- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,127
- Reaction score
- 1,144
- Points
- 113
This is where the X-treme contemporary movement is headed...
- Thread starter Tarheel Baptist
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,127
- Reaction score
- 1,144
- Points
- 113
subllibrm said:
Your point is taken.
The reason for the vague verbiage is to partially mask his point...that the Bible is really a hindrance to our 'mission'.
"The Bible is not the WORD OF GOD. It has no special powers and it is not magic. Sacred scripture means nothing if it is not alive inside the individual. Embodied, fully embraced. This does not mean that we take apart or dissect the bible in such a way that we are able to extrapolate metaphysical truths about the world around us. That is not the intent of the bible. Rather, the intent of the bible is to provide context for who we are as human beings, who god is as God; and how God has acted throughout history. It is a testimony to our lord Jesus Christ".
The Bible wasn't actually given to be used....
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,603
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
Tarheel Baptist said:
I did get that he saw no authority in the scripture (weird that he chose to keep calling scripture though) but wasn't sure how that made his devotion to Christ so much better.
G
graceandtruth
Guest
After reading Eric's blog post I came to the following conclusions:
I don't think Eric has really said anything t all but his use of the rhetorical phrase "the Bible is not the word of God" can result in confusion for some.
- Eric is repeating "The Bible is not the word of God" simply for shock value and to keep people reading.
- His denial of the Bible as the word of God and assertion that Jesus is the only Word of God is an attempt at appearing to be spiritual instead of legalistic.
- His blog amounts to nothing more than Semantics like the Bible not being a revelation but the testimony of a revelation. How would one know of the revelation who does not see it without a testimony of that revelation?
- His use of terms like embody the Scriptures and encounter Christ are nothing more than an attempt to sound non-traditional and still say learn of Christ and obey God.
I don't think Eric has really said anything t all but his use of the rhetorical phrase "the Bible is not the word of God" can result in confusion for some.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,412
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The "X-treme contemporary movement," whatever that is, is moving toward the liberalism of 100 years ago?
The general theme of this argument appears to be that the Bible is not a revelation from God, but a testimony of the experiences of God's people. That heresy is as old as steam.
The general theme of this argument appears to be that the Bible is not a revelation from God, but a testimony of the experiences of God's people. That heresy is as old as steam.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 48
I have heard this man's argument used multiple times as I talk with pseudo religious people when I am out soul winning. The Catholic Church is especially guilty in instilling this view upon its masses.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
16KJV11 said:
134 "All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642).
135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their centre.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfils the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (⇒ Ps 119:105; cf. ⇒ Is 50:4).
(from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
16KJV11 said:
Yes. (A matter I disagree with them on, even while I affirm the importance of tradition.)
[quote author=16KJV11]So, no matter what verse I point to them, tradition trumps it.[/quote]
"on par" ≠ "trumps"
*** This is also a different claim from the one you made previously. ***
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Personally, I think this lecture here pretty much nails it when it comes to the authority of the Bible.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,603
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
rsc2a said:
They say they are equal but when you show a conflict between scripture and tradition they will then say that tradition trumps. That was clear in what he wrote. and matches me experiences with this issue exactly.
Why must you be so busy picking nits all the time?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
subllibrm said:
They aren't arguing about what the Scripture says. They are arguing about what your particular faith tradition understands the Scripture to mean, especially if their faith tradition understands it to mean something else. They aren't discounting Scripture at all because they reject your particular understanding of it.
God doesn't open up someone's brain and pour Scripture into it. There is a process where one must interpret what the particular phrases and words mean. In fact, on a more elementary level, one even has to interpret what those squiggles and lines on the paper represent (letters) and why they are bunched up like they are (words), then what those words mean (which is often debated) before one can ever begin to tackle things like phrases and, ultimately, themes.
This happens to every faith tradition, not just Catholic / Protestant dialogue. Just ask an Arminian and a Calvinist what John 3:16 says, and they will both agree on what it says. What they will disagree on is what it means.
[quote author=subllibrm]Why must you be so busy picking nits all the time?[/quote]
It's not picking nits to point out that someone just made a statement that contradicts itself.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,603
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
rsc2a said:
Ask the catholics that use that line of reasoning.
*********************
"Bob, do you believe scripture is the inerrant word of God?"
"yes"
"But so many of your doctrines are not found in the bible"
"Many of them are based on tradition and are authorized by "whatsoever ye bind on earth"
"So which has authority, Scripture or tradition?"
"They are equal"
"So what about this verse and it's obvious contradiction with your doctrine?"
"In that case the teachings and traditions of the church take precedence"
*************************
Just because you haven't had an experience with this "logic" doesn't mean we didn't.