To All former Evangelicals/Protestants

[Galatians220]

Originally Posted by Maxel

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

Evangelical and Protestant Churches, particularly the fundamentalist does not believe in that part of the Chicago Statement; the question in my mind is whether he has always believed that or has he been convinced that the Bible can have inconsistencies due to human influence.

From my reading, and understanding, if any inconsistancy is found in scripture, then God's Word is not inspired. See my Statement of Faith submission on my profile

[Galatians220]

Hi Lilac

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

The reason why there have been so many denominations is because of something that they have read, in scripture, that the existing church has never either emphasized or have missed.

Martin Luther and those before him have becoming aware of unbiblical practices in the church of Rome, John Calvin saw the emphasis of the Souvreignty of God, and Predestination that he believed existed. John Arminius on the otherhand saw God giving man, Free Will, and believe that we can walk away from his Grace and Salvation. Baptists saw immersion as the proper way to baptise and the realization that children can't be baptised if they do not fully understand the Gospel, and then there are those who believed that Miracles in Acts never have diminished.

Now some of these men and women are right and some are wrong but it is not because of a contradiction of emphasis, it is because the Bible has only begun to be read and it is a very large text (only a few could have the time to read all of it). Some might read the bible literally, and some might read it as though it has hidden meanings. Therefore, some can easily take a verse out of it's context and create a whole new doctrine which is really not supported by scripture at all.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

The Trinity in the Bible is considered, a Mystery, because it is difficult to explain yet the idea of it is clearly there. Now you know that God is One; no one who believes in scripture can deny that. However, scripture also shows that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-5). A contradiction? No.

From the beginning, the Biblical creation account says "Let US create man in OUR image and in OUR likeness..." By that, the Jews have already known the Godhead by the time Moses says the Shema "Hear O Israel, the LORD God (Elohim), the LORD is One." Even the word, God in Hebrew is Elohim (plural ending) instead of Eloh (singular). Scripture also gives several instances where God appeared but in three (Genesis 18:1-3, Isaiah 48:16-17).

The Answer is that God is Tri-une. 1 God in 3 distinct persons. While is difficult to understand it, it is not impossible to prove. Read the 3 analogies; we are 1 single person right? How about an egg? 1 egg yes? And Time? Well look at what they are made of:

Person: Body-Soul-Spirit
Egg: Shell-White-Yoke
Time: Past-Present-Future

The concept of 3 in 1, is everywhere that even those who do not have scripture, the Gentiles, believed in the Godhead (Romans 1:18-24).

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

I mean that we are saved by faith alone which means that if you believe, if you put your faith in Christ, you have Eternal Life. Now some LDS actually believed in what I believe but the majority doesn't so they would agree with you. What you've just described is the idea that is necessary in a Christian's life. faith and works do go hand in hand but from what I see, it's not for salvation because it is not to be merited or earned in any way at all.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Hi Lilac



The reason why there have been so many denominations is because of something that they have read, in scripture, that the existing church has never either emphasized or have missed.

Martin Luther and those before him have becoming aware of unbiblical practices in the church of Rome, John Calvin saw the emphasis of the Souvreignty of God, and Predestination that he believed existed. John Arminius on the otherhand saw God giving man, Free Will, and believe that we can walk away from his Grace and Salvation. Baptists saw immersion as the proper way to baptise and the realization that children can't be baptised if they do not fully understand the Gospel, and then there are those who believed that Miracles in Acts never have diminished.

Now some of these men and women are right and some are wrong but it is not because of a contradiction of emphasis, it is because the Bible has only begun to be read and it is a very large text (only a few could have the time to read all of it). Some might read the bible literally, and some might read it as though it has hidden meanings. Therefore, some can easily take a verse out of it's context and create a whole new doctrine which is really not supported by scripture at all.



The Trinity in the Bible is considered, a Mystery, because it is difficult to explain yet the idea of it is clearly there. Now you know that God is One; no one who believes in scripture can deny that. However, scripture also shows that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-5). A contradiction? No.

From the beginning, the Biblical creation account says "Let US create man in OUR image and in OUR likeness..." By that, the Jews have already known the Godhead by the time Moses says the Shema "Hear O Israel, the LORD God (Elohim), the LORD is One." Even the word, God in Hebrew is Elohim (plural ending) instead of Eloh (singular). Scripture also gives several instances where God appeared but in three (Genesis 18:1-3, Isaiah 48:16-17).

The Answer is that God is Tri-une. 1 God in 3 distinct persons. While is difficult to understand it, it is not impossible to prove. Read the 3 analogies; we are 1 single person right? How about an egg? 1 egg yes? And Time? Well look at what they are made of:

Person: Body-Soul-Spirit
Egg: Shell-White-Yoke
Time: Past-Present-Future

The concept of 3 in 1, is everywhere that even those who do not have scripture, the Gentiles, believed in the Godhead (Romans 1:18-24).



I mean that we are saved by faith alone which means that if you believe, if you put your faith in Christ, you have Eternal Life. Now some LDS actually believed in what I believe but the majority doesn't so they would agree with you. What you've just described is the idea that is necessary in a Christian's life. faith and works do go hand in hand but from what I see, it's not for salvation because it is not to be merited or earned in any way at all.

I thought you were here to learn about the tenets of Mormism.

Elphaba

[Galatians220]

I hope I won't sound harsh here. If it comes out as such, I apologize - it is not my intent.

You won't sound harsh to me unless you call me names.

The problem with scriptorians, bible scholars, etc., is that sometimes, in their quest for logical truth and exactness (mostly linguistic), they forget that the Bible is not intended to be read as a textbook.

In your view, how should the Bible be intended if it is not to be used as a textbook? Is it still the standard of truth for readers to use in testing the spirits?

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. - 1 John 4:1

I used to be Catholic, so I don't belong in this thread, but I'm just going to add my 2 cents in:

So have I. I grew up Catholic and have wanted to become a Franciscan Monk just like St. Francis and have hoped to be cannonized a Saint. Not everybody shared my enthuzism though and that disturbed me a bit.

I believe, debating over scripture is not going to get you anywhere. Fast and pray and ask God. That works better, I think.

Rarely it ever lead any to conversion immediatetly. We both know this because each party has pride and each holds their beliefs dearly but what argument does is either to sow seeds or it will hold them accountable before the Lord.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. - John 15:22

[Galatians220]

Originally Posted by Lilac

I did not read the other posts because I'm supposed to be working and I'm taking a quick mental break.

I am a practicing Protestant.

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

Good questions...

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I thought you were here to learn about the tenets of Mormism.

Elphaba

My intentions here are clearly stated above. I am here to learn, but also to learn from former evangelicans and protestants who converted. here, I am answering or clarifying certain teaching she did not understand. She is not a Mormon. However, I have gone a bit far on salvation.

If I am here to convert her, I would have used scripture to back myself up in this but i've stated only what I believed. And if I am here just to debate the LDS and convert them, I would have started a thread and placed my argument for them to answer.

Please know that I will only debate if someone fired the first shot, and then I will naturally return fire but in a respectful way.

[Galatians220]

I am an apologist for the LDS faith. However, I've closely studied all of these issues you bring up, from many viewpoints. The Bible is vague enough to allow these beliefs, or the ones the LDS believe in. There are non-LDS scholars who have written on these issues from both sides. As for #3, even traditional Christians disagree on this one, as some are Calvinist, others Arminian, and other Pelagian.

Well it nice to meet another Apologist though we differ in our faiths. I'd say that I am a mere student, still learning but am able to defend the gospel.

Threy do have disagreements in whether we are Eternally Secured or not; whether we are presestined or given free will, but that's not because of the vagueness of scripture. Like I said to Lilac, in those times people has just begun to read the Bible so some may read it literally, and some wouldn't. And since the Bible is so big, it is not easy to remember everything. For example, in Romans 9, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. Calvinist used that verse as an exaple or proof that God predestines people but the general context is about Israel, how God chose them above all people but because of their unbelief, the Gospel is given to the gentiles.

The "WORD OF GOD" IS the primary source of truth. But the definition of "word of God" is the kicker. Do you confine it to the Bible? Or do you realize that there are other words of God? If you are Bible only, what do you do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the dozens of books that Jews and Christians once considered scripture, but were rejected centuries after Christ's death by St Jerome? How about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted 39 times in the New Testament? Should it be part of the Bible? Or if it isn't inspired, does that mean the apostles were wrong to quote it?

the Dead Sea Scrolls does include books that are not part of the traditional Jewish and Protestant text. That said however, there's a reason why the Book of Enoch, Wisdom, Sirach, Gospel of Thomas was banned. Now let me ask you a question,

Why do you think the Gospel of Thomas was denied?

As for Trinity, there are now some non-LDS scholars who are beginning to accept the concept of a "social Trinity." And there are Christians who believe in modalism today, as well.

Well that's unfortunate because the Bible clearly states that God does not come in modes. Now I don't know what the Social Trinity means but I'm not one to accept what's popular today or what's accepted. I am also not one to accept beliefs of the Church Fathers no matter what they say.


Now, I got to ask you ... what brought you here? We could have had this discussion on another thread

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Evangelical and Protestant Churches, particularly the fundamentalist does not believe in that part of the Chicago Statement; the question in my mind is whether he has always believed that or has he been convinced that the Bible can have inconsistencies due to human influence.

From my reading, and understanding, if any inconsistancy is found in scripture, then God's Word is not inspired. See my Statement of Faith submission on my profile

Your black/white insistent on a perfect Bible is inconsistent with the Bible itself, as it occasionally disagrees with itself.

True or false: Something can be inspired of God, and not be perfect.

If you say true, then the Bible does not have to be perfectly inspired. It can have flaws, interpolations of men, and still be 90+% correct and inspired.

If you say false, then we have to completely reject all the prophets of the Bible, through whom we received the words of the Bible, because none of them were perfect. And if we reject those prophets, then we must reject the Bible that came from them.

Since Peter denied Christ three times, does that mean we must reject his letters and the Book of Acts? Since Paul went about killing Christians, and later causing contention within the Church by opposing Peter and others, does that mean we toss out his letters?

Because Moses disobeyed God at the waters of Meribah, do we toss out the Ten Commandments?

Or do we realize there are weaknesses and mistakes and errors, but it still is mostly inspired?

So, which is it: true or false?

[Galatians220]

Your black/white insistent on a perfect Bible is inconsistent with the Bible itself, as it occasionally disagrees with itself.

True or false: Something can be inspired of God, and not be perfect.

If you say true, then the Bible does not have to be perfectly inspired. It can have flaws, interpolations of men, and still be 90+% correct and inspired.

If you say false, then we have to completely reject all the prophets of the Bible, through whom we received the words of the Bible, because none of them were perfect. And if we reject those prophets, then we must reject the Bible that came from them.

I say True, but I will NOT believe that the Word of God is 90% inspired.

To understand the degree of truth, error, flaw, and purity of the Word of God, you have to understand God himself. We both know that God is Good, correct? That means that He is not just Loving and Merciful but He is Just, and He is - Holy. That means that no impure thing can come to Him. He is defined by His names.

"Kadosh" = Holy One
"El Shaddai" = God Almighy
"Jehovah Jirah" = The LORD will provide

Etc... they all mean something and these names are not just nice descriptions of God but it is who He is. His names are Important, it is Powerful (1). You know that if you misuse His name, you will be severely chatized. However, compared to His Word, God says:

2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. - Psalm 138:2

You think that God, in His Holiness, who will punish man for misusing His name, would allow MAN to corrupt His Words, even a little bit?

Since Peter denied Christ three times, does that mean we must reject his letters and the Book of Acts? Since Paul went about killing Christians, and later causing contention within the Church by opposing Peter and others, does that mean we toss out his letters?

Because Moses disobeyed God at the waters of Meribah, do we toss out the Ten Commandments?

Or do we realize there are weaknesses and mistakes and errors, but it still is mostly inspired?

You're Kidding me right? I am utterly Stunned

Now how does Peter, Denying Christ 3x times tells a total Nitwit reader to DENY Christ 3X?

And how does Paul, Killing Christians, tells a complete Dunce, to do the same?

And since Moses committed a mistake, a full Ignramous will follow?

How does ANY of this, evidence of an inconsistancy, Error, contradiction, etc, on the eyes of any reader, both learned and unlearned? Once they have read the Bible for themselves, do you really think People can be that Foolish?

With all due Respect, have you actually read those parts of the Bible? Because if you did, you should have known, Already, that those are the ACCOUNTS of their LIVES. ANY reader, no matter how much of a Zero they are, can understand, that:

1. Jesus told Peter that before the Rooster croos a 3rd time, he will deny Christ 3x
2. Paul persecuted and Killed Christians Before he was... what? SAVED!
3. Paul was opposed by those who Disagreed with him on fundamental Doctrines. Now... how likely is it that a Reader throw out the letters of Paul when reading Paul's words? If it were a different author, telling the reader to deny Paul's writings then he/she would!
4. Moses did not Hold God to reverance when he struck the rock giving an ill-testimony. The Consenquesce FOLLOWs that he was Denied Entry to the Promiseland!

All the reader has to do, is to READ the story, not just open up a bible, select a single verse, and blindly follow it? How many people do you know who would do that and say "Yes, I have read the whole Bible"?

So, which is it: true or false?

My answer is TRUE.
1. The Names of God

[rameumptom]

Galatians,

You totally misunderstood what I wrote. Once again, it is a matter of exegesis (seeking the original meaning), and not eisegesis (imposing your own meaning).

My point with the Bible is that each of these prophets was imperfect, yet we agree that their writings are inspired, at least to a point. If a person does not have to be perfect to be a prophet, then we can expect them and their writings to be imperfect.

However, while you answered true, your statements afterward insisted on false for the answer. You said the prophets do not need to be perfect, but God is still perfect and so the writings must be perfect. Circular arguments to avoid being caught up by a true/false question. You essentially answered "none of the above."

Either the statement was true: something is inspired but not perfect OR
false: something must be perfect to be inspired.

There is no third option, which you tried to achieve by saying true, and then stating otherwise in your comments. So, once again, is it true OR false. "None of the above" or "all of the above" are not answers to the question.

[Galatians220]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Galatians,

You totally misunderstood what I wrote. Once again, it is a matter of exegesis (seeking the original meaning), and not eisegesis (imposing your own meaning).

My point with the Bible is that each of these prophets was imperfect, yet we agree that their writings are inspired, at least to a point. If a person does not have to be perfect to be a prophet, then we can expect them and their writings to be imperfect.

However, while you answered true, your statements afterward insisted on false for the answer. You said the prophets do not need to be perfect, but God is still perfect and so the writings must be perfect. Circular arguments to avoid being caught up by a true/false question. You essentially answered "none of the above."

Either the statement was true: something is inspired but not perfect OR
false: something must be perfect to be inspired.

There is no third option, which you tried to achieve by saying true, and then stating otherwise in your comments. So, once again, is it true OR false. "None of the above" or "all of the above" are not answers to the question.

You're formula in determining the truthfulness of scripture is to add human weakness into it so of course, and naturally, everything has to fit the way you think it is, that humans will eventually inject their bias, their presumptions, and their belief or to make copyist errors along the way because like the message that goes from ear to ear, the end message will be far different than that of the original.

However, you're forgetting the fact that God moved these men in 2 Peter 1, so how can he allow error into his words? To say that the Bible is 90% inspired is to say that God has been negligent 10% of the time:

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. - Psalm 12:6

12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
19 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.
20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? - Proverbs 22:12, 19-21


Are you willing to believe that God lied when He said this? If you're right, He DID Lie, and He DID Fail because God made it absolutely clear that He Keep His words Pure, and that He preserves His words.