christianity did was ape the pagan religions.On that subject I might add that it's interesting that all those pagan religions kind of dropped out of sight during Christianity's spread over the next two millennia. That's because it was the real thing and all the others bogus attempts to fulfill the messianic story prophesied from Eden. Only Christ REALLY resurrected, only Christ's death REALLY paid for our sins, all the others are fake gods, Christ is the real God.And, last thought, although what he says about resurrection being unique to Jewish religion and therefore to Christianity, is true, I have to ask what he says about Christ's death for our sins. That's the part you keep refusing to accept so does N T Wright also reject it?

I've not merely said that I believe it, I've also said that I find the testimony to be believable and honest. That's one of the reasons I trust the Bible, but I also trust it because I know the nature of God and how and why God inspired it. That's not "having faith in the writers," it's judging character, assessing honesty, etc etc., which we all have to do all the time in all sorts of contexts. My FAITH. however, is something else: My FAITH is in the "things unseen" that scripture teaches, things we can't know through our own abilities. One doesn't have to have faith in things you can judge for yourself.

I'll go bonkers if I have to try to find relevant passages in that morass of theological ponderings by Wright. I already slogged through one section on Justification. PLEASE, if you know what he said or where to find it point me to it. What does he say about Jesus' death to pay for the sins of believers, the blood of Christ, being born again etc.
Thanks.

I'll take your word for it about McGrath [ABE later: I heard a few minutes of the video, that's enough to see that he isn't in my camp]. I probably got him mixed up with someone else. Sinclair Ferguson comes to mind. Couple of Scots. Another name I'd add to my list is Alan Cairns. Oh and Ronald Cooke. Oh and Duncan Campbell of the big revival on the Isle of Hebrides in the 40s. And Robert Murray McCheyne and Evan Roberts. It may be that others on my list compromise on Genesis but I'm unaware of it. I'd be very surprised in most cases if so however.John MacArthur may be today's premier spokesman for Bible believers, not that the others on the list, most of them anyway, aren't also solid in that regard, but MacArthur is very popular and very effective.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

From that quote I conclude that he talks the way you talk, in rather vague terms which are sometimes right as far as it goes but leave out some crucial stuff. He's definitely left out the fact that Jesus' DEATH IN OUR PLACE BEARING OUR SINS IN HIS BODY is the reason we have forgiveness of sins, as His death was the fulfillment of all the OT sacrifices for the forgiveness of Israel's sins (see Letter to the Hebrews). So that doesn't seem to be part of Wright's theology nor, no doubt, the orthodox understanding of the new birth either. Not in my experience. I hear a LOT of sermons, sometimes three or four a day because I usually turn on Christian radio while I'm in the kitchen cooking or eating, also listen to daily and weekly internet radio shows with a Christian worldview, and even sermons on select topics from sites like Sermon Audio.com., and all these sources very often repeat this very very basic teaching of the Protestant faith -- Jesus' death in our place to pay for our sins. All the speakers I appreciate agree quite solidly on that point, there is no question whatever about what it means.So if it's a "complex" question requiring a "complex" answer to you that can only be because you deny the simple obvious traditional orthodox meaning of it, along with whoever you agree with such as N T Wright I suppose. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such DOGMA you preach!

Sigh. Logic chopping and hair splitting are great sport around here.I thought you'd just get my point: You SOUND awfully CERTAIN although you aren't in any position to be certain."We know that there isn't one" [elusive truth]You KNOW this you say. Pretty dogmatic there in the sense I meant it.and "absolute twaddle" is an awfully ABSOLUTE term."They're simply superstitious beliefs attempting to explain away the fundamental unfarenesses and pain of our lives."I don't see any tentativeness in this statement, this is just "simply" the case."It weird that these beliefs still have any hold, now that we know the reality of why our lives are limited in the way that they are;"You KNOW this you say."but that is the power of myth and the human desire to find a meaning amongst the meaningless."You are even sure of other people's motives.
)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.