Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we get to decide which parts of scripture are inspired?
Even the slightest compromise is a slippery slope. Emancipation from the smallest portion of scripture, frees one to more readily discount any other part that one does not understand or agree with. Soon, the entire Bible becomes a lie, and personal preference becomes one's 'god.'
Then, since so many of you are agreed on inerrancy, why isn't it working for the Kingdom of God? Why, instead, are people fleeing evangelical churches, if not for the false doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility. Until it became an issue, evangelical churches of virtually every denomination were growing.
Then, since so many of you are agreed on inerrancy, why isn't it working for the Kingdom of God? Why, instead, are people fleeing evangelical churches, if not for the false doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility. Until it became an issue, evangelical churches of virtually every denomination were growing.
Let's see if what Dresden claims is true. Here is what Dan Wallace states in his introduction to Second Peter in which he objectively gives both sides of the argument concerning the authorship and authenticity of Second Peter.
Dr. Wallace cites the case against authenticity and then cites the case for authenticity. He then evaluates the objections to authenticity.
Excerpt:
There are a number of considerations which suggest that Peter did, indeed, write this book. Our discussion will begin with the external evidence, then move to a consideration of the internal.
Dr. Michael Sheiser also leans towards the Petrine authorship of Second Peter.
Excerpt:
The result of this survey of various theories leaves us in no doubt that the traditional view which accepts the claim to the epistle to be apostolic is more reasonable than any alternative hypothesis.
So let's SEE what Dr. Wallace says in defense of Peter as the author of 2nd Peter FROM YOUR SOURCE:
Quote:
From one perspective, this short epistle is the most disputed book in the NT canon as to authenticity. From another, the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter. The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective without much discussion.
From the very beginning he admits that he is in the minority of NT scholars.
Quote:
--a number of apostolic fathers (as well as others, such as Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus) seem to allude to this letter. If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed.
Alluding to a letter is not strong evidence at all. It is just what it is--grasping at straws.
Dr. Wallace lists FIVE reasons for doubting the authenticity of Peter as the author:
1)The Personal Allusions. In general, the personal allusions to Peter seem forced, as if to prove that the author truly was an eyewitness to the Lord Jesus --- 2)Historical Problems. Guthrie notes five distinct historical problems in 2 Peter. (not going to list here as they are too involved) 3)Literary Problems. There are two distinct literary problems here.
(1) The use of Jude: Why would Peter, an apostle, so heavily borrow from Jude in chapters 2–3? This is both a literary problem and a chronological problem, for if Jude was written after Peter’s lifetime (as most scholars assume), then if 2 Peter uses Jude, it cannot be by Peter.
(2) In 3:15, the author mentions that “Paul… has written to you.” The double problem here is what letter did Paul write to this audience and why does Peter now address them? 4)Stylistic Problems. This is often the straw that breaks the camel’s back for those wrestling with the authenticity issue. First and foremost, the stylistic differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are so great (1 Peter being relatively good Greek, 2 Peter being relatively poor Greek) that to suppose that one man penned both letters—and both within perhaps a few months’ time and to the same audience (as 3:1 suggests)—stretches credibility to the breaking point. 5) Doctrinal Problems. There are not only thematic differences between the two Petrine epistles, but a number of Greek expressions from philosophy seem too sophisticated for a man of Peter’s educational background.
Now here is Dr. Wallace's reason for concluding the authenticity is real:
1) Internal Claims. Internal claims, of course, do not prove authorship. What they do, however, is set up a standard which is falsifiable. Thus, since Hebrews is anonymous, no intent to deceive can be detected as to authorship. On the other hand, in the case of 2 Peter, as Guthrie notes, “there can be no doubt that the author intends his readers to understand that he is the apostle Peter.” Anonymity is not the issue; pseudonymity vs. authenticity is what is at stake.
It's very easy to see that he uses the favorite ploy of uneducated and unsophisticated bible readers. "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it. This is basically his only defense of Peter as the author of 2nd Peter. It's circular nature and should be suspicious to any one with a brain to reason.
Now Dr. Wallace spends much time attempting to refute the numerous problems the majority scholars bring to view of 2nd Peter. Frankly, I think he is smart enough to know Peter is not the author, but he is equally smart enough to know that he would immediately be removed from Dallas Theological Seminary if he stated the same.
Toward the end of his treatise he states:
Quote:
Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient.
He is bowing to the pressure of inerrantists in the church, just as no one publishes the TRUE version of Jeremiah now that it has been discovered because of fear of---inerrantists. Fear of reprisal appears to be the weapon of choice by modernistic inerrantists.
Because for an inerrantist, the Bible the way he or she has learned it is the only bible possible. Luther would be destroyed by the right wing church of today by daring to declare "the priesthood of every believer."
Not in America which is the bastion of inerrantists. Evangelical Christianity has been declining for a number of years.
A regular poster on here is convinced that christianity is spreading like wild fire in parts of the world. If he only new that opposite is at the very least just as true.
Where are all of the young Evangelicals going? That's hard to say. I found a home in the Presbyterian Church, but most of them probably aren't going anywhere for now. Nevertheless, this is an important moment for progressive Christians. There is a generation of people wandering, and many of them are hoping that their faith is made of something deeper than what they hear from the Evangelical talking heads.
Evangelical churches that frequently support conservative candidates are finally admitting something the rest of us have known for some time: Their young adult members are abandoning church in significant numbers and taking their voting power with them.
David Kinnaman, the 38-year-old president of the Barna Group, an evangelical research firm, is the latest to sound the alarm. In his new book, "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith," he says that 18- to 29-year-olds have fallen down a "black hole" of church attendance. There is a 43% drop in Christian church attendance between the teen and early adult years, he says.
Intellectually, much of Evangelical Christianity’s perspectives did not make sense to me. So I gave up trying to get the circle of faith to fit into the square of rationality. The more I surrendered trying to figure it all out, the more I was given help. In the process, I discovered an ancient alternative. It’s called the contemplative dimension of Christianity. I believe its wisdom can be very useful in this season of spiritual and cultural friction. It is for me.
-------
Please don’t take this personally or literally. It’s an analogy. Evangelical Christianity is a developmental stage of faith, like 6th grade is a stage of learning on the journey to post-graduate study. No one who wishes to grow stays in grade school. Everyone who wishes to grow graduates to higher/deeper levels of being and understanding. This is a fact. And I
don’t assume I have reached the deepest level of learning either. That doesn’t happen in this lifetime. Everyone living is still on a journey of discovery.
----
But while at Moody (Bible Institute), trying to be a good bible evangelical, I had a crisis of faith and intellect.
Young adults and teens see their churches as overprotective, saying “Christians demonize everything outside of the church,” and that their churches ignore “the problems of the real world.”
Many find their connection to Christianity to be shallow, saying that church is boring, or that their faith “is not relevant” to their career or interests. 20% even stated that God seemed to be missing from their church experiences.
Reason number three is a big one – many young adults feel a strong conflict between their religion and science. A full quarter of those surveyed believe “Christianity is anti-science,” and 23% have become frustrated with debating creationism vs. evolution. Three out of ten believe that their churches are out of step with the modern, scientific world. The research further goes to show that young Christians interested in science are struggling to reconcile their religious beliefs with their profession.
Christian churches in America are losing members rapidly, and this trend is especially dramatic among young Americans.According to a stunning new survey by America's Research Group, 95 percent of 20 to 29 year old evangelicals attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years. However, only 55 percent of them attended church regularly during high school, and only 11 percent of them were still regularly attending church when in college.
Those numbers have got to be incredibly sobering to the evangelical Christian leadership in the United States.
The reality is that young Americans are deserting the Church in America in droves.
He stands{whoever will} against all that is called of God or that is worshipped, he sits in the Temple against the word of God because he thinks his authority is above God.
Proving that he himself is God.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 11-27-2014 at 10:35 PM..
Young evangelicals are leaving fundamentalism sects because they are smarter and better educated than their parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
