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.
For all you Protestants out there, how do you know that the Bible is of divine inspiration? I am not talking about literal inerrancy here, although if you do believe that, you can also say why you believe that.
I just read a debate among ELCA Lutheran ministers on this subject. One insisted that only parts of the Bible were divinely-inspired — the meaningful parts, the parts that contain the core of God’s message — and the rest is just human. But then, we have humans deciding what the core of God’s message is — what is divinely inspired and what is not — which seems odd and logically-flawed to me.
Thanks!
It's accuracy in prophecy. Take for example Job 26:7 which states that the earth hangs upon nothing, that statement was written before 1500 BCE, yet that was completely unknown for millenniums afterward. Isa 40:22 brings out the earth is a circle, do you remember Jill how we were taught in school how the earth was flat until Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.
We both agree that jghorton said "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard."
I described this statement as a "sweeping claim."
You denied this, by saying "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim."
Since you have now admitted that jghorton did indeed make this statement, what is your point (presuming, that is, you have one)?
Are you saying that the statement "The Bible is God's accurate, reliable, unchanging Truth standard" should not be described as a claim?
Or are you trying to say that this claim made by jghorton is not properly described with the adjective "sweeping"?
Considering your admission quoted above, these are the only two possible meanings that remain for your odd declaration "jghorton did not make a sweeping claim." So which one did you intend?
For all you Protestants out there, how do you know that the Bible is of divine inspiration? I am not talking about literal inerrancy here, although if you do believe that, you can also say why you believe that.
I just read a debate among ELCA Lutheran ministers on this subject. One insisted that only parts of the Bible were divinely-inspired — the meaningful parts, the parts that contain the core of God’s message — and the rest is just human. But then, we have humans deciding what the core of God’s message is — what is divinely inspired and what is not — which seems odd and logically-flawed to me.
Thanks!
Your question exposes the fallacy of Protestantism. Theoretically, Protestants operate on the basis of sola scriptura, "by Scripture alone." This is in contrast to, for example, the Eastern Orthodox Church, which operates on the basis of Scripture, tradition and history.
The absurdity of Protestantism is that "Scripture alone" has produced thousands of denominations with thousands of differing interpretations. "Scripture alone" really means "my understanding of Scripture" versus "his understanding of Scripture ... and his and his and his."
The Eastern Orthodox position is that there is one true church that has preserved the Christian message since the time of Christ and the Apostles. All EO theology is measured by what the early church believed and taught. The EO Church teaches that the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the sense that it communicates the Truth that God intended to communicate to humanity, written by men of the time with the language and understanding of the time. The EO Church further teaches that the Bible is the transcendent God communicating in human language.
An EO congregant thus doesn't have the dilemma of a Protestant that you describe. I believe the Protestant Reformation, which was really aimed at abuses within the Catholic Church, has been a great tragedy for Christianity.
I happen to believe that "Bibliolatry" - i.e., worship of the Bible - is one of the most serious problems in Christianity today. This is especially true among those who read it as an infallible text of science and history and make fools of themselves (and embarrass Christianity) in the process. This is a relatively modern phenomenon and reflects a very warped idea of what it means to be believe the Bible and be a faithful Christian.
As far as how I "know" the Bible is inspired: I don't "know" it. I "believe" it.
I often get the feeling that non-Christians and specifically atheists think that becoming a Christian is a matter of checking a series of boxes. "The Bible is inspired?" Check. "The Resurrection?" Check.
Check, check, check - I guess I'm a Christian.
Christianity is really more of an overarching truth. The message resonates as Truth within the individual, and thus the individual believes the things that a Christian believes. The individual believes the Bible is inspired because this is what a Christian believes, this is what it means to be a Christian.
Except on C-D, of course, where being a Christian means pretty close to nothing.
Your question exposes the fallacy of Protestantism. Theoretically, Protestants operate on the basis of sola scriptura, "by Scripture alone." This is in contrast to, for example, the Eastern Orthodox Church, which operates on the basis of Scripture, tradition and history.
The absurdity of Protestantism is that "Scripture alone" has produced thousands of denominations with thousands of differing interpretations. "Scripture alone" really means "my understanding of Scripture" versus "his understanding of Scripture ... and his and his and his."
The Eastern Orthodox position is that there is one true church that has preserved the Christian message since the time of Christ and the Apostles. All EO theology is measured by what the early church believed and taught. The EO Church teaches that the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the sense that it communicates the Truth that God intended to communicate to humanity, written by men of the time with the language and understanding of the time. The EO Church further teaches that the Bible is the transcendent God communicating in human language.
An EO congregant thus doesn't have the dilemma of a Protestant that you describe. I believe the Protestant Reformation, which was really aimed at abuses within the Catholic Church, has been a great tragedy for Christianity.
I happen to believe that "Bibliolatry" - i.e., worship of the Bible - is one of the most serious problems in Christianity today. This is especially true among those who read it as an infallible text of science and history and make fools of themselves (and embarrass Christianity) in the process. This is a relatively modern phenomenon and reflects a very warped idea of what it means to be believe the Bible and be a faithful Christian.
As far as how I "know" the Bible is inspired: I don't "know" it. I "believe" it.
I often get the feeling that non-Christians and specifically atheists think that becoming a Christian is a matter of checking a series of boxes. "The Bible is inspired?" Check. "The Resurrection?" Check.
Check, check, check - I guess I'm a Christian.
Christianity is really more of an overarching truth. The message resonates as Truth within the individual, and thus the individual believes the things that a Christian believes. The individual believes the Bible is inspired because this is what a Christian believes, this is what it means to be a Christian.
Except on C-D, of course, where being a Christian means pretty close to nothing.
How am I, a Baptist, different from you, as a Christian?
When 2 Timothy was written, the only thing that could possibly have been considered "Scripture" were the Jewish holy writings. The gospels and letters of the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.
That you can try to figure out what "inspired" means, but I'm certain that you won't get any consensus among the regulars here.
You have been corrected before on that. You know this. Perhaps you forgot. But Scripture certainly DID include the NT letters by this point.
Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.
Paul also referred to his own writings as Scripture when he differentiated between his opinion and God's Word in 1 Cor 7. He knew that God was speaking through him, and he made a point to say it was HIS opinion in that particular passage, and was not necessarily God speaking.
I don't believe you are that arrogant, but Luther certainly was.
Of course I'm arrogant. As is everyone else here. The question is how much arrogance we have. I know the limits of mine, though, and I will not go so far as to pick and choose what Scripture to believe, thinking I know more than Christians 500 or 1000 years ago.
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.
