# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Bible Is Inerrant

## Sola_Fide

> *2 Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.*


Gordon Clark says:



> Does then the Bible claim to be inerrant? The passage before us says that every scripture, distributively every verse, has been breathed out by God. Is that not an assertion of inerrancy? 
> 
> Every verse is also useful for teaching, correction, for refutation of falsehoods, and so on. Would falsehoods be useful for teaching, for instruction in righteousness? The liberals, or semi-liberals who call themselves evangelicals, would be more honest if they simply said, The Bible contains errors, and this is one of them.
> 
> The inerrancy of Scripture, as Quenstedt so carefully detailed it, is of fundamental importance. Nowhere else can we learn of salvation. Nowhere else could we learn of justification by faith alone. Nowhere else is there any information about Jesus Christ. Whatever later Christian authors have written about the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, has its source in Scripture. If the Scripture is in error here and there, it is possible that it is in error here. 
> 
> Then too, from the standpoint of logic, there is a question the new so-called evangelicals are reluctant to answer. It is this: If the Bible contains falsehoods here and there, the theologian must have a criterion to distinguish the parts that are true from the parts that are false: What is the criterion? In a court of law, if the judge and jury detect a witness perjuring himself two or three times, or even once, they cannot accept any of the remainder of his testimony. If some things he says happen to be true, they must be proved by other witnesses. Therefore attacks on the evangelical position are obliged to state the criterion they use in separating the truths of the Bible from its falsehoods. 
> 
> What is this criterion by which, from its superior position, it convicts the Scripture of error? Are the Assyrian inscriptions infallible in matters of history? Is Swedenborg an inerrant authority on Heaven and Hell? Bultmann at least had the consistency to say, We do not know a single thing Jesus ever said or did.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Age of Reason*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology_ is a pamphlet, written by a British and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that challenges institutionalized religion and the legitimacy of the Bible, the central text of Christianity. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in the United States, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French Revolution, received it with more hostility. _The Age of Reason_ presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine saw as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for the existence of a creator-God.
> 
> Most of Paine's arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to a mass audience. The book was also inexpensive, putting it within the reach of a large number of buyers. Fearing the spread of what they viewed as potentially revolutionary ideas, the British government prosecuted printers and booksellers who tried to publish and distribute it. Nevertheless, Paine's work inspired and guided many freethinkers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

----------


## jmdrake

The problem isn't the Bible but rather your interpretation of it.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Quoting Gordon Clark: It is this: If the Bible contains falsehoods here and there, the theologian must have a criterion to distinguish the parts that are true from the parts that are false: What is the criterion?


Well, one criterion might be simple observation.  Bats aren't birds (cf. Leviticus 11:13, 19).  Rabbits don't chew cud (cf. Leviticus 11:5-6).  Insects don't have four legs (cf. Leviticus 11:21-22).  The earth isn't flat (cf. Matthew 4:8).  

Or maybe basic logic.  It is logically impossible for Titus 1:12-13 to be true, because it is simply a version of the Liar Paradox.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, one criterion might be simple observation.  Bats aren't birds (cf. Leviticus 11:13, 19).  Rabbits don't chew cud (cf. Leviticus 11:5-6).  Insects don't have four legs (cf. Leviticus 11:21-22).  The earth isn't flat (cf. Matthew 4:8).  
> 
> Or maybe basic logic.  It is logically impossible for Titus 1:12-13 to be true, because it is simply a version of the Liar Paradox.


Some of what you're talking about is the definitions of words here. The definitions of words can never be right or wrong. They are what they are. People posit them, and agree on them by usage, they don't discover them.

If the ancient Hebrews in their own communication with one another used a word for flying creatures that include both of what we in English today call birds and what we call bats, how is that factually wrong? So what? They categorized things differently than you do. If they used an expression that, taken word-for-word, could be translated "four footed creature" and applied that expression to things with 6 feet, that's not a factual inaccuracy. It's just the way that expression came to be used in their language. It's not like we're talking about people who couldn't count how many legs ants had. Likewise with rabbits. Modern taxonomy might categorize certain animals as cud chewers using a definition that excludes rabbits. But the language Leviticus was written in wasn't using the same categories. Every time we translate from one language to another, we face the problem that the word in the original language has a certain range of meaning, and the word we translate it into also has a certain range of meaning. And these ranges of meaning can overlap, but almost never overlap completely in every case. Because of the kind of digestive motions that rabbits make, the ancient Hebrews included them in the category that our English versions render "cud chewer," even though our modern use of that category in our own language doesn't include them.

Matthew 4:8 doesn't say the world is flat. And it's not as if you have to have the knowledge of a moderner to know that what that verse is describing cannot be explained simply by a belief that someone on a high mountain could see the whole world. Ancients climbed mountains. They knew that you couldn't physically see every kingdom of the world from one. They would have read that verse the same way modern readers do that Satan's showing of these kingdoms to Jesus wasn't by mere physical observation.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because of the kind of digestive motions that rabbits make, the ancient Hebrews included them in the category that our English versions render "cud chewer," even though our modern use of that category in our own language doesn't include them.


Not only that, but rabbits actually do re-digest their food.  But rather than regurgitating and eating it, they eat their poop.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The problem isn't the Bible but rather your interpretation of it.


No, the problem is Ellen G. White's additions to it which you take as authoritative.   Why do you take Ellen G. White as authoritative?   Why her?

----------


## jmdrake

> No, the problem is Ellen G. White's additions to it which you take as authoritative.   Why do you take Ellen G. White as authoritative?   Why her?


Ah.  I see you are back to your cowardice again.  I answered you in the other thread and you didn't respond.  Why?  Why?  Why?

Also you are the one going around saying Joshua 24:20 says *when* and not *if* when *almost every interpretation uses "if" and not "when"*  Why are you so dishonest?  Why?  Why? Why?

Why do you deny the teachings of Paul, Peter, Joel, John and Moses that the Spirit of Prophecy is an ongoing gift that God grants to His people throughout time and not something that ended when the last apostle died?  Why?  Why?  Why?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or maybe basic logic.  It is logically impossible for Titus 1:12-13 to be true, because it is simply a version of the Liar Paradox.


No.




> The first step in understanding this alleged contradiction is to realize that Epimenides was a poet. Poets, playwrights, and other writers sometimes use a literary technique known as hyperbole, which is a deliberate exaggeration used to make a point. To say that Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, is to say that the Cretan society as a whole was immoral and decadent, not necessarily that every single individual in that society was a liar, evil beast, or lazy glutton. When viewed in the light of hyperbole, there is no logical paradox found in Titus 1:12. Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders. Paul was not affirming a contradiction, but following a common literary convention. Once again, our Bible shines through as an inerrant book that allowed the authors writing styles to remain intact while maintaining the integrity of the inspired Word.


This is all you've got Sonny?  Jesus and Paul used logic repeatedly in the New Testament, in formal arrangements at times.

Pauls use of logic:




> Perhaps the most famous example of Pauls use of deductive reasoning, in an ad hominem argument is, of course, 1 Corinthians 15:
> 
> _"Now if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he did not raise up-if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."_
> 
> In this brilliant passage Paul deduces several consequences from his opponents view that there is no resurrection. He is trying to make them see the logical implications of their view, and thus to persuade them that their view is false. Here are the implications he draws from the proposition that there is no resurrection:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Christ is not risen.
> ...



Jesus' use of logic:




> This is an example of Christs using deductive reasoning. He does not use inductive reasoning, for inductive reasoning, unless the induction can be completed, which is quite rare, is always fallacious, and the*Logos*does not argue fallaciously.
> 
> An example of deduction may be found in John 8:47: He who is of God hears Gods words; therefore, you do not hear, because you are not of God. In categorical form the argument appears thus:
> 
> -Only those of God hear Gods words.
> 
> -You are not of God.
> 
> -Therefore, you are not hearers of Gods words.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you deny the teachings of Paul, Peter, Joel, John and Moses that the Spirit of Prophecy is an ongoing gift that God grants to His people throughout time and not something that ended when the last apostle died?  Why?  Why?  Why?


I understand you have that belief (which is not Biblical...Hebrews 1:1) but you've never answered WHY ELLEN G. WHITE?

Let's take your premise that God still inspires prophets today with the same degree and quality that He did the apostles.   Why HER?  Why do you believe Ellen G. White to be inspired?

THAT is a question you have no answer for, and when you do answer it, I will show you something that will destroy your faith in her.

----------


## jmdrake

> I understand you have that belief (which is not Biblical...Hebrews 1:1)


You are really stupid, you know that?

_
Hebrews 1:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,_

The book of Hebrews was most likely written before the book of Revelation.  So if you believe that Hebrews 1:1 means that God spoke through prophets *only* in times past, then you must reject the book of Revelation because it is a prophetic book.




> but you've never answered WHY ELLEN G. WHITE?


It's funny.  You have never addressed the actually prophecy I cited regarding towers falling to dust in New York.  Instead you cut and paste from an obvious hit job site.  If you think that proves anything...well you think Hebrews 1:1 proves that John the Revelator was not a prophet and was just doing drugs on the isle of Patmos so I guess you will believe anything.  I've seen her be right on too much to buy into the crap some idiot puts up on the internet.  And I've seen you take her out of context so much *only to be later proven WRONG by ME* and then see you slink away like a coward to pay any attention to anything you put up regarding her, the Bible or anything else.  Now, if you want to quit being a coward and actually engage when I respond to you then we can have a conversation.  Otherwise I will just follow the advice of Jesus.

_Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you._

----------


## jmdrake

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all you've got Sonny?  Jesus and Paul used logic repeatedly in the New Testament, in formal arrangements at times.
> 
> Pauls use of logic:
> 
> 
> ...


Sola_Fide's use of logic.  All means all except for when SF says it doesn't.  Joshua 24:19 says "when" and not "if" because SF will version shop until he finds one that uses the word he wants.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are really stupid, you know that?
> 
> _
> Hebrews 1:1
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,_
> 
> ...


Was somewhere in this post supposed to be an answer to the question "Why Ellen G. White?"  Because if there is, I didn't see it.

Being a follower of Ellen G. White, shouldn't this be an easy question to answer?

----------


## jmdrake

> Was somewhere in this post supposed to be an answer to the question "Why Ellen G. White?"  Because if there is, I didn't see it.


You are willfully blind.  You cannot see.  I clearly pointed out to you *yet again* what I consider to be a prophecy by her that came true.  That's but one example but it still is an example.  You have yet to actually address the prophecy.  You keep copying/pasting crap information for a hit site (people do that to Ron Paul too) as if that was proof of something.  It isn't.




> Being a follower of Ellen G. White, shouldn't this be an easy question to answer?


I'm not a follower of EGW or Paul or Peter or John.  I am a follower of Jesus.  Paul rejects the idea that you cling to so desperately that his teachings should be elevated above the rest of scripture and that scripture should be reinterpreted according to *your* understanding of his writings.  That you would version shop so that you could "prove" that "when" was used in Joshua 24:19 instead of "if" just shows how down the personal rabbit hole you've fallen.  I pray you will get out someday.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Some of what you're talking about is the definitions of words here. The definitions of words can never be right or wrong. They are what they are. People posit them, and agree on them by usage, they don't discover them.
> 
> If the ancient Hebrews in their own communication with one another used a word for flying creatures that include both of what we in English today call birds and what we call bats, how is that factually wrong? So what? They categorized things differently than you do. If they used an expression that, taken word-for-word, could be translated "four footed creature" and applied that expression to things with 6 feet, that's not a factual inaccuracy. It's just the way that expression came to be used in their language.


You sound as if the Bible is the word or mortal, fallible men, instead of the Word of God.

----------


## jmdrake

> You sound as if the Bible is the word or mortal, fallible men, instead of the Word of God.


Do you understand his point that the Hebrew word for "flying thing" has been translated to "bird"?  No.  I guess not.  People who believe in the Bible do not believe that God gave Moses a biological taxonomy lesson that he then was expected to pass on to a group of mostly illiterate ex-slaves.  Imagine the conversation.  

Hebrew: "Hey, I caught a flying thing.  Can I eat it?"
Moses: "No."
Hebrew: "Well it flies and it's not an eagle, vulture, osprey etc.  Why can't I eat it?"
Moses: "Because the flying thing you are talking about isn't even a bird.  It's a mammal."
Hebrew: "What's a mammal?"
Moses: "A creature that has fur and feeds its young milk."
Hebrew: "Okay.  So can I milk it?"

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Epimenides had made a hyperbolic statement regarding the conduct of the people of Crete, and Paul was agreeing with him in order to point out to Titus the difficulty facing the Cretan elders. Paul was not affirming a contradiction, but following a common literary convention.


Had he omitted the word "always", I might agree.  But he didn't, and the statement is still false, contrary to Paul's claim to the contrary.

But let's assume you're correct and that there are indeed hyberboles in Scripture.  How do we recognize them?  Did Adam really live over 900 years?  Did Noah really load all the creatures in the Ark in one day?  Was the universe created in just 7 days?  Did God really speak to Moses?  Or are these merely hyperbolic devices of the authors?

Incidentally, the analysis of John 8:47 is fallacious.  Christ's first statement, "He who is of God hears God’s words" is not equivalent to "Only those who are of God hear God's words".  It's like claiming "He who owns a Chevy owns a car" is the same thing as "Only those who own a Chevy own a car."  The conclusion that "You do not hear because you are not of God" doesn't follow at all from the initial premise, any more that one could conclude "You do not own a car because you don't own a Chevy".

Deductive reasoning is great, but it doesn't say anything about the truth of the premises it operates on.

----------


## moostraks

> Do you understand his point that the Hebrew word for "flying thing" has been translated to "bird"?  No.  I guess not.  People who believe in the Bible do not believe that God gave Moses a biological taxonomy lesson that he then was expected to pass on to a group of mostly illiterate ex-slaves.  Imagine the conversation.  
> 
> Hebrew: "Hey, I caught a flying thing.  Can I eat it?"
> Moses: "No."
> Hebrew: "Well it flies and it's not an eagle, vulture, osprey etc.  Why can't I eat it?"
> Moses: "Because the flying thing you are talking about isn't even a bird.  It's a mammal."
> Hebrew: "What's a mammal?"
> Moses: "A creature that has fur and feeds its young milk."
> Hebrew: "Okay.  So can I milk it?"


Enjoyed your sample conversation very much. Lol!

----------


## erowe1

> You sound as if the Bible is the word or mortal, fallible men, instead of the Word of God.


It's both.

My point is that your objection to inerrancy is not valid. None of your so-called errors are errors. Your response to me indicates that you realize that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are willfully blind.  You cannot see.  I clearly pointed out to you *yet again* what I consider to be a prophecy by her that came true.  That's but one example but it still is an example.  You have yet to actually address the prophecy.  You keep copying/pasting crap information for a hit site (people do that to Ron Paul too) as if that was proof of something.  It isn't.


Ah, so you don't know the Biblical test of a prophet?  Shouldn't you know what the Biblical test of a prophet is since you claim to follow one?  Here is the test:




> *Dueteronomy 18:21-22 
> 
> You may say to yourselves, How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?  If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.*


Any "prophet" can get lucky and predict something in the future by chance. But the Bible places a MUCH more stringent test than just getting something right.  The Bible say, if the prophet's predictions come to pass, then keep on eye on him, *but if the prophet ever fails, even once, then ignore him. He is not a true prophet.* 

Anyone can make a lucky guess but only God can get the future right every single time. This is what differentiates God's prophets from all the other false prophets in the world. This is what sets them apart. This is how we can identify a true prophet of God. God's prophets are *never* wrong about a prediction.

Do you believe Ellen G. White was never wrong about a prediction?  I'll wait for your answer.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ah, so you don't know the Biblical test of a prophet?  Shouldn't you know what the Biblical test of a prophet is since you claim to follow one?  Here is the test:


I'm familiar with the test.  She passes your "hate" site, that I'm not even bothering to click on, notwithstanding.  It's more crap taken out of context.  I'm not joining you in some stupid wild goose chase.  In the past every time when you have brought up a specific objection to Ellen White I have proven *you* to be the fraud and the coward.  You slink away with your tail between your legs and then come back and pretend like nothing happened.  Care to explain to everyone why you foolishly believe God "excuses" sin?  No.  You don't.  You are a coward.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm familiar with the test.  She passes your "hate" site, that I'm not even bothering to click on, notwithstanding.  It's more crap taken out of context.  I'm not joining you in some stupid wild goose chase.  In the past every time when you have brought up a specific objection to Ellen White I have proven *you* to be the fraud and the coward.  You slink away with your tail between your legs and then come back and pretend like nothing happened.  Care to explain to everyone why you foolishly believe God "excuses" sin?  No.  You don't.  You are a coward.


So you are saying she passes the test?  She was never wrong about a prediction?

----------


## PierzStyx

> You are really stupid, you know that?
> 
> _
> Hebrews 1:1
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,_
> 
> ...


ON the subject of John the Revelator being a prophet we have the word of the angel who delivered John's revelation. When John was tempted to worship this angel the angel forbade John saying:

"Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and *of thy brethren the prophets*, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." Rev. 22:9 KJV

The NIV even makes John's prophethood (for how could be a brethren of the prophets without being one?) even more obvious:

"But he said to me, "Don't do that! I am a fellow servant with you *and with your fellow prophets* and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!"

The Bible clearly testifies of John's call to prophethood and subsequently prophets after the Incarnation.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Ah, so you don't know the Biblical test of a prophet?  Shouldn't you know what the Biblical test of a prophet is since you claim to follow one?  Here is the test:
> 
> Dueteronomy 18:21-22
> 
> You may say to yourselves, How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. *That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.*
> 
> Any "prophet" can get lucky and predict something in the future by chance. But the Bible places a MUCH more stringent test than just getting something right.  The Bible say, if the prophet's predictions come to pass, then keep on eye on him, but if the prophet ever fails, even once, then ignore him. He is not a true prophet.
> 
> Anyone can make a lucky guess but only God can get the future right every single time. This is what differentiates God's prophets from all the other false prophets in the world. This is what sets them apart. This is how we can identify a true prophet of God. God's prophets are never wrong about a prediction.
> ...



Actually that verse says that a prophet can speak presumptuously (def: belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence) and be wrong and still be a prophet. It was just that prophet spoke not with God's wisdom, but with his own trying to predict facts based on what he already knew. But it doesn't say that person ceases to be a prophet if they are wrong. And this makes sense. Prophets are God's mouthpieces but they are far from perfect people. They are as fallible just like the rest of us. It is only when speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost that they speak God's word. That verse even goes far as to affirm that the prophet who spoke presumptuously is *still a prophet even when wrong.*  It overthrows your entire point and yet you still continue on as if it did. The inconsistency is glaring between what you're saying and God's word.

----------


## erowe1

> Prophets are God's mouthpieces


But only those who really are his mouthpieces are. And this does not include those who speak presumptuously. It only includes those whose predictions are never wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are really stupid, you know that?
> 
> The book of Hebrews was most likely written before the book of Revelation.  So if you believe that Hebrews 1:1 means that God spoke through prophets *only* in times past, then you must reject the book of Revelation because it is a prophetic book.


No, I don't think I'm stupid, but I know that you don't know the Scriptures and you don't know what Christianity is.

Luke 16:16 says that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist.  After that, there can't be prophets that add to Scripture.




> *Luke 16:16 
> 
> "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.*


In Hebrews 1:1-2, it says:



> *"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in  His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world,".*


Prophets pointed ahead to Jesus.  Apostles pointed back to Jesus.  But, now God speaks to us through His Son, the Logos, the Word.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I don't think I'm stupid, but I know that you don't know the Scriptures and you don't know what Christianity is.


I know you aren't a Christian so I know what Christianity isn't.




> Luke 16:16 says that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist.  After that, there can't be prophets that add to Scripture.


So you don't believe Revelation contains any prophecy.  Jesus wasn't a prophet either.  Okay.  




> In Hebrews 1:1-2, it says:
> 
> 
> Prophets pointed ahead to Jesus.  Apostles pointed back to Jesus.  But, now God speaks to us through His Son, the Logos, the Word.


_Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
_

John is a liar according to you.

_1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy._ 

Paul is a liar according to you.

Sorry but I will take the clear word of scripture over the interpretation of someone like you who cannot make up his mind about the meaning of the word "all" and goes around version shopping to get around the fact that Joshua used "if" in Joshua 24:19.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you are saying she passes the test?  She was never wrong about a prediction?


Was Jonah a prophet?  She passes the test.  You pass the test for a false prophet.

----------


## jmdrake

> But only those who really are his mouthpieces are. And this does not include those who speak presumptuously. It only includes those whose predictions are never wrong.


Uh huh.  Like Jonah.  

_Jonah 3:4 ASV
American Standard Version
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown._

Oh...nevermind.  And yes, Nineveh was eventually cast down.  But wasn't in 40 days, even using the "day for a year" approach.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know you aren't a Christian so I know what Christianity isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe Revelation contains any prophecy.  Jesus wasn't a prophet either.  Okay.  
> 
> 
> 
> _Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
> ...


The apostles were given a spirit of prophecy because they were witnesses of the resurrection, they were the foundation of the early church, they were hand-selected by Jesus Himself, and no one has the miracle working power they did.  There are no more prophets (Luke 16:16) and there are no more apostles:



> *1)* There are no apostles today because the apostles served as a foundation for the early church only. We should not expect to see apostles today any more than we should expect to see someone laying a building’s foundation on the fourth floor.
> 
> *2)* There are no apostles today because they had to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. The apostles were to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ. To do this they had to have seen him after he rose from the dead. Paul says that he was the last person to see Jesus. Since no one since Paul has seen Jesus, no one since Paul can be an apostle.
> 
> *3)* There are no apostles today because apostles had to be hand-picked by Jesus. Since Jesus isn’t appearing to anyone today, he isn’t hand-picking anyone, either.
> 
> *4)* There are no apostles today because no one today has the miracle-working power of an apostle. Apostles were able to heal any physical condition. No case was to difficult. These healings often involved the miraculous recreation of body parts, and even the resurrection of the dead. No one is manifesting this type of miracle-working power today.
> 
> The Bible warns us not to be deceived by false prophets and false apostles (2 Corinthians 11: 1-15). Since there are neither today, any church that claims that they have apostles and that they are lead by a prophet, are deceived.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Was Jonah a prophet?  She passes the test.  You pass the test for a false prophet.



Was Ellen G. White *never* wrong about a prediction?

YES or NO?

(Shouldn't this be an easy question to answer for a Seventh Day Adventist?)

----------


## jmdrake

> The apostles were given a spirit of prophecy because they were witnesses of the resurrection, they were the foundation of the early church, they were hand-selected by Jesus Himself, and no one has the miracle working power they did.  There are no more prophets (Luke 16:16) and there are no more apostles:


Sola_Fide, I just caught you in another lie in the other thread.  You claimed that Ellen White taught the Jesus excused sin when earlier you attacked her for saying that Jesus did not excuse sin (her actual teaching) and you claimed that Jesus did excuse sin.  You clearly have no shred of decency or credibility left.  And you are flat out wrong to say there were no more prophets when Paul distinctly said there would be a continual gift of prophecy.  Being the dishonest person you are, you will not even address what Paul had to say.  You've been following, almost worshiping Paul, saying that what he says the gospel is even trumps what Jesus says, and now you are going to throw out Paul for your own interpretation of scripture.  Get over yourself already.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> .  And you are flat out wrong to say there were no more prophets when Paul distinctly said there would be a continual gift of prophecy.


Where does he say that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Was Ellen G. White *never* wrong about a prediction?
> 
> YES or NO?
> 
> (Shouldn't this be an easy question to answer for a Seventh Day Adventist?)




Jmdrake?  Shouldn't you be able to easily answer this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know you aren't a Christian so I know what Christianity isn't.


Wait, isn't this that "judgment" thing you always get on us for?

Intolerant of intolerance?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake?  Shouldn't you be able to easily answer this?


Sola_Fide, was Jonah "wrong" in his prediction about Ninevah?  That should be an easy question for you to answer as a Christian right?  Anyway, I'm praying for you.  I hope God will deliver your from bitterness and self-righteousness and your accusatory spirit.  I'm glad I was able to help you see that God does not excuse sin.  That you would think that bothered me far more than your opinion of Ellen White or me or the Seventh Day Adventist church.  Jesus doesn't excuse sin.  He atoned for it.  And He continuously intercedes on our behalf based on that atonement.  I believe He intercedes on behalf of those who have freely accepted repentance and exercise their faith.  You believe....well I'm not sure.  I started to say you believe He intercedes based on predestination, but I don't know if you actually believe Jesus continuously intercedes on our behalf.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait, isn't this that "judgment" thing you always get on us for?
> 
> Intolerant of intolerance?


Sure.  I shouldn't have said that.  I really feel sorry for Sola_Fide at this point more than anything else.  Praying for him....and you.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

The Bible in inerrant, according to itself.  But, then, what isn't?

----------


## erowe1

> The Bible in inerrant, according to itself.  But, then, what isn't?


I'm not.

Once I thought I was wrong about something. But that turned out to be a mistake. I was right after all.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not.
> 
> Once I thought I was wrong about something. But that turned out to be a mistake. I was right after all.


Good one!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sure.  I shouldn't have said that.  I really feel sorry for Sola_Fide at this point more than anything else.  Praying for him....and you.


Thank you for your prayers





> I'm not.
> 
> Once I thought I was wrong about something. But that turned out to be a mistake. I was right after all.


LOL!

I'm not infallible either.  And I've gotten things wrong that had nothing to  do with me thinking I was wrong.

When I first started posting here, I accepted at least two of the points of Arminianism.  I was wrong.

I once verbally questioned the accuracy of 1 Peter 2.  I was wrong.

I used to be a minarchist (And before that, a conservative).  I was wrong.

I'm still probably wrong about something, but if I knew what it was, I wouldn't still be wrong about it

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus doesn't excuse sin.  He atoned for it.  And He continuously intercedes on our behalf based on that atonement.


That's not what Ellen G. White said.  She didn't say Jesus is interceding based on His atonement.  She said:




> Jesus does not excuse their sins, *but shows their penitence and faith,* and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying, I know them by name. . . . Their names stand enrolled in the book of life, and concerning them it is written, They shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.*


Ellen G. White said Jesus is interceding based on YOUR REPENTANCE AND FAITH, not His blood atonement. 

Don't you see how this is a diabolical way to bring works into the gospel of grace?

----------


## Terry1

> That's not what Ellen G. White said.  She didn't say Jesus is interceding based on His atonement.  She said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellen G. White said Jesus is interceding based on YOUR REPENTANCE AND FAITH, not His blood atonement. 
> 
> Don't you see how this is a diabolical way to bring works into the gospel of grace?


The irony of how you call other's beliefs "diabolical", "satanic" and "unchristian" when you/yourself believe in the "faith in faith and positive confession" doctrine.  The sword of truth cuts both way brother.

In fact, within the continuum of the will of God, I'd say that those who might do an added work in their belief are closer to being a true Christian than a believer who believes in doing nothing at all because they believe their confession of belief alone does it all when actually it does nothing, hence their faith is completely dead and grace no effect.

----------


## erowe1

> you/yourself believe in the "faith in faith and positive confession" doctrine.


Can you quote where he says he believes in that?

Also, could you cite a source that describes that doctrine and shows it's actually a thing?

----------


## Terry1

> Can you quote where he says he believes in that?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide




> Also, could you cite a source that describes that doctrine and shows it's actually a thing?


http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p/p23.html

John Robbins is a Presbyterian, but the same teachings are amongst the Lutherans as "reform theology" as in  the faith in faith doctrines.  While Robbins I know is a great Ron Paul supporter and has accomplished much in his life and career, his teaching regarding grace and faith are as flawed as both the Presbyterian and Lutheran reformed doctrines.

----------


## erowe1

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p/p23.html
> 
> John Robbins is a Presbyterian, but the same teachings are amongst the Lutherans as "reform theology" as in  the faith in faith doctrines.  While Robbins I know is a great Ron Paul supporter and has accomplished much in his life and career, his teaching regarding grace and faith are as flawed as both the Presbyterian and Lutheran reformed doctrines.


That second link is talking about something totally different than what you said. I'm positive that SF has never advocated the Word Faith movement here.

The top link is just about the doctrine of faith alone. That's also totally different than what you said. There's no "faith in faith" doctrine in Lutheranism or Reformed theology as far as I know. I think you might be mixing different things together. Those theologies and the Word Faith movement are two totally different, and practically mutually exclusive, things.

Could you also quote SF saying that he advocates some kind of "faith in faith" doctrine?

----------


## Terry1

> That second link is talking about something totally different than what you said. I'm positive that SF has never advocated the Word Faith movement here.
> 
> The top link is just about the doctrine of faith alone. That's also totally different than what you said. There's no "faith in faith" doctrine in Lutheranism or Reformed theology as far as I know.
> 
> Could you also quote SF saying that he advocates that?


 Almost all of the major denominational reformed doctrines hold a close relationship with each other regarding their collective belief that people are once justified always glorified as in Presbyterians, Lutherans, predestination/chosen Calvinists, OSAS Baptists.  All of these doctrines are in the "predestination camp" of believers who hold the belief that one can never lose their salvation once a confession or statement of belief is made.

----------


## erowe1

> Almost all of the major denominational reformed doctrines hold a close relationship with each other regarding their collective belief that people are once justified always glorified as in Presbyterians, Lutherans, predestination/chosen Calvinists, OSAS Baptists.  All of these doctrines are in the "predestination camp" of believers who hold the belief that one can never lose their salvation once a confession or statement of belief is made.


Most of that's true. But the true parts have nothing to do with faith in faith. It's your last sentence that is wrong. None of these theologies say that a person can be saved by an empty confession without actual saving faith. There are many people (probably most people) who make confessions of faith in Christ who will not be glorified, and the denominations you mentioned all agree on that.

The doctrine that all people who have ever been justified will be glorified without fail is an explicit teaching of the Bible in Romans 5 and 8.

----------


## Terry1

> Most of that's true. But the true parts have nothing to do with faith in faith. It's your last sentence that is wrong. None of these theologies say that a person can be saved by an empty confession without actual saving faith. There are many people (probably most people) who make confessions of faith in Christ who will not be glorified, and the denominations you mentioned all agree on that.
> 
> The doctrine that all people who have ever been justified will be glorified without fail is an explicit teaching of the Bible in Romans 5 and 8.


The "faith in faith" doctrines are all part of what's being called today as the New Age "Faith Movement".  

I deleted that video, because after listening further into it, it's missing the mark too IMO.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not what Ellen G. White said.  She didn't say Jesus is interceding based on His atonement.  She said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellen G. White said Jesus is interceding based on YOUR REPENTANCE AND FAITH, not His blood atonement. 
> 
> Don't you see how this is a diabolical way to bring works into the gospel of grace?


Hello SF. I know that you are so stuck in the self destructive practice of trying to say what others believe that you trouble articulating what you do believe. That's why one day you'll say "God excuses sin and no Christian would believe that He doesn't" then the next day you'll say "God doesn't excuse sin and no Christian would believe that He does." So, I will not argue with you about what I believe. You clearly don't know that. I'm asking you what do you believe. I gave you a direct quote. Do you agree with that quote? It's a simple yes or no question. I will post the quote again and keep asking you this same question until you give a simple yes or no. Is this what you believe?

_The Action of Faith


Jesus provided the righteousness that God requires, but we are still obligated to agree with God in order to be justified. Christ’s obedience to the law will not help you unless you agree to the transaction. How does that come about? It comes about through (not because of) faith. Faith is assent to the solution that God has provided in Christ Jesus.


When we come before God in repentance, we say, “Lord, I have not kept your holy law. I have not done what your holiness requires. You have done it for me in Jesus Christ. Mine are Jesus’ birth, his sinless life, his death, resurrection and ascension.” That is the language of faith. Faith accepts the utter sinfulness of self and the utter righteousness of God in Jesus Christ. The righteousness of God, therefore, is my righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Sometimes charismatics ask, “Brother, have you made the exciting discovery of the Spirit-filled life?” The tragedy is that, when thus confronted, many Christians feel spiritually nude and embarrassed. The only answer of a man or woman of faith is, “Yes, what a life! I was born perfectly, I have lived commensurately with the holiness of God himself in my Substitute, Jesus Christ.” When we boast about that Spirit-filled life of Christ (which is ours by faith alone), it makes every other so-called Spirit-filled life look insignificant and sinful by comparison. We have not outbragged the charismatics, who boast of their own lives, by boasting about the life of Christ.


The righteousness of God, which is mine, through faith, is in Jesus Christ. It not a quality in my heart. This is the emphasis of Romans 3:21-26-”in Christ Jesus.” This righteousness is found alone in Jesus at God’s right hand. Paul tells the Colossians:


If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the Earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:1-4).

So don’t set your affection on the wrong life. Your life of sanctification, which of necessity follows justification, is a shadow of the Christian’s true life at God’s right hand. Our life is hid with Christ in God._

Please answer yes or no. If you answer no, then please cut and paste the part of your original post in the other thread that you actually agree with. Thanks.  Also please explain why you don't believe the part that I posted.

----------


## Terry1

What most should understand is that many Christians today are missing the mark in their understanding of the word of God because they're simply not plugged into it spiritually in prayer and seeking.  Many Christians are allowing themselves to be led by others calling themselves "spiritual leaders" who have no business making any such claim at all.  In fact a true spiritual leader does not boast or attempt to profit from their message other than to win souls for Christ.  Some might believe that they've been inspired by God to write books, televise their message or broadcast that on the radio and while some may indeed be on the mark---they are far and few between those that are not.

Some of these television ministries IMO, are more of the devil than they are of God.  God's message to the sheep are to remain as sheep while on the milk of the word and those touting themselves as "pastors or spiritual leaders", better have their spiritual ducks in a row or else God will hold their feet to the fire with regard to "leading His sheep astray".  God has a special judgment set aside just for these people who do this.  In fact, I would be frightened to death to even make the claim of being a "spiritual leader" regarding Gods judgment for those leaders who are teaching a false message and leading people astray.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 

Matthew 24:24
24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 


2 Corinthians 11:13-15

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.  15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.


2 Timothy 4:2-4

  3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.  5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only possible way to be sure of the truth is through one's own personal relationship with Christ through prayer, seeking, study of the word with a burning desire to know and understand the truth.  This is the only way to be kept from the deception of false teaching and doctrines.  

This is why and the very reason I can not and do not associate myself with the Christian denominations today.  At the same time, I am aware that there are true Christians and children of God amongst many of them as I have seen myself.  I know in my spirit that I've been separated unto God Himself and this is where I feel safe.  This is where all Christians should reside in their personal walk with the Lord is through their own prayer and seeking that will lead them into truth as God allows in their lives.

At some point in the life of every believer they are held accountable for their deeds and actions in this life and what they chose to believe and in whom.  It's vital to have that personal relationship with Christ to know and understand what God has called us to do in our lives as individuals and our calling as a member of the body of Christ.  It is the only way, by the power of Gods grace and through our faith in Him that enables us to do the "work of faith" required in every believer.

----------


## erowe1

> The "faith in faith" doctrines are all part of what's being called today as the New Age "Faith Movement".


But that's totally different from the major Protestant denominations you listed, and also totally different from anything I've ever seen SF post.

I absolutely agree that the Word Faith Movement is a terrible thing.

----------


## Terry1

> But that's totally different from the major Protestant denominations you listed, and also totally different from anything I've ever seen SF post.
> 
> I absolutely agree that the Word Faith Movement is a terrible thing.


Any manmade doctrine teaching that anyone is "once justified by confession and then "glorified" for the rest of their lives because of that same confession is a false teaching not consistent with the word of God.  No one is "once saved always saved" and no one is "chosen by birth" and no one is "predestined just because God foreknew them".  Grace alone and by itself does not save.  Faith alone and by itself does not save.  Only by the power of Gods grace and through our faith in Him is anyone saved.  And this same state of salvation can be lost if one does not continually abide in Christ walking in the fear of the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

The same as Grace and faith must work together and in harmony to bring about the state of elect in a believer, so does the free will and predestination work in harmony together to bring about the same state of salvation.  Because we're able to choose which master we will follow at any point in a believers life, Paul, John, James all tell us that it's possible to fall from grace having lost faith.  Losing faith is ignoring the Holy Spirit.  When we ignore what the Spirit is telling us, then we can't produce what is then called "fruits of the Spirit".  A branch that bears no fruit is the "cut off and burned" as if it never were according to John 15:1.  This also confirms what Paul says having the ability to fall from grace.  One must be a branch in the true Vine to be "cut off" and one must be within grace to fall from it.  No one can lose what they never had, so everything applies to believers--not unbelievers because obviously, they are not part of the true Vine and they are not within that element of saving grace.  So unbelievers are not the ones being addressed in these scriptures.  It is the "elect" that they "might obtain" that same salvation as Paul repeats and confirms throughout his epistles, while John, James and Hebrews all reconfirm that very same message.

----------


## erowe1

> Any manmade doctrine teaching that anyone is "once justified by confession and then "glorified" for the rest of their lives because of that same confession is a false teaching not consistent with the word of God.


Can you provide a quote of SF, or anyone else here, or any Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Reformed person saying they believe that?

I've never encountered that teaching before.

----------


## Terry1

> But that's totally different from the major Protestant denominations you listed, and also totally different from anything I've ever seen SF post.
> 
> I absolutely agree that the Word Faith Movement is a terrible thing.


Sola claims that "a work of faith" is a dead works doctrine.  He made this claim more than once too.  Anyone who denies Gods word teaching us to "perform a work of faith" believing that to be a dead work of the old Mosaic law is clearly wrong.  Without a work of faith, one has no fruit of the Spirit who are then cut off from the true Vine for that very reason.  He believes that "once justified is glorified forever", that's wrong also.  There's no such teaching in the word of God, even though Sola has attempted to redefine clear meanings to match that false teaching.

----------


## erowe1

> Sola claims that "a work of faith" is a dead works doctrine.  He made this claim more than once too.  Anyone who denies Gods word teaching us to "perform a work of faith" believing that to be a dead work of the old Mosaic law is clearly wrong.  Without a work of faith, one has no fruit of the Spirit who are then cut off from the true Vine for that very reason.


You keep switching between different things.

I don't see what any of this has to do with what you said before about anybody who just makes a confession of faith being saved.




> He believes that "once justified is glorified forever", that's wrong also.


Now that's totally different. Once justified always glorified is definitely clearly taught in Scripture.
Romans 8:30



> 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


That's not just a phrase taken out of context. It is the entire point of Romans chapter 8.

There are definitely passages where the Bible talks about people who merely made confessions of faith, without actually being saved, who will end up being punished for their sins. But there aren't any at all that say that someone who was actually justified, in the sense that Paul uses that word, will.

----------


## Terry1

> You keep switching between different things.
> 
> I don't see what any of this has to do with what you said before about anybody who just makes a confession of faith being saved.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's totally different. Once justified always glorified is definitely clearly taught in Scripture.
> Romans 8:30
> 
> ...


No, it's the "the entire point of Romans" because if it meant what Sola and you believe it means would be in direct contradiction to the rest of Paul's teaching on "works of faith", "falling from grace", "the circumcision of the heart", "repentance of the believer" and more to confirm that the state of being elect is only as long as the believer retains faith through their works of faith that bear the fruit of the Spirit.  Sola denies this.  

Why dont' you allow Sola to speak for himself from this point on and stop answering his replies.  Both of you seem to have knack for obscuring your true denominational subscriptions on purpose.  This I find intellectually dishonest IMO.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p/p23.html
> 
> John Robbins is a Presbyterian, but the same teachings are amongst the Lutherans as "reform theology" as in  the faith in faith doctrines.  While Robbins I know is a great Ron Paul supporter and has accomplished much in his life and career, his teaching regarding grace and faith are as flawed as both the Presbyterian and Lutheran reformed doctrines.


From your link:




> In brief, the teachings of these men may be summarized as follows: God created man in "God's class" (or, as "little gods"), with the potential to exercise the "God kind of faith" in calling things into existence and living in prosperity and success as sovereign beings. We forfeited this opportunity, however, by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan's nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan's nature), went to Hell, was "born again," rose from the dead with God's nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is often taught) be left by one's spouse, and not to have these problems solved by "claiming" God's promises, shows a lack of faith. While certain aspects of the above doctrine may vary from teacher to teacher, the general outline remains the same in each case.
> 
> Source:*CRI speaks out on the errors of the Word-Faith movement


The "Word Faith" movement has nothing to do with the historic Protestant position of "faith alone"....not in any way shape or form.  Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland are heretics.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it's the "the entire point of Romans" because if it meant what Sola and you believe it means would be in direct contradiction to the rest of Paul's teaching on "works of faith", "falling from grace", "the circumcision of the heart", "repentance of the believer" and more to confirm that the state of being elect is only as long as the believer retains faith through their works of faith that bear the fruit of the Spirit.


Can you point to any specific places that Paul refers to anyone being justified and not glorified, whether he uses those phrases or not?

If you doubt that that's the point of Romans 8, just read Romans 8, you'll see that it is.

----------


## erowe1

> Both of you seem to have knack for obscuring your true denominational subscriptions on purpose.


What's your basis for saying this?

Why not just let us say what our beliefs are and take us at our word on that, rather than try to insist that we believe things we never said?

I'm positive that if you believe that I, or SF, or anyone else I can think of who's posted in these discussions, supports the Word Faith Movement, then you're mistaken.

----------


## Terry1

> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Word Faith" movement has nothing to do with the historic Protestant position of "faith alone"....not in any way shape or form.  Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland are heretics.



That link I provided was in reply to erowe1 asking me to prove the existence of this doctrine.   The new age faith movement is directly associated with the "historic Protestant position" that justification and salvation comes by "faith alone".  Faith can no more function without grace than grace has any effect without faith.  Whenever one sees "Sola_Fide" or "faith alone", it's definitely excluding the object of grace altogether.

----------


## erowe1

> The new age faith movement is directly associated with the "historic Protestant position" that justification and salvation comes by "faith alone".


No it isn't. The two are completely opposed to one another.

----------


## erowe1

> Whenever one sees "Sola_Fide" or "faith alone", it's definitely excluding the object of grace altogether.


What does "the object of grace" mean here?

----------


## Terry1

> What's your basis for saying this?
> 
> Why not just let us say what our beliefs are and take us at our word on that, rather than try to insist that we believe things we never said?
> 
> I'm positive that if you believe that I, or SF, or anyone else I can think of who's posted in these discussions, supports the Word Faith Movement, then you're mistaken.


I've asked you and Sola both which Christian denominations you subscribe to and numerous times with no reply.  Stacking the debating deck in your favor then because no one knows what front to debate you on other than the false teaching being put forth as truth, which seems to match up with many of the reformed doctrines to one degree or another.

So then what Christian denominations do you and Sola subscribe to?  It's a real simple answer, but I never seem to get one.

----------


## erowe1

> I've asked you and Sola both which Christian denominations you subscribe to and numerous times with no reply.


I attend a nondenominational church. I think I already told you that when you asked me before.

But why does that matter? Are you trying to get some other source somewhere of what someone else believes and try to pin it on me? What's wrong with just letting me speak for myself? Then you can debate me on the front of what I actually say (and even provide my own quotes--imagine that!).

What denomination do you belong to?

I don't really care. But as long as you're playing that game, I might as well too.

----------


## Terry1

> What does "the object of grace" mean here?


What is grace in your opinion?  Is grace a person, place or thing, an action or adjective?  You tell me what you believe *Gods grace* is.

----------


## Terry1

> I attend a nondenominational church. I think I already told you that when you asked me before.
> 
> But why does that matter? Are you trying to get some other source somewhere of what someone else believes and try to pin it on me? What's wrong with just letting me speak for myself? Then you can debate me on the front of what I actually say (and even provide my own quotes--imagine that!).
> 
> What denomination do you belong to?
> 
> I don't really care. But as long as you're playing that game, I might as well too.


Every church has a statement of doctrinal belief, what's yours then?  Surly you must have a link.

I think you're the one playing the game here because you're the one asking all the questions and giving no answers to anything.

I've already stated to TC in this forum what my beliefs are.  I'm not associated with any Christian denomination or church of four walls.  I used to be a member of a Baptist church many years ago, but didn't agree with their doctrine 100 percent either.  I've found myself to have grown spiritually enough to be guided by the Holy Spirit from there on up to today.

----------


## erowe1

> Every church has a statement of doctrinal belief, what's yours then?  Surly you must have a link.


I'll see if it's online. I doubt it is. Why don't you post yours too?

----------


## erowe1

> What is grace in your opinion?  Is grace a person, place or thing, an action or adjective?  You tell me what you believe *Gods grace* is.


Grace is a noun. That much is not a matter of opinion. It refers to something better than what someone deserves. Thus, when God saves us without requiring any works as a prerequisite, that is salvation by grace.

----------


## erowe1

Here's my church's doctrinal statement. It was online after all.



> Doctrinal Statement
> This doctrinal statement is intended to convey our core convictions. It is not an exhaustive statement of everything we believe. These are the doctrinal matters of first importance. If there is no agreement here, then nothing else we believe matters.
> 
> The Holy Bible
> The Bible, and the Bible alone, is Godâ€™s word. It was written by human beings who were borne along by the Holy Spirit so that the resulting writings would be the living words of the living God. The Holy Spirit permitted the individual personalities of the writers to be reflected in the writing style; it was not a process of strict dictation.
> 
> We believe the whole Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
> 
> The Nature of God: Trinity
> ...


But understand that those words are not mine. If you want to debate with whoever wrote that, then take it up with them. If you want to debate with me, then use my own words.

Now, Terry1, there's my church's doctrinal statement. I assume you're not a hypocrite, so I anxiously wait for you to post yours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That link I provided was in reply to erowe1 asking me to prove the existence of this doctrine.   The new age faith movement is directly associated with the "historic Protestant position" that justification and salvation comes by "faith alone".


No.  I'm sorry ma'am but you are greatly confused.  Christianity is diametrically opposed to New Age theologies.   New Age has nothing whatsoever to do with historic Protestantism.  It's hard to believe that someone would make that claim....





> Faith can no more function without grace than grace has any effect without faith.  Whenever one sees "Sola_Fide" or "faith alone", it's definitely excluding the object of grace altogether.



Hmmm.  I don't quite understand what you are saying here.  Could you elaborate?

----------


## Terry1

> I'll see if it's online. I doubt it is. Why don't you post yours too?


Mine is the word of God as it's written without apology, exception or redefinition and as the Holy Spirit teaches through seeking, study and prayer.  I'm a student and sheep of the Lord Yeshua, nothing more or less.  If you believe I'm wrong, you must reveal that to me in the word and that correction must reconcile to all of the word of God and not just part of it, only then will I relent and confess that I have been proven wrong, but not until this happens.

----------


## Terry1

> No.  I'm sorry ma'am but you are greatly confused.  Christianity is diametrically opposed to New Age theologies.   New Age has nothing whatsoever to do with historic Protestantism.  It's hard to believe that someone would make that claim....
> 
> What exact doctrine/denomination do you subscribe to Sola?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  I don't quite understand what you are saying here.  Could you elaborate?


What exact doctrine/denomination do you subscribe to Sola?

----------


## erowe1

> Mine is the word of God as it's written without apology, exception or redefinition and as the Holy Spirit teaches through seeking, study and prayer.  I'm a student and sheep of the Lord Yeshua, nothing more or less.  If you believe I'm wrong, you must reveal that to me in the word and that correction must reconcile to all of the word of God and not just part of it, only then will I relent and confess that I have been proven wrong, but not until this happens.


Now isn't that interesting?

After all your games, you come back to this.

Because that's my answer too. Funny how it's not good enough for me but it is for you.

And I see you're stil pushing SF to give some kind of affiliation for you to attack. I'm not big on name calling here. But you're a hypocrite.

----------


## Terry1

> Now isn't that interesting?
> 
> After all your games, you come back to this.
> 
> Because that's my answer too. Funny how it's not good enough for me but it is for you.
> 
> And I see you're stil pushing SF to give some kind of affiliation for you to attack. I'm not big on name calling here. But you're a hypocrite.


You claimed that you go to a "non denominational church".  They all have a set of doctrines, I simply asked you what yours was.  Now you're claiming that your answer is the same as mine.  Why didn't you just say that you don't attend a church of four walls and that would have been sufficient enough.  I've never made the claim that I attend any church of four walls. LOL  It's rather amusing in a way.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What exact doctrine/denomination do you subscribe to Sola?


I attend a Reformed Baptist Church, but I have some differences with my confession of faith (the 1689 London Baptist Confession).  I'm more of a Particular Baptist like John Gill.


Here is a great statement of faith from old Particular Baptist John Gill:




> *"I depend wholly and alone upon the free, sovereign, eternal, unchangeable and everlasting love of God; the firm and everlasting covenant of grace, and my interest in the persons of the Trinity; for my whole salvation: and not upon any righteousness of my own, nor any thing in me, or done by me under the influences of the holy Spirit; nor upon any services of mine, which I have been assisted to perform for the good of the church; but upon my interest in the persons of the Trinity, the person, blood and righteousness of Christ, the free grace of God, and the blessings of grace streaming to me through the blood and righteousness of Christ; as the ground of my hope."*

----------


## Christian Liberty

SF, didn't John Gill deny duty-faith?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> SF, didn't John Gill deny duty-faith?


What do you mean by duty faith?

----------


## Terry1

> I attend a Reformed Baptist Church, but I have some differences with my confession of faith (the 1689 London Baptist Confession).  I'm more of a Particular Baptist like John Gill.
> 
> 
> Here is a great statement of faith from old Particular Baptist John Gill:



Thank you Sola.  It does help to better understand what someone believes with regard to their doctrine.  I'm sorry that I can't give you one other than what I know to be true from God's own words.  Like I said, I used to attend a Baptist church many years ago, but I also had problems with some of their core beliefs, but enjoyed the people and service then just the same.  If I lived in the same state as I used to, I would probably still be attending that same church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you mean by duty faith?


From Phil Johnson:


> *2. The denial of faith as a duty.* This variety of hyper-Calvinism ("type-2 hyper-Calvinism") suggests that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. (See Arthur Pink's excellent article "Duty-Faith," refuting this this erroneous notion.)
> Those holding this position go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the unregenerate. (Obviously, much Scripture-twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30.) Instead, advocates of this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect (an utterly absurd notion, since faith _is_ the only real evidence of election).
> Understandably, this brand of hyper-Calvinism tends to make sinners obsessed with conviction of sin and self-examination. Those who hold this position rarely know true, settled assurance.
> The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
> The Arminian reasons, _If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to believe. Therefore sinners must not really be in so helpless a state._ And so the Arminian adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the doctrine of human inability.
> The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, reasons thus: _If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty._ And so the hyper-Calvinist adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.
> Scottish church historian John Macleod also noticed that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists err on the same point. He wrote,
> When we look into it, we find [in hyper-Calvinism] the common Arminian position that man's responsibility is limited by his ability. . . . Each side takes up the principle from its own end. They fail together to recognise that the sinner is responsible for his spiritual impotence. It is the fruit of sin; and man's sin does not destroy nor put out of court God's right to ask for . . . [obedience and] service and repentance and faith [despite the fact that] that His sinful creatures have disabled themselves from yielding to Him. His title to make His demand is entirely and absolutely unimpaired. . . . There is a glorious superiority to man's reasonings shown by Him who bids the deaf hear and the blind look that they may see. They cannot do what He bids them do. Yet He claims what is His own. . . . Do what we may, we cannot get away from the obligation that binds us to be all that God would have us to be, and to do all that He would have us to do. Such is our sin and not only our misery that we cannot yield the return of homage that our Maker and King calls for at our hand. [_Scottish Theology_ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 reprint), 141-42.] In other words, the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so. This is a crucial point—perhaps the most crucial point of all—because it is the very point that ultimately distinguishes true Calvinism from both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism. Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing.
> But it is neither illogical or unjust. Sin itself is a moral issue, and since sin is the cause of our inability, it is, as Jonathan Edwards said, a _moral_ inability, not a _natural_ one. The defect in man is his own fault, not God's. Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.
> On this point, type-2 hyper-Calvinism is no better than Arminianism; in fact, the two spring from the same polluted source.


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm (I know you disagree with some of the points Phil makes in this article but I assume this is one which you agree with him on.)

----------


## Terry1

> Here's my church's doctrinal statement. It was online after all.
> 
> 
> But understand that those words are not mine. If you want to debate with whoever wrote that, then take it up with them. If you want to debate with me, then use my own words.
> 
> Now, Terry1, there's my church's doctrinal statement. I assume you're not a hypocrite, so I anxiously wait for you to post yours.


I told you what mine is.  Mine is the Bible in essence and all that I'm spiritually led to as a result of seeking through prayer and study.  I could copy and paste the Gospel of Jesus Christ since that is the one true incorruptible doctrine and IMO, the entire Gospel is the entire word of God and all that it entails in truth, along with my massive library I used for cross referencing.  This is what I live by, read, study, pray for and try to live.  I always say, if it doesn't come from the horses mouth, I have good reason to doubt it's validity.  That's my doctrine, that's what I always stick to and none others for no other reason.  My church is the word of God and my teacher the Holy Spirit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I told you what mine is.  Mine is the Bible in essence and all that I'm spiritually led to as a result of seeking through prayer and study.  I could copy and paste the Gospel of Jesus Christ since that is the one true incorruptible doctrine and IMO, the entire Gospel is the entire word of God and all that it entails in truth, along with my massive library I used for cross referencing.  This is what I live by, read, study, pray for and try to live.  I always say, *if it doesn't come from the horses mouth*, I have good reason to doubt it's validity.  That's my doctrine, that's what I always stick to and none others for no other reason.  My church is the word of God and my teacher the Holy Spirit.


What do you mean?  The Gospels were written at different times and places for different audiences.  The first written synoptic gospel (Mark) dates to 70 AD.  I, and all traditional Christians, believe it to be inspired and true, but it did not come "from the horse's mouth" in the sense we know it today.  In fact, the word "gospel" means "good news".  It is not the same as biography, plain history (as we now understand it), etc.  For example, Matthew's gospel employs a jewish literary convention called chiism because his audience was Jewish.The entire purpose of the Church established by Christ is to pass down proper understandings of the text as understood by the original Christians in Antioch and the Mideast (And the Roman Church in the West-though the RCC became schismatic and somewhat errant about important stuff a good long time ago).

----------


## Terry1

> What do you mean?  The Gospels were written at different times and places for different audiences.  The first written synoptic gospel (Mark) dates to 70 AD.  I, and all traditional Christians, believe it to be inspired and true, but it did not come "from the horse's mouth" in the sense we know it today.  In fact, the word "gospel" means "good news".  It is not the same as biography, plain history (as we now understand it), etc.  For example, Matthew's gospel employs a jewish literary convention called chiism because his audience was Jewish.The entire purpose of the Church established by Christ is to pass down proper understandings of the text as understood by the original Christians in Antioch and the Mideast (And the Roman Church in the West-though the RCC became schismatic and somewhat errant about important stuff a good long time ago).


Yes-yes, I know, the Gospel can be broken up and described as certain books or people that preached the Gospel, but IMO, the Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses the entire word of God because this is what the Apostles, teachers and prophets all taught.  They never limited themselves to one specific book or books.  They preached the whole message which included the OT as a type and shadow and the NT.  This is my personal opinion that some may or may not agree with.  Technically yes, some have chopped up the Gospel to only pertain to certain parts of the Bible.  Gospel simply means "the good news", all of Gods word is the "good news" because it's all used for reproof and instruction, not just part of it.  

I've always had a problem with dividing up the word of God when it takes the entire word of God to enlighten and teach the whole truth in Gods word.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> From Phil Johnson:http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm (I know you disagree with some of the points Phil makes in this article but I assume this is one which you agree with him on.)


(Surprisingly) I think I agree with Phil Johnson.  God commands all men everywhere to repent, but the problem that people who deny this duty to believe have is that they are assuming that just because God commands something, that men have the ability to do it.  I don't know, I'd have to read about it further.

Why do you think John Gill denied that?  There are some other things that I disagree with Gill on.  He seemed to deny active reprobation at times.  He also at times said that synergists may be able to be saved.  So he was wrong on some things.  He was good on limited atonement though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> (Surprisingly) I think I agree with Phil Johnson.  God commands all men everywhere to repent, but the problem that people who deny this duty to believe have is that they are assuming that just because God commands something, that men have the ability to do it.  I don't know, I'd have to read about it further.
> 
> Why do you think John Gill denied that?  There are some other things that I disagree with Gill on.  He seemed to deny active reprobation at times.  He also at times said that synergists may be able to be saved.  So he was wrong on some things.  He was good on limited atonement though.


I saw a book on Spurgeon that said Gill denied duty-faith, but I need to find an actual quote.  I'll look it up later.  What do you mean by "active reprobation".  I think I agree with Gill, and not with you, on the synergy bit, based on how I think you define "Synergism."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I saw a book on Spurgeon that said Gill denied duty-faith, but I need to find an actual quote.  I'll look it up later.  What do you mean by "active reprobation".  I think I agree with Gill, and not with you, on the synergy bit, based on how I think you define "Synergism."


Active reprobation means that God blinds some men.  It is not a "removal of grace" that leads to hardening, it is God's active power that blinds and hardens men.  This is Biblical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Active reprobation means that God blinds some men.  It is not a "removal of grace" that leads to hardening, it is God's active power that blinds and hardens men.  This is Biblical.


What's your objection to this being a "removal of grace"?  Are you saying that man could naturally do good without God, but God purposely makes it so he can't?

----------


## fr33

Yes it is inerrant and disgusting.

_Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live._

How many witches have you killed in your life?

_Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you_

I hope you don't eat shellfish.

_Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way._

Maybe you don't own slaves. Maybe your reason is that you aren't Jewish. But are you prepared to be the slave of another man? If so prepare you ear:

_Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever._

I'm not even going to bother with the many justifications of rape the bible provides.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes it is inerrant and disgusting.
> 
> _Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live._
> 
> How many witches have you killed in your life?
> 
> _Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you_
> 
> I hope you don't eat shellfish.
> ...


http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/d...omote-slavery/

----------


## fr33

> http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/d...omote-slavery/


1. Are you telling me the bible isn't inerrant?

2. I posted verses that contradict your link on slavery. It totally justifies and describes the act of slavery. A book that denounces what it promotes? What of those verses?

3. Nevermind killing witches, condemning shellfish eaters, or rapers.

----------


## Brett85

> 2. I posted verses that contradict your link on slavery. It totally justifies and describes the act of slavery. A book that denounces what it promotes? What of those verses?


How does it contradict my link on slavery?  Those verses never mentioned forced slavery.  I've heard of a lot of libertarians who believe in voluntary slavery.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes-yes, I know, the Gospel can be broken up and described as certain books or people that preached the Gospel, but IMO, the Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses the entire word of God because this is what the Apostles, teachers and prophets all taught.  They never limited themselves to one specific book or books.  They preached the whole message which included the OT as a type and shadow and the NT.  This is my personal opinion that some may or may not agree with.  Technically yes, some have chopped up the Gospel to only pertain to certain parts of the Bible.  Gospel simply means "the good news", all of Gods word is the "good news" because it's all used for reproof and instruction, not just part of it.  
> 
> I've always had a problem with dividing up the word of God when it takes the entire word of God to enlighten and teach the whole truth in Gods word.


Yes, first century Christians used a variety of different scriptures-many of which are not in protestant bibles.  For example, wisdom literature (Wisdom Of Sirach, etc).

----------


## fr33

> How does it contradict my link on slavery?  Those verses never mentioned forced slavery.


You are really reaching too far to justify your precious book. Here's how it contradicts it... Your link left this out because it is the justification of the worst tyranny and tribalism man has seen:

_Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way._




> I've heard of a lot of libertarians who believe in voluntary slavery.


To understand what slavery is, is to be a libertarian and oppose it every time. You and whoever the "libertarians" are that support it are, are no libertarians. Permanent inheritance? Really?

Again, this is all part of picking apart your inerrant bible. Eating shrimp, lobster, crawfish, or the many sea mammals is an abomination to your god. I hope you live up to his standards. And may every rapist marry his victim as "HE" wishes.

----------


## Brett85

> To understand what slavery is, is to be a libertarian and oppose it every time. You and whoever the "libertarians" are that support it are, are no libertarians. Permanent inheritance? Really?


So if I decide I want to enter into an agreement with someone where I decide to work for him for free, but he provides me with food and shelter, and gives me a set of rules that I have to follow, that should be against the law?

As far as what that verse actually says and its context, I would have to do more research and actually look at the Greek words to see what they mean.  




> Again, this is all part of picking apart your inerrant bible. Eating shrimp, lobster, crawfish, or the many sea mammals is an abomination to your god. I hope you live up to his standards. And may every rapist marry his victim as "HE" wishes.


Those were just rules that applied to the Jewish people of that time.  Those aren't rules that Christians are supposed to follow today.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So if I decide I want to enter into an agreement with someone where I decide to work for him for free, but he provides me with food and shelter, and gives me a set of rules that I have to follow, that should be against the law?
> 
> As far as what that verse actually says and its context, I would have to do more research and actually look at the Greek words to see what they mean.  
> 
> 
> 
> Those were just rules that applied to the Jewish people of that time.  Those aren't rules that Christians are supposed to follow today.


Indeed.  Probably the most useful thing we can glean from the OT is context and epistemology of traditional Christian thought.  (Christ was "The Word made flesh", if you'll recall)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you saying that man could naturally do good without God, but God purposely makes it so he can't?


No of course not.  And active reprobation really doesn't assume anything about man's natural state.  It merely says that God hardens and God softens. God creates vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.

----------


## fr33

> So if I decide I want to enter into an agreement with someone where I decide to work for him for free, but he provides me with food and shelter, and gives me a set of rules that I have to follow, that should be against the law?


Your definition of slavery above is not the definition it has ever been. You've described a job, not slavery.You have ignored that your inerrant bible focused on your race and nationalilty when justifying stealing you away from your former life.




> As far as what that verse actually says and its context, I would have to do more research and actually look at the Greek words to see what they mean.


Why? Those books justify massacres and kings. I have to admit: this "inerrant" bible study makes me chuckle.




> Those were just rules that applied to the Jewish people of that time.  Those aren't rules that Christians are supposed to follow today.


Then surely you will stand with me opposing the 10 commandments (that are also from the old testament). Stand with me in supporting the rights of homosexuals (who were condemned in the old testament).  Wait, aren't we arguing over whether the bible is inerrant?

----------


## fr33

I've pretty much picked apart the idea of the inerrant bible except for those that still advocate killing witches, refusing non-scaled sea life, justifying slaving non-jews, and forcing rape victims to be married to their attackers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've pretty much picked apart the idea of the inerrant bible except for those that still advocate killing witches, refusing non-scaled sea life, justifying slaving non-jews, and forcing rape victims to be married to their attackers.


Where does the Bible say we should do anything that you mention above?

----------


## fr33

> Where does the Bible say we should do anything that you mention above?


I've given some of the references of all of the above except for rape. It isn't difficult to read forum posts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've given some of the references of all of the above except for rape. It isn't difficult to read forum posts.


I saw that you posted verses that describe Israel's history (and war and conquest was certainly a part of it).  But where do you think the Bible says we should make slaves of people?

I'm asking because I know you are searching for answers right now.  Maybe you are copy pasting off atheist websites...I don't know.  But where do you think the Bible teaches slavery and things like that?  Read some of Erowe1's posts on Romans 13.  He does a great job of understanding (in light of God's predestinating decree) what the passages about slave masters and statist tyrants really mean.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I saw that you posted verses that describe Israel's history (and war and conquest was certainly a part of it).  But where do you think the Bible says we should make slaves of people?
> 
> I'm asking because I know you are searching for answers right now.  Maybe you are copy pasting off atheist websites...I don't know.  But where do you think the Bible teaches slavery and things like that?  Read some of Erowe1's posts on Romans 13.  He does a great job of understanding (in light of God's predestinating decree) what the passages about slave masters and statist tyrants really mean.


I agree with SF on this one.   Even honest secular historians distinguish what is described in the books of Jewish history in the Toarah and the nature of Jewish (and later Christian) faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with SF on this one.   Even honest secular historians distinguish what is described in the books of Jewish history in the Toarah and the nature of Jewish (and later Christian) faith.


I absolutely disagree with your post here...as if the books of the Old Testament are "Jewish" and the books of the New Testament are "Christian".  That is definitely NOT the Christian view of things.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe you don't own slaves. Maybe your reason is that you aren't Jewish. But are you prepared to be the slave of another man? If so prepare you ear:
> 
> _Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever._


Did you read the context leading up to this verse?

----------


## Terry1

> No of course not.  And active reprobation really doesn't assume anything about man's natural state.  It merely says that God hardens and God softens. God creates vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.


But then again, we're not puppets are we, we're sons and heirs to the throne of God with the ability to choose which master we will serve in any given circumstance.  So then the hearts that are hardened or softened by God are the same hearts that God knows will willingly become hardened or softened by their own choices.  Because the word tells us that God can and does hasten or tarry His word to fulfill his plan.  God then knowing the hearts of men can simply speed up or slow down that process to perform His work in them.

If God made the sun and the moon to stand still for Joshua, then God can also speed up the process of anything He desires.

----------


## matt0611

> I've pretty much picked apart the idea of the inerrant bible except for those that still advocate killing witches, refusing non-scaled sea life, justifying slaving non-jews, and forcing rape victims to be married to their attackers.


fr33, shellfish? really? you know there is a difference between the holiness code and the laws that were for Israel to separate them from the nations around them and the moral laws right? Can't believe you've never heard or read responses to this before.

The Bible no where equates eating shellfish to homosexuality.

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because they ate shellfish. 

Wow...

----------


## erowe1

> I've pretty much picked apart the idea of the inerrant bible except for those that still advocate killing witches, refusing non-scaled sea life, justifying slaving non-jews, and forcing rape victims to be married to their attackers.


No you haven't. You presented some verses along with your unflattering view of what you would like Christians to think they meant so that you could then tell Christians they were wrong about something without any regard for what role those verses may play in the Bible as a revelation from God concerning his Son Jesus Christ when read by someone whose agenda is something other than attacking Christianity.

----------


## Terry1

"Inerrancy" is not relative to what one chooses to believe, it is perfect without error and stands only as God meant it to be understood.  Therefore, "inerrancy of Gods word" is understood by those who have the wisdom of God to know that mankind's interpretation will always be imperfect and flawed to some degree because as the Apostle Paul tells us, that we all see through the glass darkly in this life.  This tells us that Gods word is perfect without error, therefore, it's impossible for mankind to perfectly understand it in their human form.

So where does this leave us then concerning the "inerrant word of God"?  It leaves us knowing that no man in this life can fully understand the perfect nature of the word of God, but that we are given "glimpses" of understanding by grace and through faith and enough to allow us to walk in the Spirit and remain within the will of God.

The concept of inerrancy then with regard to mankind's ability to understand it perfectly in this life is then an impossibility and without merit, because we don't have a perfect understanding because we haven't been perfected yet.

----------


## jllundqu

Anything written by man is full of error.  Unless god himself (herself?) dropped off a freshly printed version of the bible (that's been edited, cut, pasted, revised, and erased countless times) in the hands of Christians....  then the bible is far from 'inerrant.'

----------


## erowe1

> Anything written by man is full of error.  Unless god himself (herself?) dropped off a freshly printed version of the bible (that's been edited, cut, pasted, revised, and erased countless times) in the hands of Christians....  then the bible is far from 'inerrant.'


Why? If God is God, then all those countless edits, cuts, copies, revisions, and erasures are under His control. It was through all those means that He "dropped off" the freshly printed Bible that you can by on Amazon right now.

----------


## Terry1

> Anything written by man is full of error.  Unless god himself (herself?) dropped off a freshly printed version of the bible (that's been edited, cut, pasted, revised, and erased countless times) in the hands of Christians....  then the bible is far from 'inerrant.'


This is true.  Where some Christians fail in understanding is that God is a spiritual being.  Everything about God is spiritual and perfect without error.  The only way to understand God is through the Spirit of the Lord.  This is why the word of God as it's given and those that seek it while walking in the Spirit of the Lord will be given clarity and understanding as the Spirit of God allows and according to their faith, trust and belief.

While the physical Bible and the words in it are imperfect, God intervenes on the part of the believer to give them what they need as they seek it out in that book.  It's not the book or the writings in that book that are perfect, it's only God and that the Bible is representative of Him as best mankind were inspired by God to write it in their imperfect human state of being.

This is why we are spiritually called, spiritually enabled and spiritually instructed in our walk with the Holy Spirit that spiritually gives the divine understanding we need to do the will of God.  Anyone can sit down and read the Bible, but the mysteries of it are spiritual in nature only and only given to those who seek it with pure desire to know and understand His truth.  As the Lord said, "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find".  Only through the spirit of the Lord can God work in the hearts and minds of believers as they willingly choose God in everything.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> While the physical Bible and the words in it are imperfect, God intervenes on the part of the believer to give them what they need as they seek it out in that book.  It's not the book or the writings in that book that are perfect, it's only God and that the Bible is representative of Him as best mankind were inspired by God to write it in their imperfect human state of being.


That is definitely not the Christian view of inspiration.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why? If God is God, then all those countless edits, cuts, copies, revisions, and erasures are under His control. It was through all those means that He "dropped off" the freshly printed Bible that you can by on Amazon right now.


Exactly.   The Bible's inerrancy must be understood in light of the entire Christian worldview.  They cannot be separated.   God controls everything in history.  That is the Christian view of things which gives foundation to the inerrancy of Scripture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But then again, we're not puppets are we, we're sons and heirs to the throne of God with the ability to choose which master we will serve in any given circumstance.


Where in the Bible does it say man has the ability to choose which master he wants?

----------


## Terry1

> Where in the Bible does it say man has the ability to choose which master he wants?




Romans 6:16
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that ones slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?


Matthew 6:24
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 12:25 
But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 6:16
> Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
> 
> 
> Matthew 6:24
> 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
> 
> Matthew 12:25 
> But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.



Where in any of those verses does it say that man has the ability to choose their master?

----------


## Terry1

> That is definitely not the Christian view of inspiration.


Then what you're actually saying is that mankind has already been perfected in this life and is capable of the same perfection as God in human form.

----------


## Terry1

> Where in any of those verses does it say that man has the ability to choose their master?


Romans 6:16
 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

Paul is telling us here that it's our choice as to whom we present or give ourselves to in obedience.  Clearly he's saying whether we present or choose the way of sin leading to death or of obedience leading to righteousness.  This is something I taught to the little children in Sunday School many years ago.  This is Bible 101 for the babes still on the milk.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 6:16
>  Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
> 
> Paul is telling us here that it's our choice as to whom we present or give ourselves to in obedience.  Clearly he's saying whether we present or choose the way of sin leading to death or of obedience leading to righteousness.  This is something I taught to the little children in Sunday School many years ago.  This is Bible 101 for the babes still on the milk.


Where in that verse, or any verse, does it speak to man's ABILITY?  That's the question. There are verses that speak to man's ability.  They say the opposite of what you are saying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No of course not.  And active reprobation really doesn't assume anything about man's natural state.  It merely says that God hardens and God softens. God creates vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.


I agree with that.  The question is HOW does God harden and soften.  I believe that God hardens by passively withdrawing grace.  So on this point I do disagree with you.  But ultimately, I wouldn't presume to know.  God's thoughts are so much higher than my thoughts.  I simply know that He alone saved me and I trust that everything he does is just.

----------


## Terry1

> Where in that verse, or any verse, does it speak to man's ABILITY?  That's the question. There are verses that speak to man's ability.  They say the opposite of what you are saying.


In the context the word "present" means to offer ourselves.  Does that scripture indicate to you that God is forcing them to offer themselves to one master or the other?  Paul is clearly saying that "whoever we *offer* or present ourselves to as slaves, meaning who we are choosing as our master.  You're looking for the specific word "choose" I realize, but it's the same meaning.  If you are offering or presenting your service to someone, it's because you chose to not because you were forced.

Matthew 6:24
 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon

Same as Matthew says here, we can not serve both God and the devil at the same time.  We choose to serve one or the other, but there is no in between because we know God spits out luke warm Christians.

----------


## Terry1

Here just the same, God is telling the believers here who are attempting to serve two masters at the same time and warning them to repent.  These are people today we commonly call "fence sitters".  These are people who like to claim the title of "Christian", but are not serving God as their master.  They rather choose to believe one way and live another.


*
Message to the Church in Laodicea*

Rev. 3:

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

*15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.* 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

----------


## erowe1

> I agree with that.  The question is HOW does God harden and soften.  I believe that God hardens by passively withdrawing grace.  So on this point I do disagree with you.  But ultimately, I wouldn't presume to know.  God's thoughts are so much higher than my thoughts.  I simply know that He alone saved me and I trust that everything he does is just.


I think it's much larger than withdrawing grace. God created and sustained every molecule of creation such that the person whom he hardens would even exist at all. The environment in which they were raised is the environment He chose for them. Their genetics came from Him. Every vicissitude of their spirits is his creation as much as every tiny particle of their bodies. The nature they have, such that their will and choice in any given situation will be whatever it will be, ultimately came from Him, and every mediate cause that brought it about was ultimately a tool in His hands as the ultimate cause.

God's gracious act of drawing His elect to believe in Christ is just as much realized through all of the above things as it is through any additional work that the Holy Spirit does to intervene against their sinful nature at some critical moment of conversion. And his hardening of the non-elect is also just as much through all of those means as it is through His withholding of such a spiritual intervention from them.

Among all the people who have ever lived in the world, some will believe in Christ under some circumstances, while others will reject Him under those circumstances but accept Him in other ones. For some, a certain miracle will awaken their spirits to faith, while for others the same miracle will not. God is in control not only of to whom He provides such miracles, but also of the conditions of the people to whom He gives them such that they will respond however they will.

It's not that God performs an act on someone such that that person becomes more evil than they would have been if God had not performed that act. It's that God superintends their entire life, and without that superintending, they would not exist at all.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> God controls everything in history.  That is the Christian view of things which gives foundation to the inerrancy of Scripture.


The belief that Scripture is inerrant does not follow from the assumption that God controls everything.  One must also assume that Scripture really is the Word of God, and in all sincerity I've yet to see any justification for this assumption on these threads, except perhaps for personal revelation, which isn't exactly the type of justification that's convincing.

As far as the free will issue is concerned, what do you make of Isaiah 65:12?  "I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.  It certainly sounds like God is displeased at something man did on his own. See also Isaiah 56:4 and 66:3-4.

----------


## erowe1

> The belief that Scripture is inerrant does not follow from the assumption that God controls everything.


That's true. And I don't think that's what SF was saying. It's definitely not what I was saying.

All I was saying was that the way God inspired the Bible was through his superintention of the means of its production. If it is inerrant, then its inerrancy is a product of that process.

It is not the case that such a process could only bring about an inerrant book. After all, every other book in existence also came about by means that God controlled.

But it is also not the case that such a process, just because of the human element that it involves, is precluded from bringing about an inerrant book.

----------


## Terry1

> I think it's much larger than withdrawing grace. God created and sustained every molecule of creation such that the person whom he hardens would even exist at all. The environment in which they were raised is the environment He chose for them. Their genetics came from Him. Every vicissitude of their spirits is his creation as much as every tiny particle of their bodies. The nature they have, such that their will and choice in any given situation will be whatever it will be, ultimately came from Him, and every mediate cause that brought it about was ultimately a tool in His hands as the ultimate cause.
> 
> God's gracious act of drawing His elect to believe in Christ is just as much realized through all of the above things as it is through any additional work that the Holy Spirit does to intervene against their sinful nature at some critical moment of conversion. And his hardening of the non-elect is also just as much through all of those means as it is through His withholding of such a spiritual intervention from them.
> 
> Among all the people who have ever lived in the world, some will believe in Christ under some circumstances, while others will reject Him under those circumstances but accept Him in other ones. For some, a certain miracle will awaken their spirits to faith, while for others the same miracle will not. God is in control not only of to whom He provides such miracles, but also of the conditions of the people to whom He gives them such that they will respond however they will.
> 
> It's not that God performs an act on someone such that that person becomes more evil than they would have been if God had not performed that act. It's that God superintends their entire life, and without that superintending, they would not exist at all.


This is preaching predestination is it's purest form as if we are Gods little puppets.  

When you talk about who's elect and who's not while at the same time considering yourself and others like you already perfected because you believe that you're once chosen always *chosen or once justified always glorified is the act of presuming upon God* that you've already finished your course in life and there's nothing left for you to overcome because of the false belief that everything has already been done for you on the cross.

Then if this indeed be that case for those God foreknew, why then did the Lord leave all of you poor creatures behind to endure the suffering in this life if you've already overcome it and knew who everyone was and what they would choose in the future.  Why bother with testing their faith and telling them they still have something to overcome in this life?

Let's take another look at what Gods word is actually saying about those predestined.  The word "predestined" is mention a total of only 4 times in the entire Bible.

*Romans 8:29 
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.*

Predestined *to be Conformed* into Jesus' Image that *he might be the firstborn*---------

Here you have the words "to be conformed" and then "that he might be"

*Romans 8:30 
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.*

Note the true meaning of "glorified" here which for the most part is *something hoped for* as all of the NT scripture supports that view from Matthew to Revelation--"that it might be", "that they may obtain", "according to the will of God":

Glorification (Bakers Bible Dictionary)
In the Scripture the idea of glorification deals with the ultimate perfection of believers. The word "glorification" is not used in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament, but the idea of glorification is conveyed by the Greek verb doxazo [doxavzw] ("glorify") and the noun doxa [dovxa] ("glory") as well as in passages that do not use any word from this root. Although the Old Testament may anticipate the theme to some extent ( Psalm 73:24 ; Dan 12:3 ), the New Testament is considerably fuller and richer in its development, making it explicit that believers will be glorified ( Romans 8:17 Romans 8:30 ; 2 Thess 1:12 ).

Despite the fact that one of the key verses ( Rom 8:30 ) appears to place glorification in the past, it is in all other passages seen as future, to be hoped for ( Rom 5:2 ; Col 1:27 ), to be revealed ( Rom 8:18 ; 1 Peter 5:1 ), and to be obtained ( 2 Thess 2:14 ; 2 Tim 2:10 ). Specifically, glorification arrives with the second coming of Christ ( Eph 5:27 ; Php 3:20-21 ; Col 3:4 ; 2 Thess 1:10 ), accompanied by the resurrection of believers ( 1 Cor 15:43 ) and the day of judgment ( Rom 2:5-10 ). Its duration is eternal ( 2 Col 4:17 ; 2 Tim 2:10 ; 1 Peter 5:10 ).

*Ephesians 1:5 
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
*

Again here, this is referring to a future event as in being adopted as predestined.  One can not assume then that this happens during this lifetime because all other scripture again supports the fact that "it might be" or that they may obtain" and that we have the "hope".  By your meaning, this scripture would then contradict hundreds of others stating otherwise. 

*Ephesians 1:11 
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
*

And this last reference to "predestined" is as the same as the others referring to a *future event* as in something that has not happened *yet*.  We have not yet "inherited" the kingdom of heaven, nor have we yet been perfected in this life, to assume otherwise is then *presuming upon* God that no matter what one does after they confess Christ that God still wants them, which is not biblical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The belief that Scripture is inerrant does not follow from the assumption that God controls everything.


Right....not without some other premise.  My point is that the Christian worldview, which includes the sovereignty of God in all things, provides a foundation for inerrancy. 





> One must also assume that Scripture really is the Word of God, and in all sincerity I've yet to see any justification for this assumption on these threads, except perhaps for personal revelation, which isn't exactly the type of justification that's convincing.


Scripture is self authorizing and self authenticating.  There can be no higher authority than God Himself speaking in the Scriptures.






> As far as the free will issue is concerned, what do you make of Isaiah 65:12?  "I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.”  It certainly sounds like God is displeased at something man did on his own. See also Isaiah 56:4 and 66:3-4.


No Christian says that men don't choose.   Men choose.   Men have wills.  Men do things willfully.  The evil that man does is man's choice and God is displeased with him.  What man can't do is please God.  Man can't submit to God's law.  Man can only choose what is evil.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Scripture is self authorizing and self authenticating.  There can be no higher authority than God Himself speaking in the Scriptures.


A completely unproven assumption.  Good grief, I could claim to have a self-authenticating book that is the Word of God and that contradicts the Bible on key theological issues.  How could one determine that either is really God's word?  The notion of a self-authenticating text is ludicrous.




> Men choose.   Men have wills.  Men do things willfully.  The evil that man does is man's choice and God is displeased with him.  What man can't do is please God.  Man can't submit to God's law.  Man can only choose what is evil.


But if God is in charge of everything, then it is He who makes man choose.  So why should He be displeased with something that He has caused?

----------


## jmdrake

> I absolutely disagree with your post here...as if the books of the Old Testament are "Jewish" and the books of the New Testament are "Christian".  That is definitely NOT the Christian view of things.


Maybe not, but that's *not* what he said.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it is inerrant and disgusting.
> 
> _Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live._
> 
> How many witches have you killed in your life?


None.  But then I don't live in a theocracy.  (Glad I don't).  Actively seeking to overthrow the form of government of a nation by subterfuge is treason.  So if God is king then witchcraft becomes a form of treason.  That said, in the Christian era the "law of sin and death" (being put to death because of sin) was done away with.  That's why Jesus didn't have the woman caught in adultery stoned.  Oh, some will argue it was because the man wasn't brought as well.  But Jesus knew who the man was.  He could have called for him to be brought and for them both to be stoned together.




> _Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you_
> 
> I hope you don't eat shellfish.


Actually I don't.  And whenever there is a problem with pollution, like millions of gallons of raw sewage getting dumped into a bay, there is usually a "don't eat the shellfish" alert.  That's for health reasons because shellfish like sewage.  God could have gone through the trouble of explaining this or simply telling Moses "Tell the people its an abomination."  There were other health rules in the Old Testament.  One was don't take a dump in the camp but go outside the camp, dig a hole, do your doo, and bury it.  Because Jewish people understood such simple sanitation, thousands of years later they would avoid the black plague that ravaged Europe.  Superstitious Europeans thought the Jews weren't getting sick when everyone else was because the Jews were poisoning wells.  The truth is they were just following the Old Testament.




> _Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way._
> 
> Maybe you don't own slaves. Maybe your reason is that you aren't Jewish. But are you prepared to be the slave of another man? If so prepare you ear:
> 
> _Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever._
> 
> I'm not even going to bother with the many justifications of rape the bible provides.


Yep.  It sucked to be caught by the wrong ethnic group back in those days.  Typically you were killed or made a slave.  People can try to dance around it as "history", but Saul was deposed from being king in part because he didn't kill *enough* prisoners.  It was okay that Saul killed the women and children of one tribe.  But he didn't kill the king and kept the cattle.  That wasn't just "history".  It was commanded directly by the prophet Samuel as the word of God.  Why?  I really don't have a good answer.  I do know that Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world.  It's not a theocracy.  He never wanted His followers spreading His message through the force of arms.  Why was the force of arms used in the OT?  I don't know.  I'm not going to throw out the life and teachings of Jesus just because there are parts of the Old Testament that I don't understand the "why" of.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A completely unproven assumption.  Good grief, I could claim to have a self-authenticating book that is the Word of God and that contradicts the Bible on key theological issues.  How could one determine that either is really God's word?  The notion of a self-authenticating text is ludicrous.


You say "unproven assumption" like it's a bad thing.  Yes, the Scriptures are the axiom, the starting point of Christian knowledge.  You, as an atheist, have an unproven axiom of knowledge. Empiricism, the infallibility of your senses, is your unproven axiom.

So to accuse the Christian of being ludicrous for avering his axiom of knowledge is to be completely blind to your own avering.   You do the same thing, all of us do the same thing.   In order to reason, axioms must be taken as true.






> But if God is in charge of everything, then it is He who makes man choose.  So why should He be displeased with something that He has caused?


Because there is a difference between God's revealed will (don't do this because I will be displeased) and God's decreetive will (what I have planned I will bring about).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think it's much larger than withdrawing grace. God created and sustained every molecule of creation such that the person whom he hardens would even exist at all. The environment in which they were raised is the environment He chose for them. Their genetics came from Him. Every vicissitude of their spirits is his creation as much as every tiny particle of their bodies. The nature they have, such that their will and choice in any given situation will be whatever it will be, ultimately came from Him, and every mediate cause that brought it about was ultimately a tool in His hands as the ultimate cause.
> 
> God's gracious act of drawing His elect to believe in Christ is just as much realized through all of the above things as it is through any additional work that the Holy Spirit does to intervene against their sinful nature at some critical moment of conversion. And his hardening of the non-elect is also just as much through all of those means as it is through His withholding of such a spiritual intervention from them.
> 
> Among all the people who have ever lived in the world, some will believe in Christ under some circumstances, while others will reject Him under those circumstances but accept Him in other ones. For some, a certain miracle will awaken their spirits to faith, while for others the same miracle will not. God is in control not only of to whom He provides such miracles, but also of the conditions of the people to whom He gives them such that they will respond however they will.
> 
> It's not that God performs an act on someone such that that person becomes more evil than they would have been if God had not performed that act. It's that God superintends their entire life, and without that superintending, they would not exist at all.


I completely agree.  This is why I said its too much for my mind to grasp.  I completely agree with everything you said and so I don't really try to figure it all out.  God chose me, and the elect, and did not choose others.  Those who he did not choose got no worse than what they deserved, those who were chosen had Christ take their place so God is not unjust in choosing them.  Period.

----------


## fr33

> I saw that you posted verses that describe Israel's history (and war and conquest was certainly a part of it).  But where do you think the Bible says we should make slaves of people?
> 
> I'm asking because I know you are searching for answers right now.  Maybe you are copy pasting off atheist websites...I don't know.  But where do you think the Bible teaches slavery and things like that?  Read some of Erowe1's posts on Romans 13.  He does a great job of understanding (in light of God's predestinating decree) what the passages about slave masters and statist tyrants really mean.


Why does it matter if it's Israel's history or if it's another nation's history? God's words justify the worst forms of tyranny. Romans 13 is just another example of it. Nobody could ever convince me that someone's rights should be violated just because God said it should happen. These stories we are talking about might as well have come from the mouth of some North Korean dictator. It is the words of a tyrannical government. Written words justify the enslavement of men and women and IMO it's wrong. They were wrong to do it.

----------


## fr33

> Did you read the context leading up to this verse?


Yes. 

What context can justify permanent inheritance of slaves? There are very few fouler things than this.

----------


## fr33

> fr33, shellfish? really? you know there is a difference between the holiness code and the laws that were for Israel to separate them from the nations around them and the moral laws right? Can't believe you've never heard or read responses to this before.
> 
> The Bible no where equates eating shellfish to homosexuality.
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because they ate shellfish. 
> 
> Wow...


A sin is a sin. You either follow some of god's laws or you follow them all. Or you believe some parts of the bible don't matter. Why do the chapters of the old testament that the 10 commandments come from get so cherry picked? Slavery, domestic abuse, etc don't make it into the modern Christian laws yet commands found in the same chapters of the book get engraved into monuments still today.

In regards to Sodom and Gomorrah: what we have here is people of the liberty movement justifying the theft of land and murder of people that don't agree with their religious views. That's why I can't turn my back on you folks. I'd risk getting stabbed in it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Fr33- I have a hard time with Romans 13 too, hence why I've brought up the topic for discussion several times.  Erowe's interpretation of these verses is the most reasonable that I've seen, but I freely admit they are tricky.  "tricky" does not mean "tyrant supporting."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes. 
> 
> What context can justify permanent inheritance of slaves? There are very few fouler things than this.


In atheism, why is slavery wrong?

----------


## fr33

> In atheism, why is slavery wrong?


We've had this conversation before... Because of the threat of force. Every man or woman are their own sovereign with a duty to protect themselves from things like slavery. No doubt you have discovered that this doesn't work because not every man realizes it and governments that cite God's will or don't will trounce that individual. Whether it's the bible or the constitution, slavery is wrong. Many atheists and theists don't understand that. I'm not defending any of them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why does it matter if it's Israel's history or if it's another nation's history? God's words justify the worst forms of tyranny. Romans 13 is just another example of it. Nobody could ever convince me that someone's rights should be violated just because God said it should happen. These stories we are talking about might as well have come from the mouth of some North Korean dictator. It is the words of a tyrannical government. Written words justify the enslavement of men and women and IMO it's wrong. They were wrong to do it.


The commandments in Romans 13 assume a just (that is, in accordance with God's will and law) authority.  An unjust authority should not deferred to.  
"To defy the civil government is to defy God, for God works in and through the governing authorities.  This principle holds true so long as the civil ordinance is not in opposition to God, but promotes good works.  When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God."
-commentary on pg 1544, The Orthodox Study Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We've had this conversation before... Because of the threat of force. Every man or woman are their own sovereign with a duty to protect themselves from things like slavery. No doubt you have discovered that this doesn't work because not every man realizes it and governments that cite God's will or don't will trounce that individual. Whether it's the bible or the constitution, slavery is wrong. Many atheists and theists don't understand that. I'm not defending any of them.


I asked you why slavery was wrong, and your answer is the same as might makes right.  If might makes right then the more powerful person is right in enslaving the weaker person.

You have no basis whatsoever to say ANYTHING is universally wrong in atheism.  This is why I laugh at you when you stand in judgement at the text of the Bible.  It's hilarious.   You have no basis to say anything is wrong.  And your "threats of force" philosophy is actually the FOUNDATION of every tyranny that has ever existed.

Atheism is complete joke.  Atheism can in no way support a philosophy of liberty.

----------


## matt0611

> *A sin is a sin. You either follow some of god's laws or you follow them all*.


These laws have a context. 

Its not that they "don't matter", its that these dietary laws were for the nation of Israel to separate them from the nations around them. Some are universal moral laws that even the nations around Israel were judged for like Sodom and Gomorrah. You don't follow all laws if they do not pertain to you. 

You imply that I'm going through the laws and picking out which laws I "like" and keeping those, and then finding ones I think are "icky" and tossing those out but that's not what I'm doing at all. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of the Bible, like most atheists do. 

God is the creator of the land and has a right to do with it what he wishes and he also has the right to kill sinners as judgement for their sins.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why does it matter if it's Israel's history or if it's another nation's history? God's words justify the worst forms of tyranny. Romans 13 is just another example of it. Nobody could ever convince me that someone's rights should be violated just because God said it should happen. These stories we are talking about might as well have come from the mouth of some North Korean dictator. It is the words of a tyrannical government. Written words justify the enslavement of men and women and IMO it's wrong. They were wrong to do it.


You're right.  The North Korean people deserve to be free.  So all atheists need to band together and invade North Korea!  And while you're at it, support Obama sending weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria because, after all, Assad is a dictator and people deserve to be free!  Let's all join into perpetual war forever because we have to make sure that people are free!    Or...people could take the advice of Paul and seek freedom without force of arms.  That's the message of Romans 13.  Note that it's the Syrian Christians who are saying "Please don't send weapons to the Syrian rebels."  That doesn't mean they like Assad or in agreement with tyranny.

----------


## erowe1

> We've had this conversation before... Because of the threat of force. Every man or woman are their own sovereign with a duty to protect themselves from things like slavery. No doubt you have discovered that this doesn't work because not every man realizes it and governments that cite God's will or don't will trounce that individual. Whether it's the bible or the constitution, slavery is wrong. Many atheists and theists don't understand that. I'm not defending any of them.


The problem is none of what you're saying comports with atheism.

You're right that many forms of slavery are wrong, that there are uses of force that are wrong, and that people have moral duties. These things exist because they derive from the nature of God. If there were no God, there could be no moral law.

----------


## erowe1

> Why does it matter if it's Israel's history or if it's another nation's history?


Because it was in His words and works done to and through Israel that God most definitively revealed Himself to humanity. His final and most definitive revelation was through His Son, who lived as a man at a specific time and place in our world's history, Jesus Christ, whose nation was Israel, and whose scriptures, which he fulfilled, were their scriptures.

Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead.

That is the central message of Christianity, and the central message of the entire Bible. All the other questions need to get worked out in light of that message.

----------


## erowe1

> A sin is a sin.


What is your basis for that claim?

----------


## erowe1

> What context can justify permanent inheritance of slaves?


The context of its being voluntary.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Terry1

> A sin is a sin. You either follow some of god's laws or you follow them all. Or you believe some parts of the bible don't matter. Why do the chapters of the old testament that the 10 commandments come from get so cherry picked? Slavery, domestic abuse, etc don't make it into the modern Christian laws yet commands found in the same chapters of the book get engraved into monuments still today.
> 
> In regards to Sodom and Gomorrah: what we have here is people of the liberty movement justifying the theft of land and murder of people that don't agree with their religious views. That's why I can't turn my back on you folks. I'd risk getting stabbed in it.


The entire point of the Old Testament in comparison with the New Testament is show where mankind failed to keep all of the laws of Moses perfectly and to the letter of them.  It is to reveal the failure of mankind, that on their own without a savior could not atone for their own sin.  The Old Testament is a type and shadow of what was then and is now under the New Covenant of Grace through Faith.  

The Old Testament is a reproofing tool to show us where we failed by ritual and tradition through their dead works and animal sacrifices.  God says that "tradition makes void the word of God".  Under the New Covenant we now live by grace through faith with the understanding that Gods perfect law is written upon the hearts of believers and only through the atoning blood of Christ can anyone be forgiven for their sin.  

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments after he led them out of Egypt.  When the Ark of the Covenant was built, Moses instructed the Levites to place the law of Moses in the side of the Ark of the Covenant to be used as a witness against them because of their failure to keep that law perfectly and to the letter.  Then those Ten Commandments were placed dead center in the Ark to show that the Ark is representative of Jesus and Gods Ten Commandments are at the very center of the will of God.  It's all representative of what God promised the Israelites then and what came to be as a result of Jesus being crucified to atone for the sins of mankind.  What was old then and what is now new.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So to accuse the Christian of being ludicrous for avering his axiom of knowledge is to be completely blind to your own avering.


Except I didn't.  What I said was ludicrous was your claim that the Bible is self-authenticating, which it most certainly isn't.  It is authenticated only by your assumption that it really is the Word of God.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You have no basis whatsoever to say ANYTHING is universally wrong in atheism.


Nonsense.  If you can posit God as the basis for your morality, then an atheist can posit a moral principle as the basis for his.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except I didn't.  What I said was ludicrous was your claim that the Bible is self-authenticating, which it most certainly isn't.  It is authenticated only by your assumption that it really is the Word of God.


The Bible is not self authenticating? Does God not say that it is Himself speaking in the Scriptures? 

Of course He does.  And there is no higher authority whereby to authenticate the words of God than God's own words.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nonsense.  If you can posit God as the basis for your morality, then an atheist can posit a moral principle as the basis for his.


Why is slavery wrong Sonny?

----------


## erowe1

> Nonsense.  If you can posit God as the basis for your morality, then an atheist can posit a moral principle as the basis for his.


Sure they can. It just doesn't comport with atheism. But they can still do it.

The truth is, atheists can't even help believing in an objective transcendent moral law. They believe in it automatically, and they couldn't stop believing in one if they wanted to. After all, atheists are made in the image of God.

----------


## fr33

> I asked you why slavery was wrong, and your answer is the same as might makes right.  If might makes right then the more powerful person is right in enslaving the weaker person.
> 
> You have no basis whatsoever to say ANYTHING is universally wrong in atheism.  This is why I laugh at you when you stand in judgement at the text of the Bible.  It's hilarious.   You have no basis to say anything is wrong.  And your "threats of force" philosophy is actually the FOUNDATION of every tyranny that has ever existed.
> 
> Atheism is complete joke.  Atheism can in no way support a philosophy of liberty.


No I haven't said might makes right. The use of force or the threat of such does not always equal the might needed to conquer or enslave people. I have been talking about *self defense*. Why is that so offensive to you?

While I talk of sovereign individuals both owning and defending themselves you lord over me with your "god" that you claim owns me and actively goes on the offensive to do such a thing. How ridiculous of you to tell me that I'm justifying tyranny while you in fact are. Your god is your government and myself is mine. 

How tyrannical of me to take care of myself. How libertarian of you to support global government.

----------


## fr33

> You're right.  The North Korean people deserve to be free.  *So all atheists need to band together and invade North Korea!  And while you're at it, support Obama sending weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria because, after all, Assad is a dictator and people deserve to be free!  Let's all join into perpetual war forever because we have to make sure that people are free! *   Or...people could take the advice of Paul and seek freedom without force of arms.  That's the message of Romans 13.  Note that it's the Syrian Christians who are saying "Please don't send weapons to the Syrian rebels."  That doesn't mean they like Assad or in agreement with tyranny.


I don't know why you would think I support such an action (in bold). I would applaud the North Koreans and Syrians that rise up and destroy their captors. Romans 13 justifies their captors and the chains they now live with. When I look towards a book that supports liberty, Romans 13 would not even be on the list.

----------


## fr33

> The problem is none of what you're saying comports with atheism.


First, you need to define atheism because I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this. You're fond of calling atheism and pretty much every opinion a religion. Your statement is basically that no atheists are individualists. I'm living proof that you are wrong. It's a poor attempt to slander atheism based on other opinions that other atheists have.




> You're right that many forms of slavery are wrong, that there are uses of force that are wrong, and that people have moral duties. These things exist because they derive from the nature of God. If there were no God, there could be no moral law.


Every form of slavery is wrong. But you are partially right that they exist because of your god. Many a nation state has justified the worst forms of tyranny because they based it on "god's words".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No I haven't said might makes right. The use of force or the threat of such does not always equal the might needed to conquer or enslave people. I have been talking about *self defense*. Why is that so offensive to you?
> 
> While I talk of sovereign individuals both owning and defending themselves you lord over me with your "god" that you claim owns me and actively goes on the offensive to do such a thing. How ridiculous of you to tell me that I'm justifying tyranny while you in fact are. Your god is your government and myself is mine. 
> 
> How tyrannical of me to take care of myself. *How libertarian of you to support global government.*


God is the sovereign of the entire of creation, not just the globe.  I disagree with SF on pretty much everything, but he's right about this.  Without God, all systems of philosophy, ethics, and so on are completely arbitrary and subjective.  When the atheist or secular philosopher tries to answer the question of "why or why _not_ do x?", he runs into the problem of appealing to arbitrary authority (that is, the authority he perceives himself to have).

----------


## fr33

> Because it was in His words and works done to and through Israel that God most definitively revealed Himself to humanity. His final and most definitive revelation was through His Son, who lived as a man at a specific time and place in our world's history, Jesus Christ, whose nation was Israel, and whose scriptures, which he fulfilled, were their scriptures.
> 
> Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead.
> 
> That is the central message of Christianity, and the central message of the entire Bible. All the other questions need to get worked out in light of that message.


Yes I'm aware of the story. It's the story of how some humans are better than others and can enslave those not of their nation. It's a disgusting story and it's been repeated and used by other nations. How inspiring a tyrant finds it to be...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No I haven't said might makes right. The use of force or the threat of such does not always equal the might needed to conquer or enslave people. I have been talking about *self defense*. Why is that so offensive to you?


It's not offensive to me.  I have a basis for believing in self-defense...you don't.  Why is it wrong that a tyrant would deny self defense to people he wants to enslave?






> While I talk of sovereign individuals both owning and defending themselves you lord over me with your "god" that you claim owns me and actively goes on the offensive to do such a thing. How ridiculous of you to tell me that I'm justifying tyranny while you in fact are. Your god is your government and myself is mine.


Why is tyranny wrong?  Why is statism wrong?  Why is a philosophy that denies self-ownership wrong?  Why is aggression wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is lying wrong?  Why is anything wrong?

You have this COMPLETELY arbitrary value system and your atheistic worldview cannot support morality.  Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.





> How tyrannical of me to take care of myself. How libertarian of you to support global government.


Where have I supported global government?  That's right.... no where.  Why is it wrong that Obama take care of you?  He has more firepower than you and he says he is good.  Why is he wrong?  Why is it wrong that you take care of other people?  Why is it wrong that someone who is stronger than you force you to provide for someone else?  How does your arbitrary worthless position answer any of these questions???

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know why you would think I support such an action (in bold). I would applaud the North Koreans and Syrians that rise up and destroy their captors. Romans 13 justifies their captors and the chains they now live with. When I look towards a book that supports liberty, Romans 13 would not even be on the list.


I was being sarcastic.  As for the Syrians rising up against their "captors".  Well they have.  They are being led by Al Qaeda.  Do you applaud them?  More importantly, are you willing to offer them material support?  Because I'm not.  Nor would I encourage the North Koreans to commit mass suicide by rising up against Kim Jung Il without proper weapons.  I'm sorry, but seeing people indiscriminately slaughtered is not something I can applaud.  Nor am I willing to give the North Koreans weapons.  After the first Gulf War, Kurds and Shiites rose up against Saddam thinking the U.S. would have their backs.  We didn't.  The killing by Saddam was massive.  I wasn't applauding.  Were you?  This isn't a game of "Command and Conquer" were the rebel forces you are cheering on to certain death get another chance when you restart the level.  Paul and Peter were facing an enemy every bit as ruthless as Kim Jung Il and far more ruthless than Assad.  This enemy was on the look out for Jewish "Zealot" sects that were a threat.  Such sects were put down ruthlessly.  We're talking men, women and children crucified or burned alive or fed to animals.  The Christian approach was more aikido than muay thai.  They sought to change hearts and minds as opposed to winning by force of arms.  History shows that approach actually worked eventually.  The "let's change hearts and minds" approach is what Ron Paul is using in this country as well.

So, since you are so "pro liberty", what do you offer the Syrian people and the North Koreans other than your "applause?"

----------


## fr33

> What is your basis for that claim?


I've been citing the sins found in the same book the 10 commandments come from. Often the same chapter. Some sins have been ignored by some while others get promoted.

----------


## fr33

> The context of its being voluntary.


God commanded the enslavement regardless of voluntarism.

----------


## fr33

> God is the sovereign of the entire of creation, not just the globe.  I disagree with SF on pretty much everything, but he's right about this.  Without God, all systems of philosophy, ethics, and so on are completely arbitrary and subjective.  When the atheist or secular philosopher tries to answer the question of "why or why _not_ do x?", he runs into the problem of appealing to arbitrary authority (that is, the authority he perceives himself to have).


OK, correction: Instead of global government, I should have said universal government. Your god is the authority over not just your actions but also your thoughts.

----------


## fr33

> I was being sarcastic.  As for the Syrians rising up against their "captors".  Well they have.  They are being led by Al Qaeda.  Do you applaud them?  *More importantly, are you willing to offer them material support?*  Because I'm not.  Nor would I encourage the North Koreans to commit mass suicide by rising up against Kim Jung Il without proper weapons.  I'm sorry, but seeing people indiscriminately slaughtered is not something I can applaud.  *Nor am I willing to give the North Koreans weapons.*  After the first Gulf War, Kurds and Shiites rose up against Saddam thinking the U.S. would have their backs.  We didn't.  The killing by Saddam was massive.  I wasn't applauding.  Were you?  This isn't a game of "Command and Conquer" were the rebel forces you are cheering on to certain death get another chance when you restart the level.  Paul and Peter were facing an enemy every bit as ruthless as Kim Jung Il and far more ruthless than Assad.  This enemy was on the look out for Jewish "Zealot" sects that were a threat.  Such sects were put down ruthlessly.  We're talking men, women and children crucified or burned alive or fed to animals.  The Christian approach was more aikido than muay thai.  They sought to change hearts and minds as opposed to winning by force of arms.  History shows that approach actually worked eventually.  The "let's change hearts and minds" approach is what Ron Paul is using in this country as well.
> 
> So, since you are so "pro liberty", what do you offer the Syrian people and the North Koreans other than your "applause?"


Again with the bold text. Why do you act like I've supported such things?

If given the option of starving to death, as many North Koreans are, suicide while taking a few of my captors with me sounds better. I haven't been in their shoes though so I can't claim to understand it.

Imagine, if you can, killing govt agents after you decided a tax increase on tea was the last straw. Romans 13 was not the inspiration of those rebels.

But again I say; reading Romans 13 helps nobody but their captors. It justifies tyranny.

----------


## fr33

> It's not offensive to me.  I have a basis for believing in self-defense...you don't.  Why is it wrong that a tyrant would deny self defense to people he wants to enslave?







> Why is tyranny wrong?  Why is statism wrong?  Why is a philosophy that denies self-ownership wrong?  Why is aggression wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is lying wrong?  Why is anything wrong?
> 
> You have this COMPLETELY arbitrary value system and your atheistic worldview cannot support morality.  Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.


You play with words while completely ignoring their meaning. It's fascinating that you are the one who started the topic about the bible being inerrant. I own myself. You claim that I don't. I have a basis for self defense. You don't. You support many laws that violate my principle of individualism.





> Where have I supported global government?  That's right.... no where.  Why is it wrong that Obama take care of you?  He has more firepower than you and he says he is good.  Why is he wrong?  Why is it wrong that you take care of other people?  Why is it wrong that someone who is stronger than you force you to provide for someone else?  How does your arbitrary worthless position answer any of these questions???


As HB, who was supporting you, pointed out; You support universal government. Your government is god and he is reported to routinely violate the rights of the individual. He commands slavery, rape, violence, and thought policing.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again with the bold text. Why do you act like I've supported such things?


I didn't act like you supported those things.  *I asked you the question of IF you would support such a thing*.  The other option is that you would just sit on the sidelines and "applaud" people doing something incredibly stupid.




> If given the option of starving to death, as many North Koreans are, suicide while taking a few of my captors with me sounds better. I haven't been in their shoes though so I can't claim to understand it.


The Syrian people weren't starving to death.  Would you applaud their mass suicide?  What exactly are you applauding anyway?




> Imagine, if you can, killing govt agents after you decided a tax increase on tea was the last straw. Romans 13 was not the inspiration of those rebels.


Yep.  And they fought a rebellion and installed a new government that promptly imposed a tax on whiskey and put down those who wouldn't pay said tax with force of arms.  Your point?




> But again I say; reading Romans 13 helps nobody but their captors. It justifies tyranny.


If you only read Romans 13 I suppose.  If you read Acts you will see where Peter said "We should obey God rather than man."  And that is the basis of non-violent resistance / civil disobedience.  Why do you think Ghandi, who was not a Christian, was so inspired by Christianity?  The idea that you could simultaneously not agree with tyranny while at the same time not "applauding" violence as a way to fight it strongly appealed to him and ultimately led to the liberation of India.  You have all this tough talk.  Forget North Korea and Syria.  What about the U.S.?  Our government is arguably doing much worse these days than taxing tea.  I chose the path of non violent resistance which is taking Romans 13 and applying it to Act 5:29 and to the gospels.  I seek to change hearts and minds rather than stare down a tank with a BB gun.

----------


## fr33

> The Syrian people weren't starving to death.  Would you applaud their mass suicide?  What exactly are you applauding anyway?


You keep putting words in my mouth that I haven't uttered. It is quite pathetic how you beg the question repeatedly. Is it yours or mine standard to be starving to death before you or I do something about it. My plans for life certainly don't include that scenario. I will act before that happens no matter what your sheepishly view of the world or bible is. Romans 13 be damned.

The Syrians aren't as bad off as the North Koreans but is their current lot in life acceptable? Will you accept the UN dictator if and when the time comes and do nothing about it? I won't. Apparently your bible tells you to. Apparently your bible justifies the Syrian dictator.





> Yep.  And they fought a rebellion and installed a new government that promptly imposed a tax on whiskey and put down those who wouldn't pay said tax with force of arms.  Your point?


Their mistakes afterwards does not make their rebellion wrong. Apparently you would have us still be colonies.





> If you only read Romans 13 I suppose.  If you read Acts you will see where Peter said "We should obey God rather than man."  And that is the basis of non-violent resistance / civil disobedience.  Why do you think Ghandi, who was not a Christian, was so inspired by Christianity?  The idea that you could simultaneously not agree with tyranny while at the same time not "applauding" violence as a way to fight it strongly appealed to him and ultimately led to the liberation of India.  You have all this tough talk.  Forget North Korea and Syria.  What about the U.S.?  Our government is arguably doing much worse these days than taxing tea.  I chose the path of non violent resistance which is taking Romans 13 and applying it to Act 5:29 and to the gospels.  I seek to change hearts and minds rather than stare down a tank with a BB gun.


Gandhi died from an assassination and his people largely live in poverty and superstition. I don't wish to be the new Indian. I'd rather be free. You've made it clear that we should all suffer greatly. Why do you even bother with this liberty movement.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You play with words while completely ignoring their meaning. It's fascinating that you are the one who started the topic about the bible being inerrant. I own myself. You claim that I don't. I have a basis for self defense. You don't. You support many laws that violate my principle of individualism.


You say you own yourself.   Fine.  Why is it wrong for someone else to not respect your arbitrary claim of self ownership?






> As HB, who was supporting you, pointed out; You support universal government. Your government is god and he is reported to routinely violate the rights of the individual. He commands slavery, rape, violence, and thought policing.


I support government.   Government is not evil.  I believe the state is.  But self government,  family government,  church government,  etc are good.  God's government of His creation is good.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was being sarcastic.  As for the Syrians rising up against their "captors".  Well they have.  They are being led by Al Qaeda.  Do you applaud them?  More importantly, are you willing to offer them material support?  Because I'm not.  Nor would I encourage the North Koreans to commit mass suicide by rising up against Kim Jung Il without proper weapons.  I'm sorry, but seeing people indiscriminately slaughtered is not something I can applaud.  Nor am I willing to give the North Koreans weapons.  After the first Gulf War, Kurds and Shiites rose up against Saddam thinking the U.S. would have their backs.  We didn't.  The killing by Saddam was massive.  I wasn't applauding.  Were you?  This isn't a game of "Command and Conquer" were the rebel forces you are cheering on to certain death get another chance when you restart the level.  Paul and Peter were facing an enemy every bit as ruthless as Kim Jung Il and far more ruthless than Assad.  This enemy was on the look out for Jewish "Zealot" sects that were a threat.  Such sects were put down ruthlessly.  We're talking men, women and children crucified or burned alive or fed to animals.  The Christian approach was more aikido than muay thai.  They sought to change hearts and minds as opposed to winning by force of arms.  History shows that approach actually worked eventually.  The "let's change hearts and minds" approach is what Ron Paul is using in this country as well.
> 
> So, since you are so "pro liberty", what do you offer the Syrian people and the North Koreans other than your "applause?"


I'll admit to not knowing for sure, but if North Korea is really as bad as we think it is, I don't see why living there would be anywhere remotely near worthwhile.  Frankly, I'd probably rather just kill some of the thugs and die, as Fr33 is saying.  That's probably not Biblical, so maybe God needs to change my heart in that area, but that's my intuitive response to this.

I don't see how Rome, bad as it was, really compares to North Korea.  Rome was a massive, bureaucratic nightmare.  It had a lot in common with the US.  More extreme in many respects, and less so when it comes to surveilance due to technological issues, but similar.  To my understanding there wasn't a total communistic system in Rome, nor was opposing the government inherent cause to be tossed in a concentration camp (After all, pretty much all the Jews openly hated the Roman government, and they go away with it for awhile at least.)



> You say you own yourself.   Fine.  Why is it wrong for someone else to not respect your arbitrary claim of self ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support government.   Government is not evil.  I believe the state is.  But self government,  family government,  church government,  etc are good.  God's government of His creation is good.


Good points and good question.

----------


## fr33

> You say you own yourself.   Fine.  Why is it wrong for someone else to not respect your arbitrary claim of self ownership?


It's easier to prove my claim than yours. The scientific way is to allow someone to attack me while I physically defend myself while allowing someone to attack you while you pray. I could provide proof while your proof is based on something based on afterlives that has never been proven.




> I support government.   Government is not evil.  I believe the state is.  But self government,  family government,  church government,  etc are good.  God's government of His creation is good.


I can provide you with many examples of how family and church government is not good; if you wish. As for God's government; you claim it's good even though it's bad; if one values the individual over government. Killing your sons is good to you if god commands it. Raping women and calling them their wives is good to you. Enslaving people that are not of a certain nation is good to you. Stoning people for victimless crimes is good to you. For all the accusations you've levied at me that my morals are baseless, your god's morals are absolute $#@!.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's easier to prove my claim than yours. The scientific way is to allow someone to attack me while I physically defend myself while allowing someone to attack you while you pray. I could provide proof while your proof is based on something based on afterlives that has never been proven.


This doesn't answer the question that was posed to you.





> I can provide you with many examples of how family and church government is not good; if you wish. As for God's government; you claim it's good even though it's bad; if one values the individual over government. Killing your sons is good to you if god commands it. Raping women and calling them their wives is good to you. Enslaving people that are not of a certain nation is good to you. Stoning people for victimless crimes is good to you. For all the accusations you've levied at me that my morals are baseless, your god's morals are absolute $#@!.


Uhhh, no.  This is a failure to understand the contextomy of the scriptures and the Christian view.  Let's say that your claim "your god's morals are absolute $#@!" was true.  This is still a non-arbitrary, rational standard for judging human action.

----------


## fr33

> This doesn't answer the question that was posed to you.


That's because I've said it many times before. There are consequences to violating me. I claim to own myself and will do things to those that violate that claim. I guess I have to repeat it over and over to you and Sola. I and every sovereign human makes this threat. There are consequences to govt actions. Watch the empire fall and keep wondering why if you keep choosing to ignore it.




> Uhhh, no.  This is a failure to understand the contextomy of the scriptures and the Christian view.  Let's say that your claim "your god's morals are absolute $#@!" was true.  This is still a non-arbitrary, rational standard for judging human action.


I understand the contextomy completely. It's why the topic of the bible being inerrant is not acceptable. You'll find many bible followers justifying the worst possible violations of human rights by saying those only apply to Israelis. It's a sick nationalistic/tribalistic view of the world that never took into account the fact of many other un-discovered continents of people exist. The modern people that still stick with this Israeli-first are living within a un-enlightened worldview that their god never imagined. He could have actually taught things to people but he was too ignorant of the unexplored lands or the ground beneath him. That's because men wrote "his" words. Men that didn't even know of the continents on the other sides of the globe nor knew about species that predated them. It's a silly superstition.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's easier to prove my claim than yours. The scientific way is to allow someone to attack me while I physically defend myself while allowing someone to attack you while you pray. I could provide proof while your proof is based on something based on afterlives that has never been proven.


Why is it WRONG?   You have not answered the question and CAN NOT answer the question.




> I can provide you with many examples of how family and church government is not good; if you wish. As for God's government; you claim it's good even though it's bad; if one values the individual over government. Killing your sons is good to you if god commands it. Raping women and calling them their wives is good to you. Enslaving people that are not of a certain nation is good to you. Stoning people for victimless crimes is good to you. For all the accusations you've levied at me that my morals are baseless, your god's morals are absolute $#@!.



Why is killing your sons wrong?   Why is rape wrong? Why is stoning people wrong?  Why is enslaving people wrong?

Why is anything wrong according to atheism?  How long are you going to keep giving your arbitrary non answers before you realize you have no grounds to say ANYTHING is morally wrong?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's because I've said it many times before. There are consequences to violating me. I claim to own myself and will do things to those that violate that claim. I guess I have to repeat it over and over to you and Sola. I and every sovereign human makes this threat. There are consequences to govt actions.



Why is it wrong to disregard your threats?  Especially if I have more firepower than you?  Why is it wrong to not care about the consequences of aggressing against you?  Why is it wrong to violate your claim of self ownership?

----------


## fr33

> Why is it wrong to disregard your threats?  Especially if I have more firepower than you?  Why is it wrong to not care about the consequences of aggressing against you?  Why is it wrong to violate your claim of self ownership?


Because I'll take your acolytes down with me. It's been done many times before. It's not a new thing. Actions have consequences.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because I'll take your acolytes down with me. It's been done many times before. It's not a new thing. Actions have consequences.


What if I don't care about the consequences?   What if because of my firepower there will be no consequences? 

Why is it wrong?

----------


## fr33

> Why is it WRONG?   You have not answered the question and CAN NOT answer the question.


Because most people wish to go on living. How many times do I have to explain it to you?





> Why is killing your sons wrong?   Why is rape wrong? Why is stoning people wrong?  Why is enslaving people wrong?


Gotta hand it to you. At least you are honest in supporting all of the above. And that's why the milk-toast modern christian is more trustworthy than you; because they don't agree with most of your precious book. You represent the Andrea Yates types amongst us. That is why secularism has dragged your types kicking and screaming away from the witch burnings. Your type yearns to return to the absolute barbarism that your bible justifies. There is a topic on this forum where you justify mandatory marriages for for the rape victim and their raper.




> Why is anything wrong according to atheism?  How long are you going to keep giving your arbitrary non answers before you realize you have no grounds to say ANYTHING is morally wrong?


Atheism is not a code of morals. Get a dictionary, you dumb$#@!. Atheism denies the existence of your god. Whatever the atheists choose as their moral code is what you should be attacking. They don't all choose 1 single code of morals; and that makes your lashing out against it seem as stupid as possible since you don't seem to understand the definition.

The fact remains that what you claim as you morals violates the rights of the individual and supports nanny-state practices.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The fact remains that what you claim as you morals violates the rights of the individual and supports nanny-state practices.


Why is it wrong to violate the right of the individual?  Why is it wrong to support the nanny state?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because most people wish to go on living. How many times do I have to explain it to you?


Why is it wrong to violate the wishes of people to keep on living?

----------


## fr33

> Why is it wrong to violate the right of the individual?  Why is it wrong to support the nanny state?


Come and try to rape or steal from me, as your bible commands. I explained it over and over yet you don't understand. I'm willing to teach you. Psst, my wife is rumored to be a witch. Try your bible justified tyranny against my moral code. Come on, try it. That's why.

----------


## fr33

It is amazing that on this forum I have to justify why I'm not a slave, rape victim, or am a free thinker. Give these people any power and they will hire their holy goons to to violate your rights. Freedom has never been their goal. It's an awkward alliance to support Ron Paul when he attracts these sectarians.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> It is amazing that on this forum I have to justify why I'm not a slave, rape victim, or am a free thinker. Give these people any power and they will hire their holy goons to to violate your rights. Freedom has never been their goal. It's an awkward alliance to support Ron Paul when he attracts these sectarians.


I agree with you. They are the reason I rarely visit this forum. Back in the day we used to get stuff done, but now 90% of discussions on here is about Narnia.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Come and try to rape or steal from me, as your bible commands. I explained it over and over yet you don't understand. I'm willing to teach you. Psst, my wife is rumored to be a witch. Try your bible justified tyranny against my moral code. Come on, try it. That's why.


I'm explaining to you over and over again that your threat of force is not a universal statement of why something is wrong.

If threats of force make something right, then Obama has a moral right to coerce you to do everything he wishes.  He has more force than you do.

Is what I'm saying getting through to you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with you. They are the reason I rarely visit this forum. Back in the day we used to get stuff done, but now 90% of discussions on here is about Narnia.


Narnia is what I think when you people talk about how humans magically sprang from rocks.  It's la la land.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The Bible is not self authenticating? Does God not say that it is Himself speaking in the Scriptures? 
> 
> Of course He does.  And there is no higher authority whereby to authenticate the words of God than God's own words.


What illogical question-begging.

SF: The Bible is the Word of God.
ST: How do you know it's the Word of God?
SF: Because it says so, and God wouldn't lie.
ST: But how do you know it's God speaking?
SF: Because the Bible is God's Word and is therefore absolute truth.
ST:  But I've got a book in which God says things that contradict things in the Bible.  How do you know that my book isn't God's Word?
SF: (Silence)

The Bible is authenticated only by your assumption that it is God's Word, an assumption that may very well be incorrect.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What illogical question-begging.
> 
> SF: The Bible is the Word of God.
> ST: How do you know it's the Word of God?
> SF: Because it says so, and God wouldn't lie.
> ST: But how do you know it's God speaking?
> SF: Because the Bible is God's Word and is therefore absolute truth.
> ST:  But I've got a book in which God says things that contradict things in the Bible.  How do you know that my book isn't God's Word?
> SF: (Silence)
> ...


"Jesus loves me, 'cause the Bible tells me so."  Sound familiar? 

It starts at a young age and it's very difficult to break from the circular reasoning.  There are many reasons not to question it, since it's taught that questioning god (actually the bible) is wrong, read the book of Job (last part) or other scriptures ("Who are you, oh man, to question.....", etc....

My son says, "Religion is the Santa Claus for adults, be good or you won't get your reward".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What illogical question-begging.
> 
> SF: The Bible is the Word of God.
> ST: How do you know it's the Word of God?
> SF: Because it says so, and God wouldn't lie.
> ST: But how do you know it's God speaking?
> SF: Because the Bible is God's Word and is therefore absolute truth.
> ST:  But I've got a book in which God says things that contradict things in the Bible.  How do you know that my book isn't God's Word?
> SF: (Silence)
> ...


ST:"Since our senses are required to obtain information, the senses are necessary to obtain information." 

SF:  "ST, why are you such a circular,  irrational,  blind faith religionist? Why do you simply assume your theory of knowledge before proving it?"

ST:  (silence)

----------


## jmdrake

> You keep putting words in my mouth that I haven't uttered. It is quite pathetic how you beg the question repeatedly. Is it yours or mine standard to be starving to death before you or I do something about it. My plans for life certainly don't include that scenario. I will act before that happens no matter what your sheepishly view of the world or bible is. Romans 13 be damned.


I haven't put any words in your mouth.  I pointed out the fact that the Syrian people are not starving.  Or at least they weren't until the ill fated "uprising".  Then I asked you several questions based on your stated beliefs.  If you think that asking questions is "putting words in your mouth" then you're really not qualified to debate anyone.  Either answer the question or give your reason why you don't think the question is relevant.

I do not think the Syrian people have gained anything from the uprising against Assad.  In fact I think they've lost quite a bit.  Assad is a dictator for sure.  And the people leading the rebellion against him are worse.  Are you familiar with the Who song "We don't get fooled again?"  (Oh, I'm asking you a question.  I guess you'll again falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth.)  Go listen to that song again and this time *pay attention* to the lyrics.  Yeah great.  We can have a "revolution".  And do we actually and up any better?




> The Syrians aren't as bad off as the North Koreans but is their current lot in life acceptable? Will you accept the UN dictator if and when the time comes and do nothing about it? I won't. Apparently your bible tells you to. Apparently your bible justifies the Syrian dictator.


Ah....look who's putting words in someone's mouth!  If there is a U.N. installed dictator in Syria it will be as the result of the current ill fated "revolution".  And guess what?  That same kind of ill fated "Let's just go shoot somebody" revolution can lead to a U.N. installed dictator here in the U.S.  It's called "problem - reaction - solution".  My Bible tells me not to go off half cocked like a fool without thinking through likely outcomes.  I'm sorry that offends you.  My Bible teaches that love and patience and kindness are the best ways to overcome evil.  My Bible teaches me to obey God rather than man, so I would not go along with dictates from a dictator, U.N. or otherwise, that violated conscience even at the cost of my own life.  But I'm not going to bring down harm on myself and my family just to be able to say "I rebelled."




> Their mistakes afterwards does not make their rebellion wrong. Apparently you would have us still be colonies.
> 
> Gandhi died from an assassination and his people largely live in poverty and superstition. I don't wish to be the new Indian. I'd rather be free. You've made it clear that we should all suffer greatly. Why do you even bother with this liberty movement.


India is no longer a British colony.  And the Indian economy is growing very rapidly at the moment.  Better than ours.  Do you honestly think that Gandhi using violence would have ended up with a better result?  Do you think it would have preserved his life somehow?  And considering that Ron Paul quotes Gandhi quite a bit (and Ron Paul quotes the Bible quite a bit), why am I the one that doesn't belong in the liberty movement?  Are you sure that *you* are in the right movement?

----------


## Ronin Truth

My Bible must be broken. It has lots of errors.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll admit to not knowing for sure, but if North Korea is really as bad as we think it is, I don't see why living there would be anywhere remotely near worthwhile.  Frankly, I'd probably rather just kill some of the thugs and die, as Fr33 is saying.  That's probably not Biblical, so maybe God needs to change my heart in that area, but that's my intuitive response to this.
> 
> I don't see how Rome, bad as it was, really compares to North Korea.  Rome was a massive, bureaucratic nightmare.  It had a lot in common with the US.  More extreme in many respects, and less so when it comes to surveilance due to technological issues, but similar.  To my understanding there wasn't a total communistic system in Rome, nor was opposing the government inherent cause to be tossed in a concentration camp (After all, pretty much all the Jews openly hated the Roman government, and they go away with it for awhile at least.)


Brush up some on your Roman history.  This is Josephus describing the fall of Jerusalem.  Sure they weren't sent to concentration camps.  It was much more profitable to make them slaves working in mines or more fun to feed them to animals in the Colosseum.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ephussack.html

As for "killing a few thugs" remember the end result of that is that in North Korea they don't just kill you.  They kill your family.  Is killing a few thugs, and not actually accomplishing anything, worth seeing your parents, grandparents, cousins etc killed in front of you?  Now, here's the discussion fr33 wishes to avoid.  If I was in North Korea and decided I wanted to go the revolution route I would *damn sure* want some outside help.  Some guns?  Some air support?  Something?  The fact that some unknown person somewhere on some "liberty" forum was sitting on the sidelines "applauding" me wouldn't mean jack.  Let's suppose, FF, you could get through to someone in North Korea.  What advice would you give him?  "Kill a few thugs and hope for the best?"  Not a very bright move in my opinion, but hey, it would make a few keyboard warriors feel good.  My advice to that person would be learn all you can about the outside world and spread information that would undermine the government as far and as wide as possible.  That is what Alex Jones calls the "infowar."  In Iran long before there was a successful revolution, the "infowar" was one by people copying cassette tapes of the Ayatollah Khomenei's sermons and distributing them by hand.  Imagine if most of Kim's soldiers and police learned to appreciate "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"  Say if they realized "This tyrant only has the power we give him" and decided they no longer wanted to give it to him?  Who would enforce his tyranny?  There is more than one way to bring down a dictator.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Narnia is what I think when you people talk about how humans magically sprang from rocks.  It's la la land.


As opposed to bearded fellow with an small sized penis in the sky?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> My Bible must be broken. It has lots of errors.


You need to download the latest patch.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As opposed to bearded fellow with an small sized penis in the sky?


Where does that come from?  The Bible says God is immaterial.   So how can He have a beard?

What if that image came from the sinful and errant mind of man?

----------


## fr33

> My Bible must be broken. It has lots of errors.


Obviously. Those who regard it as the most magnificent basis of law can't even agree on what it says. They'll spend page after page arguing over what this or that means or why whichever contradictory statement they favor is right.  The people who wrote it couldn't even agree on it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Obviously. Those who regard it as the most magnificent basis of law can't even agree on what it says. They'll spend page after page arguing over what this or that means or why whichever contradictory statement they favor is right.  The people who wrote it couldn't even agree on it.


You know Hitichens was a *passionate defender of the war in Iraq* right?




What was that you were saying again about who is/isn't part of the "liberty movement"?    Hitchens is at least consistent in his philosophy.  Rather than sitting on the sidelines "applauding" every revolution that comes along, he offers his support for governments to intervene on behalf of those revolutions.  Go atheists!

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> ST:"Since our senses are required to obtain information, the senses are necessary to obtain information." 
> 
> SF:  "ST, why are you such a circular,  irrational,  blind faith religionist? Why do you simply assume your theory of knowledge before proving it?"
> 
> ST:  (silence)


At least I don't claim that my viewpoint is self-authenticating, even though its predictive abilities are light years ahead of those of theism.

Furthermore, I am not a hypocrite as you are.  For all of your criticisms of empiricism, you rely on it every waking moment of your life.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You need to download the latest patch.


  What's the date on that one? 1538?

----------


## fr33

> You know Hitichens was a *passionate defender of the war in Iraq* right?


 Yep and he didn't say anything about that in the video I posted.




> What was that you were saying again about who is/isn't part of the "liberty movement"?


I didn't really say that. I just said it's an awkward alliance I have with sectarians who justify things like slavery, rape, kings, etc. I could make a similar statement about secularists if I were really part of an "atheist movement".



> Hitchens is at least consistent in his philosophy.  Rather than sitting on the sidelines "applauding" every revolution that comes along, he offers his support for governments to intervene on behalf of those revolutions.  Go atheists!


There you go again, saying all atheists are statists. I wouldn't even say all christians support slavery, rape, and all the other things you'll find some here justifying.

----------


## erowe1

> Yep and he didn't say anything about that in the video I posted.
> 
> 
> I didn't really say that. I just said it's an awkward alliance I have with sectarians who justify things like slavery, rape, kings, etc. I could make a similar statement about secularists if I were really part of an "atheist movement".
> 
> 
> There you go again, saying all atheists are statists. I wouldn't even say all christians support slavery, rape, and all the other things you'll find some here justifying.


Could you give the quotes of people justifying slavery and rape?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ST:"Since our senses are required to obtain information, the senses are necessary to obtain information." 
> 
> SF:  "ST, why are you such a circular,  irrational,  blind faith religionist? Why do you simply assume your theory of knowledge before proving it?"
> 
> ST:  (silence)


I've asked you before how we can actually know that we're reading anything in the Bible if we can't trust our senses at all.  You have yet to answer.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's because I've said it many times before. There are consequences to violating me. I claim to own myself and will do things to those that violate that claim. I guess I have to repeat it over and over to you and Sola. I and every sovereign human makes this threat. There are consequences to govt actions. Watch the empire fall and keep wondering why if you keep choosing to ignore it.


You still haven't answered the question (despite repeating a non-answer several times).  Why _ought_ anyone respect your self-ownership claim?  Someone with more firepower than you could claim ownership of you just as easily.  A thug who wants to enslave you does not care about your intellectual feats and gymnastics.  He cares about his rational self-interest (which includes enslaving you).  I, on the other hand, can point to God's word and the wisdom of the Church Fathers as evidence for why I should not be a slave.  Creator of the universe trumps atheistic/ego-centric reasoning every time. 






> I understand the contextomy completely. It's why the topic of the bible being inerrant is not acceptable. You'll find many bible followers justifying the worst possible violations of human rights by saying those only apply to Israelis. It's a sick nationalistic/tribalistic view of the world that never took into account the fact of many other un-discovered continents of people exist. The modern people that still stick with this Israeli-first are living within a un-enlightened worldview that their god never imagined. He could have actually taught things to people but he was too ignorant of the unexplored lands or the ground beneath him. That's because men wrote "his" words. Men that didn't even know of the continents on the other sides of the globe nor knew about species that predated them. It's a silly superstition.


The Israeli jews you speak of do not believe in God.  They believe in YHWH-the first person of God.  
WRT your claim about the age of scripture supposedly making it irrelevant-the subjects dealt with in the bible and in the writings of the Church Fathers are transcendental.  To this day we deal with variations on the same old things.  As Solomon said "there is nothing new under the sun".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've asked you before how we can actually know that we're reading anything in the Bible if we can't trust our senses at all.  You have yet to answer.


The question assumes that information comes from the senses.  It's circular. 

The Christian view of knowledge is revelational, not empirical.

Read this: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=276

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've asked you before how we can actually know that we're reading anything in the Bible if we can't trust our senses at all.  You have yet to answer.


I know you're not addressing me, but I'll answer from the Orthodox POV in a nutshell, FWIW.  Our fallible senses cannot tell us everything.  This is why Christ established His church.  It is the combination of our own reading/listening to the Word and partaking in the mysteries/sacraments of the Church that inform our understanding of God rationally and spiritually/transcendentally.

ETA: As Sola correctly points out, it is not empirical.

----------


## fr33

> Could you give the quotes of people justifying slavery and rape?


Do I really need to? I'm pretty confident that I can but am not really feeling like doing it right now. Maybe tomorrow. You yourself have justified slavery that happened in the past on this very thread. When I say slavery and rape are both wrong and justified in the bible, someone like SF doesn't bother to deny the justification but instead resorts to questioning me why they aren't wrong. If I were to take up the task of finding the quotes, one of the first topics I'd go to would be the thread where SF said rape victims are required to marry their attackers. I've already made several responses to your questions on this thread that you didn't feel the need to respond to. It feels like y'all are just moving the goalposts, playing word games, and avoiding the actual basis of the topic; that the bible is inerrant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If I were to take up the task of finding the quotes, one of the first topics I'd go to would be the thread where SF said rape victims are required to marry their attackers.


I want the post link and the quote where I said this.

If you can't find it, I'm going to ask you man to man to stop slandering me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> . When I say slavery and rape are both wrong and justified in the bible, someone like SF doesn't bother to deny the justification but instead resorts to questioning me why they aren't wrong.


You have NO basis to say anything is morally wrong.   You stand in judgement over texts of the Bible which you have NO idea how to read, when you have no basis to judge ANYTHING right or wrong.

Atheism is a complete philosophical failure.

----------


## fr33

> You still haven't answered the question (despite repeating a non-answer several times).  Why _ought_ anyone respect your self-ownership claim?


Because of the consequences of not respecting my claim of self ownership.




> Someone with more firepower than you could claim ownership of you just as easily.


I've never claimed that my morals will create some type of utopian society.




> A thug who wants to enslave you does not care about your intellectual feats and gymnastics.  He cares about his rational self-interest (which includes enslaving you).


It's usually in his rational self-interest (unless he's suicidal) to go on living. The moral standard of self-ownership offers a consequence to the thug's actions.





> I, on the other hand, can point to God's word and the wisdom of the Church Fathers as evidence for why I should not be a slave.  Creator of the universe trumps atheistic/ego-centric reasoning every time.


But your god has demanded people to be slaves. He has demanded people many times to kill, rape, and enslave. His main man Moses commanded infanticide on a massive level. You rely on the opinion that you'll never be a victim of another inspired by these violent commands.




> The Israeli jews you speak of do not believe in God.  They believe in YHWH-the first person of God.  
> WRT your claim about the age of scripture supposedly making it irrelevant-the subjects dealt with in the bible and in the writings of the Church Fathers are transcendental.  To this day we deal with variations on the same old things.  As Solomon said "there is nothing new under the sun".


Oh so do what you will with the non-believers and other heathens.

----------


## fr33

> I want the post link and the quote where I said this.
> 
> If you can't find it, I'm going to ask you man to man to stop slandering me.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...o-Sola_Fide%29

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But your god has demanded people to be slaves. He has demanded people many times to kill, rape, and enslave. His main man Moses commanded infanticide on a massive level. You rely on the opinion that you'll never be a victim of another inspired by these violent commands.


SMH. ~facepalm~  Are you just copypasta-ing from atheist blogs?  God redeemed man by dying on the cross.  I could write a whole book debunking your argument here (and others have).  The New Covenant in the person of Christ gives us no need for the barbarism of the Old Covenant.  We now rely on Christ, who, when asked about the greatest commandment, replied "love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.  All the law and the prophets hang on these commandments".  (Matthew 22:36-40)

Look, you're not "bad" for not understanding the bible.  It is simply wrong and illogical for you to make shoddy claims like those you've made here.






> Oh so do what you will with the non-believers and other heathens.


Silly snark is silly.  Ignored.

----------


## fr33

> SMH. ~facepalm~  Are you just copypasta-ing from atheist blogs?  God redeemed man by dying on the cross.  I could write a whole book debunking your argument here (and others have).  The New Covenant in the person of Christ gives us no need for the barbarism of the Old Covenant.  We now rely on Christ, who, when asked about the greatest commandment, replied "love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.  All the law and the prophets hang on these commandments".  (Matthew 22:36-40)
> 
> Look, you're not "bad" for not understanding the bible.  It is simply wrong and illogical for you to make shoddy claims like those you've made here.


Still to this day we have to suffer those who use the old testament and our government to build monuments to days of barbarism (while they ignore the many other commands found in the same chapters). Thanks to your bible and the churches it inspires, not only modern oppressions exist but even older ones. The bible (new testament included) has existed for thousands of years. The tyranny it inspired was much worse in the past. It has inspired less tyranny today, not because of faith, but because people lost faith in *some* of it. That's why only some commandments make their way onto public property.

The Old Testament is not as dead as some like you would have us believe. It's cited quite often actually.






> Silly snark is silly.  Ignored.


It's not snark. I suggested people are being oppressed by the words of the bible due to tribalism. Your response is to justify tribalism.




> I understand the contextomy completely. It's why the topic of the bible being inerrant is not acceptable. You'll find many bible followers justifying the worst possible violations of human rights by saying those only apply to Israelis. It's a sick nationalistic/tribalistic view of the world that never took into account the fact of many other un-discovered continents of people exist. The modern people that still stick with this Israeli-first are living within a un-enlightened worldview that their god never imagined. He could have actually taught things to people but he was too ignorant of the unexplored lands or the ground beneath him. That's because men wrote "his" words. Men that didn't even know of the continents on the other sides of the globe nor knew about species that predated them. It's a silly superstition.





> *The Israeli jews you speak of do not believe in God.*  They believe in YHWH-the first person of God.  
> WRT your claim about the age of scripture supposedly making it irrelevant-the subjects dealt with in the bible and in the writings of the Church Fathers are transcendental.  To this day we deal with variations on the same old things.  As Solomon said "there is nothing new under the sun".

----------


## robert68

.

Errant or inerrant, a God that can arbitrarily decide what’s right and wrong isn’t bound by any words in a book.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...o-Sola_Fide%29



I want the POST and the LINK where I said "a rape victim is required to marry her attacker".

If you don't give me the EXACT post with my EXACT words, I'm going to ask you kindly to shut your mouth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> .
> 
> Errant or inerrant, a God that can arbitrarily decide whats right and wrong isnt bound by any words in a book.


The Christian position isn't that "God is bound by a book".  But God has chosen to reveal Himself to man in propositions that man can understand in writing and in thought.

God is logical.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Still to this day we have to suffer those who use the old testament and our government to build monuments to days of barbarism (while they ignore the many other commands found in the same chapters). Thanks to your bible and the churches it inspires, not only modern oppressions exist but even older ones. The bible (new testament included) has existed for thousands of years. The tyranny it inspired was much worse in the past. It has inspired less tyranny today, not because of faith, but because people lost faith in *some* of it. That's why only some commandments make their way onto public property.
> 
> The Old Testament is not as dead as some like you would have us believe. It's cited quite often actually.


Terrible argument is terrible.  You reason from parts to whole here.  Induction fail.







> It's not snark. I suggested people are being oppressed by the words of the bible due to tribalism. Your response is to justify tribalism.


I did no such thing.  Care to quote something I said that you believe implies that?

----------


## fr33

> I want the POST and the LINK where I said "a rape victim is required to marry her attacker".
> 
> If you don't give me the EXACT post with my EXACT words, I'm going to ask you kindly to shut your mouth.


The link will suffice unless you require me to define what sex is. Rapists have sex during rape. You and your god require them to marry their victim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The link will suffice unless you require me to define what sex is. Rapists have sex during rape. You and your god require them to marry their victim.


You said that I said "rapists are required to marry their attackers".

I want the POST and the LINK to where I said those words, or shut your mouth against me.

----------


## fr33

> Terrible argument is terrible.  You reason from parts to whole here.  Induction fail.


You've resorted to just name calling and baseless dismissal. Induction fail. Snark. Copy & Pasting atheist blogs. 

The bible is inerrant except when people act like it is, according to you.








> I did no such thing.  Care to quote something I said that you believe implies that?


I did. I even took the time to quote you once again. You can read it here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5402821

----------


## fr33

> You said that I said "rapists are required to marry their attackers".
> 
> I want the POST and the LINK to where I said those words, or shut your mouth against me.





> Further reading on this view :
> 
> *What Constitutes Marriage*
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm
> 
> 
> Marc Carpenter always responds to his email if you have questions, I'd ask him.


This is what you promote. This is what you're about. You don't have the balls to say it. You just link to people that say it.

When confronted with your god's justification for rape (like on this thread), you ask why is rape wrong. I've given reasons why it's wrong. You haven't. You instead have showed support to the idea that it isn't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is what you promote. This is what you're about. You don't have the balls to say it. You just link to people that say it.
> 
> When confronted with your god's justification for rape (like on this thread), you ask why is rape wrong. I've given reasons why it's wrong. You haven't. You instead have showed support to the idea that it isn't.


You said I said "God requires victims of rape to marry their attackers".  You have not provided one quote of mine (or one quote of anyone else's) that said that.

You have slandered me.

----------


## eduardo89

> You said I said "God requires victims of rape to marry their attackers".  You have not provided one quote of mine (or one quote of anyone else's) that said that.
> 
> You have slandered me.


Many of us have seen you say that a woman who is raped is married to her rapist. You've then gone on to try and make that position seem less absurd by adding that she apparently has no duties to her rapist/'husband' but that she cannot marry another man until the rapist dies.




> Can a victim of rape marry someone other than her rapist without committing adultery? Yes or no.





> Not until the rapist is executed.  But not marrying another and being a dutiful wife to a rapist is no where near the same thing.

----------


## erowe1

> Do I really need to? I'm pretty confident that I can


Why are you pretty confident that you can? It strikes me as a pretty dubious claim. I've never seen any of the Christians here justifying rape. I could see justifications for slavery, if the context shows that they're talking about something circumscribed by rules that make it pretty different from what most people think of as slavery. But I doubt that anyone has justified slavery just in general, including cases where someone is kidnapped and made a slave against their will without any cause.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yep and he didn't say anything about that in the video I posted.


Right.  But his worldview, which justifies the Iraq war, is informed by what he said in the video you posted.




> I didn't really say that. I just said it's an awkward alliance I have with sectarians who justify things like slavery, rape, kings, etc. I could make a similar statement about secularists if I were really part of an "atheist movement".


Let's be specific.  You and I were talking about Romans 13, not slavery or rape, and my view that Romans 13, taken with the admonition in Acts to obey God rather than men, suggests that Christians should seek non-violent resistance against oppression rooted in the belief that any state command that violates Jesus' teaching (you know, the whole love your neighbor thing?) is null and void.  We were talking about how Romans 13 precludes interventionism because I have no right to violently overthrow someone else's sovereign.  Instead Romans 13, along with Acts, allows for Gandhi style resistance to tyranny.  You attacked Gandhi style resistance based on the twin straw men arguments of Gandhi having been assassinated (as if no violent rebel leader has ever been assassinated) and India being poor (ignoring the fact that India's economy is on the *rise* and that many countries that had violent revolutions are economic basket cases.)  So don't try to change the subject to an argument that I was not making.




> There you go again, saying all atheists are statists. I wouldn't even say all christians support slavery, rape, and all the other things you'll find some here justifying.


 Don't try to flip the script.  *You* were the one saying you didn't believe someone who had taken the position I had on Romans 13 could be part of the liberty movement, *even though Ron Paul has the same view!*  I realize that that are atheists, you apparently aren't one of them, that see the value in Gandhian style resistance.  My point is that you posted Hitchens, someone who has views similar as you on Romans 13, and ignored the fact that he is a war monger.  I wouldn't post Pat Robertson in a thread where I was arguing that Christianity taught people to be peaceful and loving even if I did agree with a particular point he was making.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> God is logical.


Then why the logical fallacy of John 8:47?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Then why the logical fallacy of John 8:47?



Logic was never John's strong suit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You've resorted to just name calling and baseless dismissal. Induction fail. Snark. Copy & Pasting atheist blogs. 
> 
> The bible is inerrant except when people act like it is, according to you.


There is no name calling there.  Pointing out the fallacy in your post is not "name calling", nor is anything else in the post you quote. (except to you, apparently)









> I did. I even took the time to quote you once again. You can read it here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5402821


That post has nothing whatsoever to do with tribalism.  You just claim it does for no valid (per the laws and rules of logic) reason.

----------


## Terry1

I don't believe there's any real harm done in assuming the Bible is God's "inerrant word".  There are many bibles with differing interpretations, some that pervert the context to a degree that it's true meaning is lost unless one is being guided by the Holy Spirit to see the true spiritual meaning in that particular context.

Anything that's not spiritual is subject to fallibility.  The physical book, the writing and pages in it are not infallible.  The inerrancy or infallibility of the word of God can only come as result of the reader being spiritually inspired because they are knocking at the door---they are spiritually seeking in prayer.  God is inerrant and infallible and only through Him and the Holy Spirit can one be instructed as to what they're being called to do.

Since mankind is imperfect, so will our understanding be to one degree or another.  No man has the ability to perfectly understand the word clearly without error in this life.  Paul said, we will all see through the glass darkly until we are perfected, we are not perfected yet.  What the word speaks about in terms of our perfection is a future event, taking place after this life.


Philippians 3:12 
Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You said I said "God requires victims of rape to marry their attackers".  You have not provided one quote of mine *(or one quote of anyone else's)* that said that.
> 
> You have slandered me.


I could easily quote Chris Duncan saying this.  Do I need to prove this?  Or do you want to take the "Anyone else" part back and simply talk about what you believe?

As I recall, I bumped that thread recently and asked you what your opinion on this was (The OTC people didn't bother answering my questions because they quickly concluded that I wasn't saved and so it wasn't worth their time) but you never answered.  Maybe you missed it.  So I'll ask you here.  What's your current position on the whole "sex = marriage" thing that the OTC crowd tries to sell?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I could easily quote Chris Duncan saying this.  Do I need to prove this?  Or do you want to take the "Anyone else" part back and simply talk about what you believe?
> 
> As I recall, I bumped that thread recently and asked you what your opinion on this was (The OTC people didn't bother answering my questions because they quickly concluded that I wasn't saved and so it wasn't worth their time) but you never answered.  Maybe you missed it.  So I'll ask you here.  What's your current position on the whole "sex = marriage" thing that the OTC crowd tries to sell?


Not even the OTC guys have said that a woman is required to perform marital duties to a rapist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right.  But his worldview, which justifies the Iraq war, is informed by what he said in the video you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be specific.  You and I were talking about Romans 13, not slavery or rape, and my view that Romans 13, taken with the admonition in Acts to obey God rather than men, suggests that Christians should seek non-violent resistance against oppression rooted in the belief that any state command that violates Jesus' teaching (you know, the whole love your neighbor thing?) is null and void.  We were talking about how Romans 13 precludes interventionism because I have no right to violently overthrow someone else's sovereign.  Instead Romans 13, along with Acts, allows for Gandhi style resistance to tyranny.  You attacked Gandhi style resistance based on the twin straw men arguments of Gandhi having been assassinated (as if no violent rebel leader has ever been assassinated) and India being poor (ignoring the fact that India's economy is on the *rise* and that many countries that had violent revolutions are economic basket cases.)  So don't try to change the subject to an argument that I was not making.
> 
> 
> 
>  Don't try to flip the script.  *You* were the one saying you didn't believe someone who had taken the position I had on Romans 13 could be part of the liberty movement, *even though Ron Paul has the same view!*  I realize that that are atheists, you apparently aren't one of them, that see the value in Gandhian style resistance.  My point is that you posted Hitchens, someone who has views similar as you on Romans 13, and ignored the fact that he is a war monger.  I wouldn't post Pat Robertson in a thread where I was arguing that Christianity taught people to be peaceful and loving even if I did agree with a particular point he was making.


Larken Rose criticizes Gandhi and the general concept of pacifism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOKVTaflbM  I'm curious what your thoughts on the video are.  Note that I am not necessarily saying that he is right or that you are wrong, just throwing another perspective into the mix and am curious as to your position of it.

I'm not sure how having  a certain view of Romans 13 really has anything to do with the Iraq War.  Supporting self-defense while opposing aggression is not inconsistent at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not even the OTC guys have said that a woman is required to perform marital duties to a rapist.


You're right, but they do teach that the woman is technically married to the rapist.  

Chris Duncan  quoted below:




> Then there is the case of Tamar who was raped by her half-brother Amnon. Following the wickedly shrewd advice of his friend Jonadab, Amnon feigned sickness so he could seek an opportunity to be alone with Tamar: _"And she brought near to him to eat. And he lay hold on her, and said to her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she said to him, No, my brother, do not humble me, for it is not done so in Israel. Do not do this foolishness. And I, where should I cause my disgrace to go? And you, you shall be as one of the fools in Israel. But now, please speak to the king; for he shall not withhold me from you. But he was not willing to listen to her voice. And he was stronger than she, and humbled her, and lay with her" (2 Samuel 13:11-14)._Following this brutal act perpetrated by Amnon, he decided that he now hated Tamar and would put her away after having sexual intercourse with her. Tamar then replied: _"No, for this evil is greater than the other that you have done to me, to send me away. But he was not willing to listen to her. And he called his young man who attended him, and said, Now put this one out from me, and bolt the door after her. And a long tunic was on her, for so the virgin daughters of the king usually dressed. And his attendant brought her robes outside, and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore the long tunic on her, and put her hand on her head, and left; going on and crying out. And her brother Absalom said to her, Has your brother Amnon been with you? But now, my sister, keep silent. He is your brother. Do not set your heart on this thing. And Tamar lived in the house of her brother Absalom, but she was desolate" (2 Samuel 13:16-20)._
> Notice that Tamar told Amnon that the act of putting her away was a greater evil than the evil of raping her. Contemplate that and allow it to sink in for a moment. She said that the evil of raping her is a lesser evil than the evil of sending her away. Now why would it be a greater evil for Amnon to put her away than that of raping her? It is because by raping her he had formed a one-flesh union with her. He had forced a marriage union upon her. And by sending her away, he was dealing treacherously with her. He superficially seemed to "love" her and wanted to show it by lying with her. And once he had sexual intercourse with her, he was proclaiming that she was his covenant wife (Malachi 2:14). Tamar knew that what Amnon did was evil, but once he had done his dastardly deed, she insisted that he must stay with her since he had "humbled" her and had forced a marriage union upon her. Tamar appears to be well aware of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. These two passages teach us that since Amnon made her his wife, he must now take her as wife. Some would argue that a passage like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 disproves that sexual intercourse equals marriage since it says _"and she shall be his wife {lit. woman}."_ They reason, "How can this be if she was made his wife at the time of sexual intercourse? But this verse actually proves that sexual intercourse is the marriage. The man of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has made the woman his wife. She is indeed his wife by virtue of the sex act alone. And because she is his wife (because of sexual intercourse), she shall be his wife._"Shall be his wife"_ is followed by the explanatory phrase that says, _"he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days" (v. 29)._ Thus, Amnon was transgressing the command of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.


And here:




> Another common objection is one that appeals to emotional and hysterical sensationalism rather than to the Word of God. The objection put forth is that if a young Christian virgin woman was engaged (betrothed), and during this betrothal period was brutally assaulted and raped, then she would have to break off the engagement with her "husband-to-be" and go ahead and marry and perform all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife towards the man who brutally raped her. The betrothed woman has indeed been made one flesh with the man who so violently and brutally forced this one-flesh union upon her. Amnon, likewise, violently forced himself upon Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-20). Scripture says that she remained desolate. Tamar, just like the betrothed woman put forth in the objection, was the innocent victim of a vicious crime. The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living. *This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted rapist*. _She is, however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate for the rest of her days or until the rapist dies_ (Romans 7:1-3). Those who make this and similar unbiblically emotional appeals would show hatred to this poor woman by adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's.


Ironically, the bolded point in Duncan's second quote contradicts the Bible.  If a woman were really married to her rapist,  she would also have to perform marital duties to them.  Why?  Because of 1 Corinthians 7:5 http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-5.htm

I'd call Chris Duncan out on his logical contradiction, but as I said, they won't respond to me anymore.  I suppose I could use a different email address and disguise my identity, but is that really worthwhile?  If they still answer you you could ask them.  

What's your personal take on all this?  I know you don't agree with the OTC people on everything, do you disagree with them here?

----------


## eduardo89

> Not even the OTC guys have said that a woman is required to perform marital duties to a rapist.


But you did say a rape victim is married to her attacker.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not even the OTC guys have said that a woman is required to perform marital duties to a rapist.


But you did say a rape victim is married to her attacker.

----------


## fr33

> You said I said "God requires victims of rape to marry their attackers".  You have not provided one quote of mine (or one quote of anyone else's) that said that.
> 
> You have slandered me.


No I haven't. This is what you reference when asked a direct question about the subject:




> Notice that Tamar told Amnon that the act of putting her away was a greater evil than the evil of raping her. Contemplate that and allow it to sink in for a moment. She said that the evil of raping her is a lesser evil than the evil of sending her away. Now why would it be a greater evil for Amnon to put her away than that of raping her? It is because by raping her he had formed a one-flesh union with her. He had forced a marriage union upon her. And by sending her away, he was dealing treacherously with her. He superficially seemed to "love" her and wanted to show it by lying with her. And once he had sexual intercourse with her, he was proclaiming that she was his covenant wife (Malachi 2:14). Tamar knew that what Amnon did was evil, but once he had done his dastardly deed, she insisted that he must stay with her since he had "humbled" her and had forced a marriage union upon her. Tamar appears to be well aware of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. These two passages teach us that since Amnon made her his wife, he must now take her as wife. Some would argue that a passage like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 disproves that sexual intercourse equals marriage since it says "and she shall be his wife {lit. woman}." They reason, "How can this be if she was made his wife at the time of sexual intercourse? But this verse actually proves that sexual intercourse is the marriage. The man of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has made the woman his wife. She is indeed his wife by virtue of the sex act alone. And because she is his wife (because of sexual intercourse), she shall be his wife. "Shall be his wife" is followed by the explanatory phrase that says, "he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days" (v. 29). Thus, Amnon was transgressing the command of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.


You reference another man like yourself proclaiming the inerrant state of the bible. People like you don't even try to say "oh but that's the old testament". You cite the old testament routinely when proclaiming a moral code.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you did say a rape victim is married to her attacker.


I've seen Sola waver on this at times.  I think at a certain level he had to admit that our challenges to Duncan's position are good ones.  I still want to know what happens to an infant that gets molested without knowing it, grows up, believes the gospel, and gets married to someone other than their molester.  They aren't knowingly  sinning, but by this definition of marriage, they're still living in adultery.  Thus... at least in OTC's world, unregenerate.  Its kind of a ridiculous scenario, but I'm still curious how it could be answered.  I'd settle for Sola actually taking a position on the issue in general, or admitting that he still doesn't know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No I haven't. This is what you reference when asked a direct question about the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> You reference another man like yourself proclaiming the inerrant state of the bible. People like you don't even try to say "oh but that's the old testament". You cite the old testament routinely when proclaiming a moral code.


That was Chris Duncan who said that.  Note that I quoted it above as well, despite not agreeing with it.  The fact that I quoted Duncan by no means means that I agree with what he says.  Sola may or may not agree with Duncan, but he did not actually write the words that you quote.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're right, but they do teach that the woman is technically married to the rapist.  
> 
> Chris Duncan  quoted below:
> 
> 
> 
> And here:
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know what my personal take on this is yet. I do think the Bible clearly says that sex creates a marital union:




> *Romans 7:1-3 NIV
> 
> Do you not know, brothers and sistersfor I am speaking to those who know the lawthat the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.*


Notice that it is sex that Paul says creates the union (and sex that causes one to be an adulterer).

----------


## fr33

> I don't know what my personal take on this is yet. I do think the Bible clearly says that sex creates a marital union.


erowe, I'm sorry but I'm just not in the mood to spend the 20 minutes to an hour tracking down these quotes you want. Surely you will understand since you cut off parts of my posts when responding. But this one was just too easy. This coming from a person that says the bible is inerrant. Rape = marital union. Check.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> erowe, I'm sorry but I'm just not in the mood to spend the 20 minutes to an hour tracking down these quotes you want. Surely you will understand since you cut off parts of my posts when responding. But this one was just too easy. This coming from a person that says the bible is inerrant.


Hmmm.  I don't know what you mean here.  And what does this have to do with inerrancy?  Just because you disagree with something in the Bible doesn't mean that it is in error.  You are the one in error if you disagree with what the Bible says.

----------


## fr33

> Hmmm.  I don't know what you mean here.  And what does this have to do with inerrancy?  Just because you disagree with something in the Bible doesn't mean that it is in error.  You are the one in error if you disagree with what the Bible says.


In my first post I quoted several things from the bible that justified slavery, rape, domestic abuse, murder, and theft. I then went on to point out the bible supports those crimes. Some (like you) tried to justify all of the above. Some tried to say it only applies to Israelis (and thus justified all of the above). Some tried to say it doesn't apply today because it's the Old Testament.

On the topic of the bible being inerrant, I'm not really arguing with you. You are instead my example that other bible followers find to be the weak link that they disassociate themselves with. Some of them would like the bible to be inerrant but then they have to face the facts of your ugly posts.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know what my personal take on this is yet. I do think the Bible clearly says that sex creates a marital union:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that it is sex that Paul says creates the union (and sex that causes one to be an adulterer).


Everyone knows that having sex with someone that isn't your spouse is adultery.  I don't see where this passage says sex creates a marital union.  Can you bold the portion of the text you think is saying this?  I don't see it.




> Hmmm.  I don't know what you mean here.  And what does this have to do with inerrancy?  Just because you disagree with something in the Bible doesn't mean that it is in error.  You are the one in error if you disagree with what the Bible says.


I don't think I disagree with God's Word.  I do disagree with Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan.  If you agree with them, I disagree with you as well.  But as far as I know, I agree with God's Word.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In my first post I quoted several things from the bible that justified slavery, rape, domestic abuse, murder, and theft. I then went on to point out the bible supports those crimes. Some (like you) tried to justify all of the above. Some tried to say it only applies to Israelis (and thus justified all of the above). Some tried to say it doesn't apply today because it's the Old Testament.
> 
> On the topic of the bible being inerrant, I'm not really arguing with you. You are instead my example that other bible followers find to be the weak link that they disassociate themselves with. Some of them would like the bible to be inerrant but then they have to face the facts of your ugly posts.


None of the verses you quoted justify slavery,  rape, domestic abuse, theft, or murder.

When asked to provide an answer how you think the Bible teaches those things, you don't answer.

----------


## fr33

> None of the verses you quoted justify slavery,  rape, domestic abuse, theft, or murder.
> 
> When asked to provide an answer how you think the Bible teaches those things, you don't answer.


I have responded to almost every response others have made but not all; but I have responded to all of yours. Stop lying. You're bible doesn't look kindly on bearing false witness. It's easy to go back a few pages. You're doing exactly what erowe did. Act all innocent and ignore that I've quoted you saying the exact things that you cannot possibly have said.




> Yes it is inerrant and disgusting.
> 
> _Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live._
> 
> How many witches have you killed in your life?
> 
> _Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you_
> 
> I hope you don't eat shellfish.
> ...


Then erowe and others said it was just for the Israelis. Then people like you quote from the same books to justify modern laws. Then HB chimes in and say's "The New Testament is all that matters!" (inerrant be damned).

Word games. Moving the goalposts.

And you are the last person that has a leg to stand on. "The Bible is Inerrant" Herp Derp! "No I never said rapists should marry their victims even though I quote the book that says exactly that!"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Everyone knows that having sex with someone that isn't your spouse is adultery.  I don't see where this passage says sex creates a marital union.  Can you bold the portion of the text you think is saying this?  I don't see it.


I guess I don't understand the question.  It's obvious that the reason adultery is adultery is because sex has occured. Where in the Bible does it say marriage happens because a church or the state says so?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I don't understand the question.  It's obvious that the reason adultery is adultery is because sex has occured.


Yes.  That's a given.  The question is with regards to whether or not having sex necessarily creates a marriage union.




> Where in the Bible does it say marriage happens because a church or the state says so?


I don't know.  That's a valid point.  Then again, the Bible usually doesn't define things like this.  The Bible doesn't define "theft" or "murder" either, yet we don't usually have much trouble figuring this out.

Its a good question.  I don't know the answer.

I think we should all be able to agree that the government license doesn't mean anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

The Samaritan woman at the well had five husbands, yet was with a man who had no husband.  I know Chris Duncan ignores this point, but this still proves to me that sex does not inherently create a marital union.  The fact that if a divorce occurred in the Old Testament and the woman remarried she could never marry the first husband again further reenforces this point.  There is no sign of polygamy in those passages.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes.  That's a given.  The question is with regards to whether or not having sex necessarily creates a marriage union.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  That's a valid point.  Then again, the Bible usually doesn't define things like this.  The Bible doesn't define "theft" or "murder" either, yet we don't usually have much trouble figuring this out.
> 
> Its a good question.  I don't know the answer.
> 
> I think we should all be able to agree that the government license doesn't mean anything.


Wouldn't the fact that sex creates the dis-union also mean that sex creates the union?  I think it obviously does.

----------


## Terry1

The word "inerrant" is relative to whatever one's frame of reference may be.  Any one can say that their Bible/book is inerrant because it's supposed to contain the word of God.  That bible may indeed be so far off the mark that it's pretty much useless and better suited for a door stop.

God is inerrant, not a book.  Can you trust a book in times of trials?  Can a book save you?  Can a book forgive or condemn anyone?  The Bible is a seeking and study tool, nothing more or less.

Anytime any one lifts something like a book up to and equal with God, they are worshiping an idol.  They've made the book equal to God, no matter how incorrect that book may be.  Is is possible to worship something that represents God more than God Himself?  Yes, many do to this day and in many denominations.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wouldn't the fact that sex creates the dis-union also mean that sex creates the union?  I think it obviously does.


Where does the text say that sex creates a dis-union?  It says that adultery occurred, a serious sin.  It does not say that the marriage no longer exists because of this.

I don't know.  I think if a doctrine with this wide reaching of implications was true, there would be more evidence for it than this.  This is no more evidence than John 2 is evidence that marriage requires a ceremony.

----------


## mosquitobite

> The word "inerrant" is relative to whatever one's frame of reference may be.  Any one can say that their Bible/book is inerrant because it's supposed to contain the word of God.  That bible may indeed be so far off the mark that it's pretty much useless and better suited for a door stop.
> 
> God is inerrant, not a book.  Can you trust a book in times of trials?  Can a book save you?  Can a book forgive or condemn anyone?  The Bible is a seeking and study tool, nothing more or less.
> 
> Anytime any one lifts something like a book up to and equal with God, they are worshiping an idol.  They've made the book equal to God, no matter how incorrect that book may be.  Is is possible to worship something that represents God more than God Himself?  Yes, many do to this day and in many denominations.



Amen!

----------


## jmdrake

> Larken Rose criticizes Gandhi and the general concept of pacifism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOKVTaflbM  I'm curious what your thoughts on the video are.  Note that I am not necessarily saying that he is right or that you are wrong, just throwing another perspective into the mix and am curious as to your position of it.


I'll watch it when I get a chance.  Thanks.




> I'm not sure how having  a certain view of Romans 13 really has anything to do with the Iraq War.  Supporting self-defense while opposing aggression is not inconsistent at all.


I'm not following you.  I've not said anything against self defense.  My point to fr33 is that if you believe that, in general, it's not a good idea to overthrow governmental authority by force, then why would you support regime change of someone else's government?  Now some may read Romans 13 as not allowing for self defense against tyrants and some may read it the other way.  But I don't see a way to (honestly) read it to support people living under one government to try to intervene and "liberate" people living under another government.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe, I'm sorry but I'm just not in the mood to spend the 20 minutes to an hour tracking down these quotes you want. Surely you will understand since you cut off parts of my posts when responding. But this one was just too easy. This coming from a person that says the bible is inerrant. Rape = marital union. Check.


OK. First of all, that's a pretty idiosyncratic view that SF has. I was aware he thought that, but it was the furthest thing from my mind in the context of this conversation. It's not something that even most Christians are used to hearing other Christians say. And even at that, what he said was not justifying rape.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK. First of all, that's a pretty idiosyncratic view that SF has. I was aware he thought that, but it was the furthest thing from my mind in the context of this conversation. It's not something that even most Christians are used to hearing other Christians say. And even at that, what he said was not justifying rape.



Yes it is a minority view, and I am still working through it on a Biblical level.  And no, it in no way justifies rape.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not following you. I've not said anything against self defense. My point to fr33 is that if you believe that, in general, it's not a good idea to overthrow governmental authority by force, then why would you support regime change of someone else's government? Now some may read Romans 13 as not allowing for self defense against tyrants and some may read it the other way. But I don't see a way to (honestly) read it to support people living under one government to try to intervene and "liberate" people living under another government.


OK, I agree with you.  I don't think Romans 13 has anything to do with governments overthrowing each other.  I pretty much interpret this passage the same way erowe does.

BTW: Larken Rose does NOT say governments should be overthrowing each other, Larken is a consistent anarchist who doesn't believe any governments should exist.  But he criticizes Gandhi and others for refusing to use violence to protect themselves and others, and he argues that it is necessary to discuss under what conditions you would use violence against your own government even if that day may never come.  I thought it was very insightful, albeit not scripture based.  I'm curious what your take will be.



> OK. First of all, that's a pretty idiosyncratic view that SF has. I was aware he thought that, but it was the furthest thing from my mind in the context of this conversation. It's not something that even most Christians are used to hearing other Christians say. And even at that, what he said was not justifying rape.


I'd never heard that view until reading that article by Chris Duncan.





> Yes it is a minority view, and I am still working through it on a Biblical level.  And no, it in no way justifies rape.


I agree that it doesn't justify rape, but I do think the logical implication of the view that Duncan takes is that the woman would in fact have to sexually satisfy the rapist.   I think Chris Duncan, much as he accuses those of us who don't accept this view, from being emotional, is nonetheless doing exactly the same thing that we're doing in trying to work through this.  If sex always creates a marriage union, even in the case of rape, than a raped woman must not deprive the rapist of sex except by mutual consent and for a time.  This honestly seems like an  obvious conclusion here.  So either our moral compasses are extremely messed up, to a level that I feel is incompatible with Romans 1 saying that we all have a certain degree of knowledge about morality, and a woman who is raped really should  please her rapist for the rest of her life because God says so.  Or, much more reasonably in my mind, at least the part of Duncan's doctrine about rape is wrong.  And if that's wrong, the entire doctrine that sex alone creates a marital union cannot possibly be valid.

Another thing that I should probably throw in here: a lot of Christians who have no idea that this doctrine even exists would be in adultery according to this view.  Which, to my understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, would mean that they aren't actually saved, since saved people cannot be characterized by adultery.  This isn't such a big problem for the Carpenterites, since they already have some gospel issue with virtually everybody that doesn't think exactly like them.  It wouldn't be hard for me to believe that everyone who agrees with the Carpenterites on every "gospel doctrine", right down to refusing to tolerate the guy who tolerates the guy who tolerates the guy who just might be a "tolerant calvinist", would probably agree with them on this as well.  They can probably come up with some "valid" (within their theological system) reason to call anyone who rejects this an unbeliever anyway.  But I think its a much bigger problem for you, who seems to consider most monergists to be your brothers in Christ.  How do you deal with this?

Also, you say you don't know but it seems like you only argue for, not against, this doctrine.  Which makes sense since nobody here disagrees with you.  But: I'm curious: what are your issues with and questions about this doctrine?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is what you promote. This is what you're about. You don't have the balls to say it. You just link to people that say it.
> 
> When confronted with your god's justification for rape (like on this thread), you ask why is rape wrong. I've given reasons why it's wrong. You haven't. You instead have showed support to the idea that it isn't.



Why is rape wrong?

----------


## fr33

Since answering this question over and over and over again doesn't satisfy him....




> Why is rape wrong?


It's not. The bible says it's ok so long as you marry your victim. God is ok with rape. Rape is God's plan. A godly man can rape. If you want a wife, rape her.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Since answering this question over and over and over again doesn't satisfy him....
> 
> 
> It's not. The bible says it's ok so long as you marry your victim. God is ok with rape. Rape is God's plan. A godly man can rape. If you want a wife, rape her.



Could you give me a non-arbitrary answer from atheism as to why rape is wrong?

----------


## fr33

> Could you give me a non-arbitrary answer from atheism as to why rape is wrong?


It's not arbitrary to say that attacking/violating an individual comes with a risk to the attacker/violator. Which is what I've always said.

Your stance on rape, marriage, and sex is arbitrary along with a lot of other subjects. You cherry pick from the bible while ignoring verses that contradict what you accept.

----------


## matt0611

> It's not arbitrary to say that attacking/violating an individual comes with a risk to the attacker/violator. Which is what I've always said.
> 
> Your stance on rape, marriage, and sex is arbitrary along with a lot of other subjects. You cherry pick from the bible while ignoring verses that contradict what you accept.


So rape is ok then if you just make sure you got the upper hand and no one finds out? 

Yeah, I really can't see why anything the Israelites did was wrong from an atheistic perspective. They were just a clan of highly evolved animals that killed and plundered other groups of highly evolved animals for their own interests and made up reasons for it. Why does any of this need to be justified? That's what human-animals do. I don't understand where the moral outrage about it comes from.

----------


## Terry1

> Since answering this question over and over and over again doesn't satisfy him....
> 
> 
> It's not. The bible says it's ok so long as you marry your victim. God is ok with rape. Rape is God's plan. A godly man can rape. If you want a wife, rape her.


The Old Testament laws were in accordance as to how they lived and obeyed them then at that time.  Marrying the woman that a man laid with then without the permission of her father was punishable with a fine and he had to marry her, because most likely she could become pregnant.  Back then they didn't have food stamps, section eight housing and welfare.  Whether it was consensual or not, the punishment was the same.  Ya never know, depending on the woman he had sex with, this guy might have regretted it for the rest of his life, understanding now he was not only tied to this woman, but her father for the rest of his days. LOL

Atheists attack this portion of the bible all of the time too because they don't understand it.  People simply abided by the laws then as we abide by the laws we have now.  This wasn't to be a law that was held to be forever true, it applied to the old Mosaic Law that is now dead under the New Covenant of grace through faith.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not arbitrary to say that attacking/violating an individual comes with a risk to the attacker/violator. Which is what I've always said.


What about the fact that Obama has more firepower than you do?  If he tries to take your property, there is little to no risk for him.  Is this therefore morally acceptable?




> Your stance on rape, marriage, and sex is arbitrary along with a lot of other subjects. You cherry pick from the bible while ignoring verses that contradict what you accept.


I don't agree with him either, but again, why is he wrong?  You've got no good reason without resorting to scripture.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Could you give me a non-arbitrary answer from atheism as to why rape is wrong?


Why is the assumption of the moral validity of Scripture not arbitrary?

----------


## jmdrake

> It's not arbitrary to say that attacking/violating an individual comes with a risk to the attacker/violator. Which is what I've always said.
> 
> Your stance on rape, marriage, and sex is arbitrary along with a lot of other subjects. You cherry pick from the bible while ignoring verses that contradict what you accept.


Do you realize the context of when the Bible was written?  What options did the average "deflowered" woman have in 1000 B.C.?  I suppose the Moses could have decreed "death" for all rapists.  (Putting them in prison wasn't practical.  That means you have to pay for their upkeep.)  So Moses took a "You broke it, you bought it" approach.  By the way, that's the real reason that Tamar wanted Amnon to marry her.  It wasn't because he had entered a "marriage bond" through rape.  It's that as a rape victim she didn't have a lot of good options.  Note that centuries before another Tamar pretended to be a prostitute and got pregnant by her father-in-law Judah.  The Bible says nothing about him then taking her into his tent as a wife.

----------


## Terry1

> Do you realize the context of when the Bible was written?  What options did the average "deflowered" woman have in 1000 B.C.?  I suppose the Moses could have decreed "death" for all rapists.  (Putting them in prison wasn't practical.  That means you have to pay for their upkeep.)  So Moses took a "You broke it, you bought it" approach.  By the way, that's the real reason that Tamar wanted Amnon to marry her.  It wasn't because he had entered a "marriage bond" through rape.  It's that as a rape victim she didn't have a lot of good options.  Note that centuries before another Tamar pretended to be a prostitute and got pregnant by her father-in-law Judah.  The Bible says nothing about him then taking her into his tent as a wife.


Hey jm, I was laughing because just think if this law was still alive and well today.  That blurry eyed drunk who had sex with a #2 thinking she was a #10 paid dearly for that lil one night stand.  Just think of those less apt to have pre-marital sex or even sex offenders less likely to commit the crime knowing they'll be paying for the rest of their lives in servitude to the woman and her father. LOL  Heck, that seems a lot worse punishment than they have today for rapists who get slapped on the hand a couple years in prison where they're well fed and housed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's not arbitrary to say that attacking/violating an individual comes with a risk to the attacker/violator. Which is what I've always said.
> 
> Your stance on rape, marriage, and sex is arbitrary along with a lot of other subjects. You cherry pick from the bible while ignoring verses that contradict what you accept.



Yes that is arbitrary.  I have already shown you that it is.  You keep repeating it. Why?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you realize the context of when the Bible was written?  What options did the average "deflowered" woman have in 1000 B.C.?  I suppose the Moses could have decreed "death" for all rapists.  (Putting them in prison wasn't practical.  That means you have to pay for their upkeep.)  So Moses took a "You broke it, you bought it" approach.  By the way, that's the real reason that Tamar wanted Amnon to marry her.  It wasn't because he had entered a "marriage bond" through rape.  It's that as a rape victim she didn't have a lot of good options.  Note that centuries before another Tamar pretended to be a prostitute and got pregnant by her father-in-law Judah.  The Bible says nothing about him then taking her into his tent as a wife.


Sola, you should probably address this.  I completely agree with Jmdrake on this point.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, you should probably address this.  I completely agree with Jmdrake on this point.


Why would I address that as if I have the answers to it?  I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't have the answers and I'm still taking all of the information in and trying to work through it on a Biblical level.

Sometimes I think you reflect your bad experience with OCT on to me as if I represent them or believe everything they believe. 

I can't comment on that because I don't know what my position is.  If you have a question for Chris Adams, email him.

----------


## fr33

> So rape is ok then if you just make sure you got the upper hand and no one finds out? 
> 
> Yeah, I really can't see why anything the Israelites did was wrong from an atheistic perspective. They were just a clan of highly evolved animals that killed and plundered other groups of highly evolved animals for their own interests and made up reasons for it. Why does any of this need to be justified? That's what human-animals do. I don't understand where the moral outrage about it comes from.


That's because your ignorant of what atheism is. It is not a basis for morals. It is simply the belief that there is no god.

----------


## fr33

> The Old Testament laws were in accordance as to how they lived and obeyed them then at that time.  Marrying the woman that a man laid with then without the permission of her father was punishable with a fine and he had to marry her, because most likely she could become pregnant.  Back then they didn't have food stamps, section eight housing and welfare.  Whether it was consensual or not, the punishment was the same.  Ya never know, depending on the woman he had sex with, this guy might have regretted it for the rest of his life, understanding now he was not only tied to this woman, but her father for the rest of his days. LOL
> 
> *Atheists attack this portion of the bible all of the time too because they don't understand it.  People simply abided by the laws then as we abide by the laws we have now.  This wasn't to be a law that was held to be forever true, it applied to the old Mosaic Law that is now dead under the New Covenant of grace through faith.*


1. Atheists for the most part attack this portion of the bible because people calling themselves christians still cite it. And even more people calling themselves christians cite other laws using scripture from these old testament times that they claim should still be the law. You'll often find an atheist like myself questioning why homosexuality is an abomination while eating shellfish isn't.

2. As for this quote; "People simply abided by the laws then as we abide by the laws we have now." I agree and I've frequently pointed out that the bible justifies tyranny that people see today. People are accustomed to atrocities and violence partly thanks to the bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why would I address that as if I have the answers to it?  I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't have the answers and I'm still taking all of the information in and trying to work through it on a Biblical level.
> 
> Sometimes I think you reflect your bad experience with OCT on to me as if I represent them or believe everything they believe. 
> 
> I can't comment on that because I don't know what my position is.  If you have a question for Chris Adams, email him.


I'd be curious to know Chris Duncan's position on this (Chris Duncan wrote the marriage article, not Chris Adams).  Unfortunately, as I stated, he's made the conscious decision not to respond to my emails because Carpenter suggested he stop "wasting his time with me" because I made a logical error.  I asked him a question about something else he wrote in between then and now and he didn't respond: I assume this failure to respond was deliberate.  Ultimately: the bottom line is, I'm pretty sure they don't care what I think about this because they don't think I'm saved.  Much like you (Considering you believe Arminians are not saved) would probably not bother answering questions from an Arminian with regards to why you believe in credobaptism (Or maybe you would, in which case, you're a more charitable person than anyone at OTC, which would not surprise me in the slightest.)

Just out of curiosty have you ever emailed them about this?  Maybe you should.  Depending on how you worded your questions, they might not immediately write you off as an unbeliever, and you'd probably come across as more sincere than I do.  That is, assuming you are also interested in this topic.

As for OTC compared to you, I don't think I've ever projected my experiences with them onto you, at least not recently.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I can tell you that when another poster quoted Chris Duncan and pretended like you had posted the comment, I immediately corrected them.  Liking certain things that someone says does not mean agreeing with them all the time.  There's a reason I can't stand the people at OTC while I regard you as one of the best posters here.  Even still, and despite the fact that I strongly suspect Marc to be cultic in nature and an unbeliever (primarily based on what people who are not affiliated with OTC have said about them) I nonetheless think the "American Atrocities" article was excellent, and recommended it on my blog.  I of course understand how you could quote certain things someone says without agreeing with them.

In this case, though, you've implied multiple times that you agree with OTC on the sex = marriage issue, despite the fact that you admit that you don't know.  Hence why I asked the question.  Apparently you don't know the answer, which is fine.  Better to admit you don't know than to make up an answer.  That said, I don't think I could ever agree with a doctrine like this without having some reasonable answers to some of the very bizarre implications of it.  I don't think you can just casually say sex is marriage and that marrying after having sex with someone else is adultery, without considering the radical implications that has, including the fact that child rapists would apparently be "married" to the children they raped, and the sheer number of people who would qualify as Christians on gospel doctrine (Let's assume we're talking about monergists who believe in limited atonement so there's no dispute here) yet are unknowingly living in and advocating adultery.  And that's not even to mention the "What if an infant is raped and doesn't remember it... then gets saved and married" question.  I don't know.  Its easy to say "sex creates a marital bond".  Its much harder to actually be consistent with such an idiosyncratic view.

Again, I know you don't know the answers to these, so I'm not actually expecting you to answer them, but once again, I think we should realize what kind of doctrine we're dealing with here.  It would take more than "The Bible doesn't define marriage in any other way" to convince me of a doctrine with implications that are this broad.

----------


## fr33

> What about the fact that Obama has more firepower than you do?  If he tries to take your property, there is little to no risk for him.  Is this therefore morally acceptable?


First off no it's not morally acceptable. And Obama is not the individual who physically does anything to me. His underlings will hire underlings that hire the actual underlings that try to take my property. The govt grunt on the ground that points the gun is wearing body armor for a reason. He knows he's at risk. It's a law of nature that he fears for his life more than Obama does. It's not a law of god that a cop stealing from me feels he's taking risks. Sure his risk is not as dangerous as I think it should be. Individualism depends on people acting as individuals. It's debatable about how we get to that point. I happen to think the more people that the liberty movement gains, the more progress towards that we'll see.




> I don't agree with him either, but again, why is he wrong?  You've got no good reason without resorting to scripture.


Sure I do. People can pray and read the bible all they want but it won't get them freedom. They have to act to become free.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@fr33- I have a higher view of prayer than you do, but nobody here (at least AFAIK) is suggesting doing nothing but pray and read scripture.  What we are saying is that you need a valid moral argument for why these tyrants that you want to be free from are wrong.  "I might kill them" is not a valid reason.  They might kill you.  An armed robber might kill you if you don't hand over your money.  That does not put him morally in the right.  Children cannot threaten anyone who would harm, mistreat, rape, or kill them.  That's no excuse for doing so, even if the child is unprotected.

Atheism is an absolutely retarded system of ethics.  Its laughable and will never get you the freedom you want, because you don't even have a logical reason to want to be free.

----------


## fr33

> *Do you realize the context of when the Bible was written?  What options did the average "deflowered" woman have in 1000 B.C.?  I suppose the Moses could have decreed "death" for all rapists.  (Putting them in prison wasn't practical.  That means you have to pay for their upkeep.)  So Moses took a "You broke it, you bought it" approach.*  By the way, that's the real reason that Tamar wanted Amnon to marry her.  It wasn't because he had entered a "marriage bond" through rape.  It's that as a rape victim she didn't have a lot of good options.  Note that centuries before another Tamar pretended to be a prostitute and got pregnant by her father-in-law Judah.  The Bible says nothing about him then taking her into his tent as a wife.


This reminds me of every tyrannical government that has ever existed and the pathetic reasoning they gave for their actions.

What do you expect us to not go to war and buy less oil from the middle-east and have the price of it go up?

Should we do away with the fractional reserve banking system and have all these welfare recipients and bureacrats starve to death?

----------


## fr33

> Atheism is an absolutely retarded system of ethics.


It's not a system of ethics so that makes you the retard.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The word "inerrant" is relative to whatever one's frame of reference may be.  Any one can say that their Bible/book is inerrant because it's supposed to contain the word of God.  That bible may indeed be so far off the mark that it's pretty much useless and better suited for a door stop.
> *
> God is inerrant, not a book.  Can you trust a book in times of trials?  Can a book save you?  Can a book forgive or condemn anyone?  The Bible is a seeking and study tool, nothing more or less.*
> 
> Anytime any one lifts something like a book up to and equal with God, they are worshiping an idol.  They've made the book equal to God, no matter how incorrect that book may be.  Is is possible to worship something that represents God more than God Himself?  Yes, many do to this day and in many denominations.


God is revealed to us in our reading the bible.  Can it save you?  No.  It can be revelatory, though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not a system of ethics so that makes you the retard.


Pick your atheistic ethical system.  You can't defend any system that starts from atheism as a presupposition.

To clarify something, I did not call YOU retarded.  If you believe in the NAP at all, you're smarter than 95% of people.  What I'm saying is that your BASIS for believing such is illogical.

----------


## fr33

> Pick your atheistic ethical system.  You can't defend any system that starts from atheism as a presupposition.
> 
> To clarify something, I did not call YOU retarded.  If you believe in the NAP at all, you're smarter than 95% of people.  What I'm saying is that your BASIS for believing such is illogical.


My ethical system is libertarianism. Atheism does not deal with ethics. Libertarianism is not based upon belief in god.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My ethical system is libertarianism. Atheism does not deal with ethics. Libertarianism is not based upon belief in god.


Your ethical system is an arbitrary philosophy of force.   Your ethical system is the ground basis of of every tyranny that has ever existed.

Atheism cannot support a philosophy of liberty.  Your arbitrary,  might-makes-right responses show that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My ethical system is libertarianism. Atheism does not deal with ethics. Libertarianism is not based upon belief in god.


Libertarianism is only an ethical system with regards to the righteous use of violence.  But, you aren't a libertarian.  Your might makes right responses prove that to all of us.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, I wish I could +rep you again.  That response, and all your responses to him really, deserve them.

----------


## fr33

> Libertarianism is only an ethical system with regards to the righteous use of violence.  But, you aren't a libertarian.  Your might makes right responses prove that to all of us.


I have never justified "might makes right". You have tried to say that I do and I always have contradicted it. Meanwhile every time you justify the initiation of violence that is found in your inerrant bible, you have justified "might makes right". I have clearly said that tyranny like slavery, rape, and non violent crimes are wrong, while you and several others have spent their time justifying such things. It is ridiculous how you spin this $#@!.

Your entire basis of morality is "might makes right".

----------


## fr33

> Libertarianism is only an ethical system with regards to the righteous use of violence.  But, you aren't a libertarian.  Your might makes right responses prove that to all of us.


I have never said might makes right. A few of you have accused me of such and I contradicted you every time.

Might makes right is your argument. That's what you say. You obey the orders of an all powerful being. I'm merely willing to disobey the violence that your monopoly threatens us with.

----------


## fr33

> Your ethical system is an arbitrary philosophy of force.   Your ethical system is the ground basis of of every tyranny that has ever existed.
> 
> Atheism cannot support a philosophy of liberty.  Your arbitrary,  might-makes-right responses show that.


Here's a perfect example of how you ignore everything I say and later try to bring up the same debunked criticism:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5399513

----------


## fr33

"The Bible Is Inerrant"

So the violence condoned in it is incapable of being wrong.

The bible = might makes right.

----------


## Terry1

> God is revealed to us in our reading the bible.  Can it save you?  No.  It can be revelatory, though.


I agree with you.  It's the spiritual nature of God in us that leads us to the truth and revelates that through seeking it, which is what Jesus said, "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you'll find".

----------


## Terry1

> "The Bible Is Inerrant"
> 
> So the violence condoned in it is incapable of being wrong.
> 
> The bible = might makes right.


fr33, God is inerrant, not a book or the Bible.  The Bible is a seeking tool that only reveals anything to a believer on a spiritual level.  Therefore, it's impossible for an unbeliever to read the Bible and gain anything of worth from it.  This is why unbelievers dispute it so often, is because they don't believe.

The entire word of God is to liberate mankind from the bondage of evil principalities of darkness in this world.  Yes, in the OT there were many battles fought to overcome evil and darkness.  There were many laws given under Moses that applied to how mankind was suppose to live healthy good lives by adhearing to those same laws.  Under the old Law of Moses, mankind failed in their attempts to keep those laws perfectly and to the letter.  The Old Testament is a type and shadow of where mankind failed.  Under the New Covenant of Faith/Jesus, we as believers are called to peace, but even though as believers we are called to peace, Jesus said He came not to bring peace, but a "sword" that would separate and tear down anything not of God.  That sword is His word of truth.  

Being an unbeliever as yourself while attempting to debate the spiritual nature of the word of God is futile.  It will always appear as an offense to those without the spiritual nature of God in them that gives them the divine understanding of that same word of truth.

Pascal's wager is not without it's merit when compared to the alternative that unbelief will most certainly bring.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> fr33, God is inerrant, not a book or the Bible.


How can God reveal Himself with error?  This is not a Christian view of inspiration that you have.  I hope no one here thinks that you represent Christianity when you say the things you do.

----------


## TER

> How can God reveal Himself with error?  This is not a Christian view of inspiration that you have.  I hope no one here thinks that you represent Christianity when you say the things you do.


Sola, Terry is actually right.  The _message_ of the Bible is inerrant.  The overall theme and revelation of the Bible is inerrant, but that does not mean there can be no human error in it.

The Bible is the work of men (inspired by the Holy Spirit no doubt), but still the work of men.  We are not Muslims who worship a book.  Only God is worshiped and only God Who is perfect, and the Word of God is not a book, it is Jesus Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, Terry is actually right.  The _message_ of the Bible is inerrant.  The overall theme and revelation of the Bible is inerrant, but that does not mean there can be no human error in it.
> 
> The Bible is the work of men (inspired by the Holy Spirit no doubt), but still the work of men.  We are not Muslims who worship a book.  Only God is worshiped and only God Who is perfect, and the Word of God is not a book, it is Jesus Christ.


TER, you don't have a Christian view of inspiration either.

----------


## TER

> TER, you don't have a Christian view of inspiration either.


No Sola, I have the ancient Christian view (which also is the ancient Judaic view).  You on the other hand have a Muslim view of the Scriptures.

----------


## Terry1

> How can God reveal Himself with error?  This is not a Christian view of inspiration that you have.  I hope no one here thinks that you represent Christianity when you say the things you do.


Because that is how God works Sola, He perfects the imperfect through His divine spiritual nature that resides in the hearts and minds of believers.  A believer can read an imperfect Bible spiritually seeking Gods truth and through their own belief and faith God will reveal to them spiritually what they can not see with a carnal eye.  God can show a believer truth that can't be seen by reading the book in the flesh.  There are many cultures that don't have the privilege of owning or obtaining Bibles, yet they still understand the nature of God spiritually.  A book is a seeking tool, God is the spiritual revelator of those who seek and knock at the door, not the book itself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No Sola, I have the ancient Christian view (which also is the ancient Judaic view).  You on the other hand have a Muslim view of the Scriptures.


No,  I have the view Jesus had of the Scriptures...that they could not be broken, that the word of the Lord would stand forever, and that it was really Yahweh speaking in the text.

If your ancient church rejected how Jesus viewed the Scriptures,  then why do you listen to them like they know something?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because that is how God works Sola, He perfects the imperfect through His divine spiritual nature that resides in the hearts and minds of believers.  A believer can read an imperfect Bible spiritually seeking Gods truth and through their own belief and faith God will reveal to them spiritually what they can not see with a carnal eye.  God can show a believer truth that can't be seen by reading the book in the flesh.  There are many cultures that don't have the privilege of owning or obtaining Bibles, yet they still understand the nature of God spiritually.  A book is a seeking tool, God is the spiritual revelator of those who seek and knock at the door, not the book itself.


If you are referring to Romans 1, then you have no idea what it says.  It says the opposite of what you are saying.   Romans 1 says that the revelation of God in nature RENDERS MEN WITHOUT EXCUSE.  The revelation of God in nature CONDEMNS men, it doesn't save them.

----------


## TER

> No,  I have the view Jesus had of the Scriptures...that they could not be broken, that the word of the Lord would stand forever, and that it was really Yahweh speaking in the text.
> 
> If your ancient church rejected how Jesus viewed the Scriptures,  then why do you listen to them like they know something?


I listen to them because the Church has the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, exactly what St. Paul said.  He did not say the Bible is the foundation of the truth, but rather that the Church is the pillar and foundation for the truth.  (You seem to always forget that little verse).  

Your understanding of the bible is more akin to the Saduccess and the Muslims.
Your understanding of predetermination is more akin to the Essenes and the Gnostics.
Your understanding of salvation is more akin to John Calvin then John the Evangelist.

Why should I listen to you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I listen to them because the Church has the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, exactly what St. Paul said.


What church?  The church that you worship who contradicts what the apostles taught?





> He did not say the Bible is the foundation of the truth, but rather that the Church is the pillar and foundation for the truth.  (You seem to always forget that little verse)


Paul "didn't say the Bible was the foundation for truth"???  Why did he quote it to back up what he was saying?  Why didn't he quote the local churchmen to back up what he was saying?

Also, the verse about the church COMPLETELY agrees with me.  The church is a pillar.  The church is NOT the truth.  Don't you see that?  "The church" is differentiated from "the truth".  The church holds up the truth.

----------


## TER

> What church?  The church that you worship who contradicts what the apostles taught?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul "didn't say the Bible was the foundation for truth"???  Why did he quote it to back up what he was saying?  Why didn't he quote the local churchmen to back up what he was saying?
> 
> Also, the verse about the church COMPLETELY agrees with me.  The church is a pillar.  The church is NOT the truth.  Don't you see that?  "The church" is differentiated from "the truth".  The church holds up the truth.


Sola, believe as you will.  I'm not in the mood to debate you today.

----------


## Terry1

> What church?  The church that you worship who contradicts what the apostles taught?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul "didn't say the Bible was the foundation for truth"???  Why did he quote it to back up what he was saying?  Why didn't he quote the local churchmen to back up what he was saying?
> 
> Also, the verse about the church COMPLETELY agrees with me.  The church is a pillar.  The church is NOT the truth.  Don't you see that?  "The church" is differentiated from "the truth".  The church holds up the truth.


There are many Christian denominations with doctrines that vary in their scriptural and spiritual correctness to one degree or another.  I can say this without reservation that from what I've seen your belief consists of---is one of those that are so far from the truth that it's closer to the absolute lie leaving a soul in danger of eternal death by and through nothing more than complacency, lack of faith, self-righteousness by believing that you've already been "chosen" with the false guarantee that you will always remain in that state no matter what you say and do and how you choose to live your life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are many Christian denominations with doctrines that vary in their scriptural and spiritual correctness to one degree or another.  I can say this without reservation that from what I've seen your belief consists of---is one of those that are so far from the truth that it's closer to the absolute lie leaving a soul in danger of eternal death by and through nothing more than complacency, lack of faith, self-righteousness by believing that you've already been "chosen" with the false guarantee that you will always remain in that state no matter what you say and do and how you choose to live your life.


Well not to be flippant about what you're saying here but all of this is just your personal feelings about me.  And it makes perfect sense because you don't know what Christianity is.  I am fully aware that you would think I was "evil" or something like that.  You just haven't ever heard anything like what I am saying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola, believe as you will.  I'm not in the mood to debate you today.


Why?  Because he destroys you every time?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are many Christian denominations with doctrines that vary in their scriptural and spiritual correctness to one degree or another.  I can say this without reservation that from what I've seen your belief consists of---is one of those that are so far from the truth that it's closer to the absolute lie leaving a soul in danger of eternal death by and through nothing more than complacency, lack of faith, self-righteousness by believing that you've already been "chosen" with the false guarantee that you will always remain in that state no matter what you say and do and how you choose to live your life.


The fact that different denominations have different degrees of correctness in their interpretations of scripture (Which I do not dispute) in no way refutes the idea that the scripture itself is infallible.

As for Sola_Fide's views on election, the fact that you're saying what you're saying shows that you don't really understand the reformed doctrine of election.  I know I'm elect because I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I assume Sola would tell you the same thing.

----------


## Terry1

> Why?  Because he destroys you every time?



I needed a laugh today, thanks.  I think Sola has a long way to go before he can match spiritual wits with TER.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I needed a laugh today, thanks.  I think Sola has a long way to go before he can match spiritual wits with TER.


I agree, he'd need to go a long way down before his exegesis would be that bad

----------


## lilymc

> It's not. The bible says it's ok so long as you marry your victim. God is ok with rape. Rape is God's plan. A godly man can rape. If you want a wife, rape her.


This is flat out incorrect, and you are just showing your ignorance of God and the scriptures.

That verse doesn't mean what you think it means.  And there is no recorded incident in the OT of a girl being forced to marry a guy who raped her.   

When you look into that verse more closely, the word used in the original language does not even refer to violent rape... but more like _seduction_.  

You can read an article about it *here*.

To sum that up, it refers more to a situation where a boyfriend either seduces a virgin, or deceives her into having sex or lets his lust get out of control.... and the penalty was that he had to either marry her OR pay the bride price, if she and her family did not want her to marry the guy.

As someone else mentioned, those days were not like today... unlike today, a girl who was known to not be a virgin would have a very hard time getting married after that. So the point was to prevent that entire situation from happening, by warning guys that if they seduced or deceived a girl into having sex, he would have to pay, either by committing to her or paying the price for what he did.

----------


## lilymc

> First off no it's not morally acceptable.


What you haven't addressed yet (as far as I've seen, on this thread) is that you have no actual basis for saying that, according to your atheistic worldview.

You have said things like, "There are consequences for actions."  But who is to say that because there are consequences for some actions, that makes an action wrong?      If it's coming from you, or any other fallible human being, it's arbitrary.  It is subjective, according to YOUR own worldview.  

So unless you can show how morality -  in a godless, material world that is the result of dumb luck-  is a set of objective moral absolutes... then you really have no basis for saying ANYTHING is morally wrong.  All you have is your subjective opinion. And no one opinion can be better than any other.   

Unless an objective, transcendent moral standard exists, you as an atheist have no way to account for true morality.

----------


## Christian Liberty

In this society, two cops were able to beat Kelly Thomas to death and get away with it... no temporal consequences.  Yet, if you don't submit to government authorized theft by "paying your taxes" you can be thrown into jail.  Thus, by stupid, atheistic moral reasoning, it is immoral to evade taxation yet completely moral to commit murder as long as you have a uniform.

----------


## Terry1

> The fact that different denominations have different degrees of correctness in their interpretations of scripture (Which I do not dispute) in no way refutes the idea that the scripture itself is infallible.
> 
> As for Sola_Fide's views on election, the fact that you're saying what you're saying shows that you don't really understand the reformed doctrine of election.  I know I'm elect because I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I assume Sola would tell you the same thing.


With all due respect---the false premise of yours and Sola's beliefs along with most of the reformed doctrines is that they believe that a one time confession of belief and getting dunked in the water covers your sin forever more and one is once elect, always elect and already glorified, which is all false.

Find me one scripture that *seems* to guarantee without question one is once elect always elect or chosen and I'll find ten scriptures to every one you can find that say the exact opposite.

----------


## Terry1

> In this society, two cops were able to beat Kelly Thomas to death and get away with it... no temporal consequences.  Yet, if you don't submit to government authorized theft by "paying your taxes" you can be thrown into jail.  Thus, by stupid, atheistic moral reasoning, it is immoral to evade taxation yet completely moral to commit murder as long as you have a uniform.


Yes, because secular society in general is a reversal of Gods morality, hence it will always sway in the wrong direction away from God.  This is why it's so difficult for Christians to conform to this world while we're biblically instructed to obey the laws of the land.  Jesus said this would change too because when the laws become so corrupt that a true Christian can not abide by them and still practice what he believes with a good conviction of heart and mind, we will be persecuted and tossed in jail for it.  It's coming very soon too.  It's already happening in many places today.

----------


## fr33

> This is flat out incorrect, and you are just showing your ignorance of God and the scriptures.


Actually what we have here is a debate over language; both ancient and modern.




> That verse doesn't mean what you think it means.  And there is no recorded incident in the OT of a girl being forced to marry a guy who raped her.   
> 
> When you look into that verse more closely, the word used in the original language does not even refer to violent rape... but more like _seduction_.  
> 
> You can read an article about it *here*.
> 
> To sum that up, it refers more to a situation *where a boyfriend either seduces a virgin, or deceives her into having sex or lets his lust get out of control.... and the penalty was that he had to either marry her OR pay the bride price*, if she and her family did not want her to marry the guy.


Seduces, deceives, or lets his lust get out of control....
2 of the 3 _could_ be considered rape. 1 of them definitely is. I wonder where the modern folks who call themselves christians are who are demanding rapists either marry or pay of their victims.




> As someone else mentioned, those days were not like today... unlike today, a girl who was known to not be a virgin would have a very hard time getting married after that. So the point was to prevent that entire situation from happening, by warning guys that if they seduced or deceived a girl into having sex, he would have to pay, either by committing to her or paying the price for what he did.


And today, it's hard to be a tax protestor, or someone living in a nation-state that the US declares war on, or to be born a North Korean. You're logic justifies tyranny.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No Sola, I have the ancient Christian view (which also is the ancient Judaic view).  You on the other hand have a Muslim view of the Scriptures.


Truth.

----------


## fr33

> What you haven't addressed yet (as far as I've seen, on this thread) is that you have no actual basis for saying that, according to your atheistic worldview.
> 
> You have said things like, "There are consequences for actions."  But who is to say that because there are consequences for some actions, that makes an action wrong?      If it's coming from you, or any other fallible human being, it's arbitrary.  It is subjective, according to YOUR own worldview.  
> 
> So unless you can show how morality -  in a godless, material world that is the result of dumb luck-  is a set of objective moral absolutes... then you really have no basis for saying ANYTHING is morally wrong.  All you have is your subjective opinion. And no one opinion can be better than any other.   
> 
> Unless an objective, transcendent moral standard exists, you as an atheist have no way to account for true morality.


Humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without the bible or the people mentioned in it, as well as other species. The difference from other species is that ours have not become extinct yet. Faith in gods and men have threatened extinction though. When you tell me your bible is the basis of morals, you are telling me that's the only thing stopping yourself from murdering your fellow humans. You've already said consequences of attempted murder make no difference and are not a basis. If not for the bible you would have surely murdered your neighbors because you don't know right from wrong without it. Yet many cultures still exist without being influenced by your bible. Yet many cultures have been almost wiped out thanks to your bible. Yet our species has existed long before your bible.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> With all due respect---the false premise of yours and Sola's beliefs along with most of the reformed doctrines is that they believe that a one time confession of belief and getting dunked in the water covers your sin forever more and one is once elect, always elect and already glorified, which is all false.
> 
> Find me one scripture that *seems* to guarantee without question one is once elect always elect or chosen and I'll find ten scriptures to every one you can find that say the exact opposite.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.


   Sorry, out of ammo for ye.

----------


## fr33

> This is flat out incorrect, and you are just showing your ignorance of God and the scriptures.
> 
> That verse doesn't mean what you think it means.  And there is no recorded incident in the OT of a girl being forced to marry a guy who raped her.   
> 
> When you look into that verse more closely, the word used in the original language does not even refer to violent rape... but more like _seduction_.  
> 
> You can read an article about it *here*.
> 
> To sum that up, it refers more to a situation where a boyfriend either seduces a virgin, or deceives her into having sex or lets his lust get out of control.... and the penalty was that he had to either marry her OR pay the bride price, if she and her family did not want her to marry the guy.
> ...


After rape, can you please address slavery, shellfish, domestic abuse against wives and children, and mixed fabrics....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> After rape, can you please address slavery, shellfish, domestic abuse against wives and children, and mixed fabrics....


From an atheistic worldview,  why is rape, slavery, and domestic abuse wrong?

That's right.  You have no answer.  So why do you keep bringing gong up your glaring deficiency?   Do you need me to show you further how inadequate your worldview is?

----------


## fr33

> From an atheistic worldview,  why is rape, slavery, and domestic abuse wrong?
> 
> That's right.  You have no answer.  So why do you keep bringing gong up your glaring deficiency?   Do you need me to show you further how inadequate your worldview is?


I guess we need to take up a collection to buy you and FreedomFanatic dictionaries even though such things are available for free. There is no such thing as an atheist worldview. Meanwhile yor worldview justifies all of the above.

----------


## COpatriot

There's nothing funnier than a thread entitled "The bible is inerrant" that features dozens of pages with bible believers who can't even agree on what it actually says.

----------


## erowe1

> There is no such thing as an atheist worldview.


That's true. All worldviews are theistic. Some people are just in denial about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There's nothing funnier than a thread entitled "The bible is inerrant" that features dozens of pages with bible believers who can't even agree on what it actually says.


Why is that funny?  Pretty much every historical document's exact meaning is controversial.  The Constitution is a prime example.

----------


## eduardo89

> There's nothing funnier than a thread entitled "The bible is inerrant" that features dozens of pages with bible believers who can't even agree on what it actually says.


The Bible is inerrant, but those interpreting it are fallible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's nothing funnier than a thread entitled "The bible is inerrant" that features dozens of pages with bible believers who can't even agree on what it actually says.


Well you have people here who call themselves "Christians", yet don't even believe or know what the Bible says about inerrancy.   So no wonder there is going to be confusion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No Sola, I have the ancient Christian view (which also is the ancient Judaic view).  You on the other hand have a Muslim view of the Scriptures.





> Truth.



Truth?  No it is not the truth.  Jesus and the apostles did not have the view of inspiration that Rome or the EOC does.  Secondly, the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is NOTHING like the Muslim view of the Quran. To even say that shows that you probably don't know what the Muslim view of their inspired Scriptures is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Truth?  No it is not the truth.  Jesus and the apostles did not have the view of inspiration that Rome or the EOC does.  Secondly, the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is NOTHING like the Muslim view of the Quran. To even say that shows that you probably don't know what the Muslim view of their inspired Scriptures is.


No, it's true.  TER's understanding is historically accurate and in line with what Christ and the apostles taught. (it was the apostles who founded the orthodox church, after all!)  Rome is a different story for another thread.  TER did not say that the biblical doctrine of anything is Muslim-like.  He correctly said your view is Muslim.  That's not an insult.  It's just a fact.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it's true.  TER's understanding is historically accurate and in line with what Christ and the apostles taught. (it was the apostles who founded the orthodox church, after all!)  Rome is a different story for another thread.  TER did not say that the biblical doctrine of anything is Muslim-like.  He correctly said your view is Muslim.  That's not an insult.  It's just a fact.


No its not a fact.  The Christian doctrine of inspiration and the Muslim doctrine of inspiration are in NO way the same.  Also, Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.  Both Jesus and Paul constantly appealed to the Scriptures as the final authority.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No its not a fact. * The Christian doctrine of inspiration and the Muslim doctrine of inspiration are in NO way the same.*  Also, Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.  Both Jesus and Paul constantly appealed to the Scriptures as the final authority.


That's the point.  

Post #322 is factual.

Neither Jesus nor Paul made men final arbiters of what the scriptures say.  Jesus established His church through his disciples for this reason.  We've been through this numerous times now.  Please stop making false claims.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's the point.  
> 
> Post #322 is factual.
> 
> Neither Jesus nor Paul made men final arbiters of what the scriptures say.  Jesus established His church through his disciples for this reason.  We've been through this numerous times now.  Please stop making false claims.



Huh?  You say that "neither Jesus or Paul made men the final arbiters" and then you say "Jesus established His church" to....do what?  So a bunch of men can be the final arbiters?

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

----------


## TER

> Also, Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.



Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’" (Matt. 2:23)

Sola, can you show me where in the Old Testament this prophecy is written?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Huh?  You say that "neither Jesus or Paul made men the final arbiters" and then you say "Jesus established His church" to....do what?  So a bunch of men can be the final arbiters?
> 
> Do you even know what you're trying to say?


The apostles and I distinguish the laity from clergy when discussing this, the latter of which were given authority in interpreting scripture.  Sorry I was unclear.  See Acts 6 especially for biblical basis for the establishment of the Church and Apostolic Succession.

----------


## TER

> Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’" (Matt. 2:23)
> 
> Sola, can you show me where in the Old Testament this prophecy is written?


Sola, if you are having trouble with this question, it is because it is a trick question.  There is no record of this prophecy written down in the Scriptures.  Instead, it was part of the oral tradition which was passed down.  So you see, to make the statement that Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone is inaccurate.  

Another example is in the Epsitles to the Corinthians.  St. Paul, showing how the Holy Eucharist is akin to the manna and the rock struck by Moses, states: "All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock _which followed them_, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.

There are plenty of other examples which demonstrate the oral tradition having authority with the New Testament Christians.  The Oral Torah was considered to be as authoritative as the Written Torah by the early Church as well as the Pharisees, which BTW St. Paul considered himself to be even 20 years after converting to Christ and which Christ Himself testified to be the correct descendant tradition of the various Jewish sects which existed at that time (saying that they sat on the seat of Moses and that the disciples should do as they say.). Well, part of what they said was the honoring of the oral tradition.

It was the Sadducees who actually rejected oral tradition and were the Sola Scriptura adherents of their day, and who were doctrinally furthest from Christ and His teachings in almost every regard.

----------


## Terry1

> The fact that different denominations have different degrees of correctness in their interpretations of scripture (Which I do not dispute) in no way refutes the idea that the scripture itself is infallible.
> 
> As for Sola_Fide's views on election, the fact that you're saying what you're saying shows that you don't really understand the reformed doctrine of election.  I know I'm elect because I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I assume Sola would tell you the same thing.


If you believe the "total depravity" of man doctrine, that annihilates the Gospel of Jesus alone and by itself because it teaches that repentance is a dead work and superfluous beyond what Jesus did on the cross.  So if you subscribe even to that one part of those five points, you've already lost any chance of being a believer in the true Gospel of Jesus, because Jesus taught that repentance is the only path to salvation telling us "repent and be forgiven".

To believe otherwise suggests that after one confesses belief that they're incapable of sin, hence there's no need for repentance.  Total depravity  teaches that because mankind is so utterly depraved that there's nothing beyond belief that can save them, including repentance.  This message could have only originated from one place that seeks to rob the souls of men and drag them to hell because without the ongoing acts of repentance throughout the life of a believer---that believer becomes a dead branch in Christ/the true Vine that is then cut off because of disbelief being the result of no repentance.  If there's no repentance in the life of a believer, it's then impossible for them to bear the "fruits of the Spirit". John 15:1

----------


## Terry1

Hebrews 12:
7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?  8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.  9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?  10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness.  11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Renew Your Spiritual Vitality

12 Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees,  13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed.

14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord:  15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled;  16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.  17 *For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance*, though he sought it diligently with tears.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luke 17:3 
Take heed to yourselves. If your *brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hebrews 6 here speaks of believers who fall into unbelief and have grieved the Holy Spirit to the point of being "cut off" forever and turned over to a reprobate mind.  Because they have already accepted Christ, being partakers of the Holy Spirit and then ignored the Holy Spirit for the specific reason that they had not repented during that time.  They were cut off as a dead branch and removed from being a "partaker of the gift of the Holy Spirit", it was removed from them because they did not repent in that space and time God gave them.

Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,  5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  6 [B]if they fall away,* to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
*
Galatians 5:4 
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law;* you have fallen from grace*

John 15:5-6  5* “I am the vine, you are the branches*. *He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.  6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can not "abide in Christ" without repentance daily and throughout the rest of our lives we are called to repentance.  It is ongoing and the only way we can continually abide in Christ.  Those who don't believe in repentance are cut off, they are destroyed and left without hope at that point.  Only God knows when one will not return to repentance.  And this is the danger for those who believe in the "total depravity" doctrine.  It will kill your spirit and soul.

----------


## TER

> Also, Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.






> Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matt. 2:23)
> 
> Sola, can you show me where in the Old Testament this prophecy is written?





> Sola, if you are having trouble with this question, it is because it is a trick question.  There is no record of this prophecy written down in the Scriptures.  Instead, it was part of the oral tradition which was passed down.  So you see, to make the statement that Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone is inaccurate.  
> 
> Another example is in the Epsitles to the Corinthians.  St. Paul, showing how the Holy Eucharist is akin to the manna and the rock struck by Moses, states: "All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock _which followed them_, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).
> 
> The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples which demonstrate the oral tradition having authority with the New Testament Christians.  The Oral Torah was considered to be as authoritative as the Written Torah by the early Church as well as the Pharisees, which BTW St. Paul considered himself to be even 20 years after converting to Christ and which Christ Himself testified to be the correct descendant tradition of the various Jewish sects which existed at that time (saying that they sat on the seat of Moses and that the disciples should do as they say.). Well, part of what they said was the honoring of the oral tradition.
> 
> It was the Sadducees who actually rejected oral tradition and were the Sola Scriptura adherents of their day, and who were doctrinally furthest from Christ and His teachings in almost every regard.


Sola, this post I will bump in the hopes you might see how your Sadducean view of Scriptures is against the view of Scriptures and Oral Tradtion held by the Apostles and Early Church.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Inerrant?  Not quite.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...182042100.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Inerrant?  Not quite.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...182042100.html


Gordon Clark said:




> It may be that we cannot prove true some particular statement in the Bible, but the reason is not that the autograph is missing. What is missing is corroborative evidence from historical or archaeological sources, without which the unbeliever refuses to accept the statement of the Bible. Therefore we do not acquiesce in Dr. Foremans desire not to discuss these matters until the original is found  a requirement he is safe in making. On the contrary, we shall remind the world that the critics once asserted that the Hittite nation never existed.
> *
> 
> Let us grant that archaeology can never prove the truth of every statement in the Bible, not even every historical statement. But our assurance of the truth of the Bible does not depend on the sort of proof these professors want. It depends on a consideration found in chapter one, section five, of the*Westminster Confession, which these Presbyterian professors have not seen fit to refer to. This excellent summary of Biblical teaching says, Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
> 
> - See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal....ImUoOuQO.dpuf

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Gordon Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				It may be that we cannot prove true some particular statement in the Bible...Let us grant that archaeology can never prove the truth of every statement in the Bible...


The point of the article to which I posted was not that archaeology can't prove the truth of something in the Bible, but rather that it proved that certain things in the Bible are false.

----------


## eduardo89

> The point of the article to which I posted was not that archaeology can't prove the truth of something in the Bible, but rather that it proved that certain things in the Bible are false.


What has archaeology proven false about the Bible? 



Anyway, you do realise that when one says the Bible is inerrant, we are talking with regards to faith and morals, not necessarily historical or scientific details, right?

----------


## eduardo89

> Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, "that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’" (Matt. 2:23)
> 
> Sola, can you show me where in the Old Testament this prophecy is written?


Would be nice for Sola to answer this.

----------


## RJB

> Sola, this post I will bump in the hopes you might see how your Sadducean view of Scriptures is against the view of Scriptures and Oral Tradtion held by the Apostles and Early Church.


It would be fun going through all the old threads and bumping questions that he dodged or ignored.  It would probably be every thread he's been involved with LOL.

----------


## erowe1

> The point of the article to which I posted was not that archaeology can't prove the truth of something in the Bible, but rather that it proved that certain things in the Bible are false.


If you think the article said that archeology has proved that something in the Bible is false, then you totally misunderstood it.

----------


## erowe1

> Would be nice for Sola to answer this.


I'm not sure what version of the Bible that was. But it mistranslated Matthew 2:23. There is no direct quote in that verse. It should read:



> that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled that He shall be called a Nazarene.


The book of Matthew has 9 quotations of the OT that use a fulfillment formula, all of which have certain repeated features in the Greek (1:22-23; 2:15; 2:17-18; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). It's one of the motifs of that Gospel. But when you compare Matthew 2:23 with all of those in the Greek, it stands out as pretty distinct from them. The structure of Matthew 2:23 is much more like Matthew 26:54.



> 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?


Matthew 2:23 is one of the more debated verses of the New Testament. There are several views on how it should be taken. My own opinion is that it summarizes all of Matthew chapters 1-2, showing that the path that led to Jesus being a Nazarene was one that involved his fulfillment of many prophecies (note that the verse refers to prophets in the plural), specifically all the prophecies that Matthew had already shown that Jesus fulfilled in those chapters.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not sure what version of the Bible that was. But it mistranslated Matthew 2:23. There is no direct quote in that verse. It should read:


Ancient Greek does not use quotation marks at all, or really any punctuation, so that point really is moot.

----------


## erowe1

> Ancient Greek does not use quotation marks at all, or really any punctuation, so that point really is moot.


It does use things to mark direct versus indirect discourse.

Since you apparently know Greek, go ahead and look up the 9 fulfillment citations I listed in that post. You'll see that all 9 of them introduce their quotation with the participle "saying" (_legontes_), indicating a direct quotation. In contrast, Matthew 2:23, just like Matthew 26:54, introduces the clause that completes it with "that" (_hoti_). Sometimes _hoti_ can mark a direct quote. But more often it marks indirect speech. And even more often than that it marks something that is not any kind of quote at all, whether direct or indirect.

So no, the point is not moot.

----------


## TER

> My own opinion is that it summarizes all of Matthew chapters 1-2, showing that the path that led to Jesus being a Nazarene was one that involved his fulfillment of many prophecies (note that the verse refers to prophets in the plural), specifically all the prophecies that Matthew had already shown that Jesus fulfilled in those chapters.


I am not sure I understand your post.  Are you saying that what 'was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.' is not from oral tradition?  Aside from your opinion, what are you basing this on?  

I ask because it seems like this is 'one of the more debated verses of the NT' only with those who deny oral tradition.  The understanding that this verse and prophecy is based on oral tradition was never contested or debated until the Reformers tried to distance themselves from the Church.

And please explain to me why St. Paul mentioned the rock following the Israelites which was part of the rabbinic oral tradtion?  What is your explaination for that?  I am going to guess you are going to say something other then it was based on oral tradition, but perhaps you will surprise me.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you think the article said that archeology has proved that something in the Bible is false, then you totally misunderstood it.


The evidence in the article demonstrated that camels weren't domesticated at the time Genesis says they were.  Whether this constitutes proof is a matter of opinion.

----------


## erowe1

> The evidence in the article demonstrated that camels weren't domesticated at the time Genesis says they were.


No it didn't demonstrate that. If you really think that then you completely misunderstood what you read.

The article makes no mention of any evidence whatsoever of camels not being domesticated in the time of Abraham. There does not exist any evidence that they were not.

The article does mention evidence of camels that were domesticated centuries later than Abraham. But hopefully you can understand why that positive evidence of domesticated camels much later than Abraham is not the same thing as evidence that they were not domesticated at the time of Abraham. This case is exactly parallel to what SF mentioned and what the quote he gave said about the Hittites, which you tried to say it wasn't.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> This case is exactly parallel to what SF mentioned and what the quote he gave said about the Hittites, which you tried to say it wasn't.


I said nothing about the Hittites.

Here's the New York Times article that was referenced in the article I posted to: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/sc...esis.html?_r=1




> The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible. Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat. Dr. Sapir-Hen could identify a domesticated animal by signs in leg bones that it had carried heavy loads.


Other articles linked to in the original article discuss evidence contradicting other things written in the Bible.




> The new study again raises the age-old question of biblical accuracy. The phantom camel is just one of many historically jumbled references in the Bible. The Book of Genesis claims the Philistines, the traditional enemy of the Israelites, lived during Abraham’s time. But historians date the Philistines’ arrival to the eastern Mediterranean at about 1200 B.C., 400 years after Abraham was supposed to have lived, according to Carol Meyers, professor of religion at Duke University.
> http://world.time.com/2014/02/11/the...#ixzz2t8biGEvx

----------


## erowe1

> I said nothing about the Hittites.


Reread what I said. Then see your post 334 and the post you replied to, and notice how what you say in post 334 is completely false for precisely the reason I said, and the post you were replying to (which mentioned the Hittites) was correct.




> Here's the New York Times article that was referenced in the article I posted to: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/sc...esis.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> Other articles linked to in the original article discuss evidence contradicting other things written in the Bible.


Now find the part where it gives evidence that there were no domesticated camels in Abraham's time.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Now find the part where it gives evidence that there were no domesticated camels in Abraham's time.


I already cited it.  Can't you read?




> The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible.


If you want a more detailed summary of the findings, read here: http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page...ticle&id=19673




> To determine exactly when domesticated camels appeared in the southern Levant, Dr. Sapir-Hen and Dr. Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating and other techniques to analyze the findings of these digs as well as several others done in the valley. In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible. The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels, which archaeologists think were in the southern Levant from the Neolithic period or even earlier. Notably, all the sites active in the 9th century in the Arava Valley had camel bones, but none of the sites that were active earlier contained them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anyway, you do realise that when one says the Bible is inerrant, we are talking with regards to faith and morals, not necessarily historical or scientific details, right?


^^^And here is Rome's grand cop out....Rome's grand compromise with the world.

Rome cannot defend Christianity.

----------


## erowe1

> I already cited it.  Can't you read?


If you believe that what you quoted mentions any evidence that there were no domesticated camel's in Abraham's day, then you completely misunderstood what you read.

The more detailed summary you linked also mentions absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that there were no domesticated camels in Abraham's day.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It would be fun going through all the old threads and bumping questions that he dodged or ignored.  It would probably be every thread he's been involved with LOL.


Expecting us to know everything isn't exactly fair.  He probably doesn't know.  I didn't know.  Erowe1 did answer it though.




> ^^^And here is Rome's grand cop out....Rome's grand compromise with the world.
> 
> Rome cannot defend Christianity.


Just out of curiosity, if you believe the days in Genesis are literal, 24 hour days, how do you deal with the fact that we can, at lest allegedly, see stars that are  15 billion light years away?

I don't trust scientists much in general but this is an objection to YEC that I actually comprehend so I'm curious what the answer to it is, if any.

(For the record, I personally am uncertain whether the days were 24 hours or not.)

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you believe that what you quoted mentions any evidence that there were no domesticated camel's in Abraham's day, then you completely misunderstood what you read.
> 
> The more detailed summary you linked also mentions absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that there were no domesticated camels in Abraham's day.


I guess words like "earliest" and "centuries after the patriarchs lived" are too advanced for you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I said nothing about the Hittites.


I know you didn't.   You probably didn't know that at one time archeologists were very sure the Hittites didn't exist, did you?

----------


## TER

> Expecting us to know everything isn't exactly fair.  He probably doesn't know.  I didn't know.  Erowe1 did answer it though.


Erowe answered it by his usual mental gymnastics!  One must become quite proficient with this ability to subscribe to the innnovative theologies you three have!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Erowe answered it by his usual mental gymnastics!  One must become quite proficient with this ability to subscribe to the innnovative theologies you three have!


Here's a great thread about this issue which has several quotes from several different views about that prophecy:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/he-s...azarene-30713/

----------


## TER

> Here's a great thread about this issue which has several quotes from several different views about that prophecy:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/he-s...azarene-30713/


Yes, more mental gymnastics.  But at least they referred to a Church Father!  That is a start!

----------


## RJB

> Expecting us to know everything isn't exactly fair.  He probably doesn't know.  I didn't know.  Erowe1 did answer it though.


As for knowing EVERYTHING, no man does.

If someone has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, felt the weight of their sins and felt the peace of forgiveness from the cross, but claim not to understand the bible yet, I'll respect them.  A fool with faith could enter the kingdom-- which I very well might be.  

 However when you say a group who profess faith in Jesus Christ aren't Christian based on a bible verse *that the group actually agrees with*, just not *YOUR* interpretation and presents counter verses and instead of discussing you disappear and claim victory later, its' a bit annoying and happens too often.  I'm not perfect, but when Jesus himself commands us to do certain things, I will do my best, fail, do my best, fail, and keep my faith in him.

As for Erowe1, I don't always agree with him but he has my respect.  He reads the posts of others and doesn't make stuff up.  I've learned from him.

You marveled on another thread how a Protestant could say Catholics are Christians but not Calvinists, it's probably more of your un-Christian behavior.  If you don't want Calvinists to have a bad name, leave spreading Calvinism to someone with a bit of class like Erowe1.  I have nothing against Calvinists, but rather the dishonesty you and Sola use, i.e. the "fasting thread" where you falsely claimed we believed we'd receive salvation through fasting.

But we've been through this before.




> Just out of curiosity, if you believe the days in Genesis are literal, 24 hour days, how do you deal with the fact that we can, at lest allegedly, see stars that are  15 billion light years away?
> 
> I don't trust scientists much in general but this is an objection to YEC that I actually comprehend so I'm curious what the answer to it is, if any.
> 
> (For the record, I personally am uncertain whether the days were 24 hours or not.)


 I've hiked to the bottom of The Grand Canyon--  The time it took the sediment and fossils to be layed down and then eroded would be a bit more than 6,000 years-- unless there was a maricle.  How long the days were, I really don't know.  I've read both sides--  I just trust in God.  He made the world.

As for Sola's claim, I think both Eduardo and I answered that in another thread.  The Church has no official policy on Science.  It's job is preaching the Gospel.  There are Catholic Creationists and Evolutionists.  Private opinions of popes and bishops =/= Church policy.  I majored in Biology as an under grad when I was an atheist.  Back then I was as skeptical of science as I was religion.  Science changes it's laws and theories every few centuries based on who's in charge.  Now it's the Corporations who run science.  For all our supposed knowledge, our current scientists will be seen as primitives in another century.  The wisdom of the Holy Spirit will prevail.

Yeah, I admit I'm ignorant.  Just don't make strawmen of what I do believe and we're cool.  But we've been through this already.

----------


## eduardo89

> (For the record, I personally am uncertain whether the days were 24 hours or not.)


That makes you a heretic in Sola's eyes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As for knowing EVERYTHING, no man does.
> 
> If someone has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, felt the weight of their sins and felt the peace of forgiveness from the cross, but claim not to understand the bible yet, I'll respect them.  A fool with faith could enter the kingdom-- which I very well might be.  
> 
>  However when you say a group who profess faith in Jesus Christ aren't Christian based on a bible verse *that the group actually agrees with*, just not *YOUR* interpretation and presents counter verses and instead of discussing you disappear and claim victory later, its' a bit annoying and happens too often.  I'm not perfect, but when Jesus himself commands us to do certain things, I will do my best, fail, do my best, fail, and keep my faith in him.
> 
> As for Erowe1, I don't always agree with him but he has my respect.  He reads the posts of others and doesn't make stuff up.  I've learned from him.
> 
> You marveled on another thread how a Protestant could say Catholics are Christians but not Calvinists, it's probably more of your un-Christian behavior.  If you don't want Calvinists to have a bad name, leave spreading Calvinism to someone with a bit of class like Erowe1.  I have nothing against Calvinists, but rather the dishonesty you and Sola use, i.e. the "fasting thread" where you falsely claimed we believed we'd receive salvation through fasting.
> ...


OK, I understand.

There are ertain doctrines that I believe every true Christian believes.  Belief in Christ's divinity, which I know we all agree on, belief that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected, which I know we all agree on and justification by faith alone, which I think you reject but I could be wrong.  If you believe in those things, I believe you to be my brother in Christ.  If not, I don't.



> I've hiked to the bottom of The Grand Canyon--  The time it took the sediment and fossils to be layed down and then eroded would be a bit more than 6,000 years-- unless there was a maricle.  How long the days were, I really don't know.  I've read both sides--  I just trust in God.  He made the world.


Fair enough.


> As for Sola's claim, I think both Eduardo and I answered that in another thread.  The Church has no official policy on Science.  It's job is preaching the Gospel.  There are Catholic Creationists and Evolutionists.  Private opinions of popes and bishops =/= Church policy.  I majored in Biology as an under grad when I was an atheist.  Back then I was as skeptical of science as I was religion.  Science changes it's laws and theories every few centuries based on who's in charge.  Now it's the Corporations who run science.  For all our supposed knowledge, our current scientists will be seen as primitives in another century.  The wisdom of the Holy Spirit will prevail.
> 
> Yeah, I admit I'm ignorant.  Just don't make strawmen of what I do believe and we're cool.  But we've been through this already.



I can't speak for you or Sola_Fide.  But, I wasn't trying to pin the Catholic Church on this point.  There's a big difference, though, between saying that "day" is a metaphor for a different period of time, and saying that the Bible is actually inaccurate on scientific issues.  The latter belief I would consider heretical, whereas the former would be a different interpretation.



> That makes you a heretic in Sola's eyes.


I'll let SF answer that for himself.  But if he thinks that, that's fine.  I'd be curious to see some reasoning as to why that's heretical, in my mind I guess I don't really see why that issue matters that much.  If I had to come down one way or another I'd believe in 6 days, but the 4th day makes me question that viewpoint.

----------


## eduardo89

> I can't speak for you or Sola_Fide.  But, I wasn't trying to pin the Catholic Church on this point.  There's a big difference, though, between saying that "day" is a metaphor for a different period of time, and saying that the Bible is actually inaccurate on scientific issues.  The latter belief I would consider heretical, whereas the former would be a different interpretation.


The Bible doesn't really speak about science and even if it did it would be from the point of view of those who wrote it, who had a very different view of the natural sciences than we do now.




> I'll let SF answer that for himself.  But if he thinks that, that's fine.  I'd be curious to see some reasoning as to why that's heretical, in my mind I guess I don't really see why that issue matters that much.  If I had to come down one way or another I'd believe in 6 days, but the 4th day makes me question that viewpoint.


Because the Bible says days and God is bound to human earth days.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible doesn't really speak about science and even if it did it would be from the point of view of those who wrote it, who had a very different view of the natural sciences than we do now.


I agree that the Bible probably doesn't say all that much about science (I'm not a Biblical expert, naturally.)  I agree that the Bible isn't a scientific textbook.  but anything the Bible does say about science is completely true, in the way the author intended it.





> Because the Bible says days and God is bound to human earth days.


Alright... I'll let SF answer this for himself.  I seriously doubt he'd respond this way.

----------


## RJB

> That makes you a heretic in Sola's eyes.


Could you imagine those two spending eternity together?  LOL.

----------


## RJB

> If not, I don't.


Seriously, I don't care where you think I'll spend eternity.  You don't matter.  I feel the love of God when I pray.  Strong enough to turn my formerly atheistic heart.  Just knock off the damn strawmen.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Could you imagine those two spending eternity together?  LOL.


I do not understand the point of this post.  Sola_Fide didn't actually even say anything, eduardo was just trying to mimic him.

I can definitely imagine you all spending eternity together complaining about how we were mean and how we should have just told you that trusting in Christ + works for salvation was perfectly OK, and for that matter, how Paul really should have been nicer to those Judaizers in a similar situation.  I'd be saddened if that was how it ended, though.




> Seriously, I don't care where you think I'll spend eternity.  You don't matter.  I feel the love of God when I pray.  Strong enough to turn my formerly atheistic heart.  Just knock off the damn strawmen.


I have no idea where you'll spend eternity, so its good that you don't care, because I don't know.  I do know that belief in salvation by faith alone is something that every Christian believes in.  Add works to that picture and its a different gospel.  I have no idea whether you will someday believe the true gospel or not.  I hope that you do.

----------


## RJB

> Sola_Fide didn't actually even say anything, eduardo was just trying to mimic him.


LOL  You gotta admit he did a good job.




> I can definitely imagine you all spending eternity together complaining about how we were mean and how we should have just told you that trusting in Christ + works for salvation was perfectly OK, and for that matter, how Paul really should have been nicer to those Judaizers in a similar situation.  I'd be saddened if that was how it ended, though.


Sigh.  Have you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

----------


## RJB

> I have no idea where you'll spend eternity, so its good that you don't care, because I don't know.  I do know that belief in salvation by *faith alone* is something that every Christian believes in.  Add works to that picture and its a different gospel.  I have no idea whether you will someday believe the true gospel or not.  I hope that you do.


*This is where you'll disappear.*  QUESTION:   PLEASE FIND WHERE, BESIDES JAMES 2:24, (not by Faith alone),  it says we are ANYTHING with FAITH ALONE between Geniesis 1 to the 1500s when Luther invented it.

ANSWER:  YOU CAN'T.  

Also remember we agree with all the Biblical verses on the importance of Faith.

For me to believe your lack of the Faith Alone Doctrine damns one to Hell, you must show me the bible verse that says:




> And Jesus said to them, “Amen I say unto you, Faith and Faith Alone saves, and even though you have faith but *do not believe* that faith alone saves, you shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  By the way, you must also ignore what I said about the sheep and the Goats and you must also ignore James when he said you are NOT saved by faith alone.  And ignore what John says in Revalation.


  Our Lord never said anything close to this.  You need to look beyond your upbringing and look to what the Bible actually teaches you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *This is where you'll disappear.*  QUESTION:   PLEASE FIND WHERE, BESIDES JAMES 2:24, (not by Faith alone),  it says we are ANYTHING with FAITH ALONE between Geniesis 1 to the 1500s when Luther invented it.
> 
> ANSWER:  YOU CAN'T.


Just one?  Okay:



> Romans 4:4-5 NIV
> 
> Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. *However, to the one who does not work but trusts* God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.


The one who does no work, but believes,  their faith is credited as righteousness.   Faith ALONE. 








> Also remember we agree with all the Biblical verses on the importance of Faith.


The issue has never been the _necessity_ of faith.   Every false religion and cult in the world says that faith is necessary.   The issue has always been: is faith _alone sufficient_.

The Bible says faith is alone sufficient,  you say it is not.  You're wrong.

----------


## RJB

> Just one?  Okay:


Romans 4 talks of circumcision (works of the law)





> The one who does no work, but believes,  their faith is credited as righteousness.   Faith ALONE.


 The first part I agree with but Faith Alone is unbiblical.  To believe Faith Alone, I would have to ignore James 2:24, Jesus' teaching of Sheep and the Goats, etc.  I can't do that.  I don't rely on works because I fail regularly, but we are told to do them.  I will follow the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.




> Every false religion and cult in the world says that faith is necessary.  The issue has always been: is faith _alone sufficient_.


 You can't find the doctrine of "Faith Alone" anywhere but James 2:24 (Not by Faith Alone) until the 1500s.  *Where does it say one is damned if he does not follow Luther's doctrine?* *Where does it say to ignore James 2:24 or one is damned?* 




> The Bible says faith is alone sufficient,  you say it is not.  You're wrong.


  It's says you should not rely on getting your wanker snipped for justification.  I would not ignore Jesus' warning of the sheep  and the goats.

----------


## osan

> The problem isn't the Bible but rather your interpretation of it.



In practical terms, the difference is meaningless.

There are several types of potential errors in any inherent to any linguistic transaction.

1.  What is asserted is wrong, in part or in whole

2. what is perceived by the message recipient was not the message sent

3.  Semantic drift

4.  Willful misinterpretation

5.  Ignorant misinterpretation

No a complete list, but one gets the idea.  

The infallibility of the bible is disproven by the simple fact that two people can interpret the same passage with wide variance.  Were it infallible, this would not be possible.

It is not possible to build a message that cannot be misinterpreted, practically speaking.  Therefore, no message can be infallible.  QED.

----------


## erowe1

> I guess words like "earliest" and "centuries after the patriarchs lived" are too advanced for you.


No. You're doing exactly what you claimed you weren't doing in post 334. You're pointing to a lack of evidence for camels in Abraham's day and claiming that that's positive evidence for a lack of camels. The fact some scientists dated a few domestic camel remains and found that the earliest of the ones they dated were from much later than the time of Abraham is not evidence that there were no domestic camels in Abraham's day.

If you think that any of the links you provided make any mention of any evidence that there were no domestic camels in Abraham's day, then you completely misunderstood what they said.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL  You gotta admit he did a good job.


I don't know.  I want to know Sola_Fide's answer.

@SF- Is it necessarily heretical to interpret the "days" of Genesis 1 to be longer periods of time?  Why or why not?



> Sigh.  Have you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?


Sure.  Your point.



> Just one?  Okay:
> 
> 
> The one who does no work, but believes,  their faith is credited as righteousness.   Faith ALONE. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just for curiosity, how do you deal with the sheep and the goats?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Romans 4 talks of circumcision (works of the law)
> 
> 
>  The first part I agree with but Faith Alone is unbiblical.  To believe Faith Alone, I would have to ignore James 2:24, Jesus' teaching of Sheep and the Goats, etc.  I can't do that.  I don't rely on works because I fail regularly, but we are told to do them.  I will follow the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
>   You can't find the doctrine of "Faith Alone" anywhere but James 2:24 (Not by Faith Alone) until the 1500s.  *Where does it say one is damned if he does not follow Luther's doctrine?* *Where does it say to ignore James 2:24 or one is damned?* 
> 
>   It's says you should not rely on getting your wanker snipped for justification.  I would not ignore Jesus' warning of the sheep  and the goats.





> *You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again*


sorry, bro. :/

----------


## RJB

> Just for curiosity, how do you deal with the sheep and the goats?


I do my best even though I may fail because I have faith in my Savior.  *How does trying to follow that damn me?*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do my best even though I may fail because I have faith in my Savior.  *How does trying to follow that damn me?*


Because you are relying on your efforts in salvation, instead of the finished work and atoning blood of Jesus Christ alone.

----------


## RJB

> Because you are relying on your efforts in salvation, instead of the finished work and atoning blood of Jesus Christ alone.


Why did Jesus preach it?

----------


## RJB

> Because you are relying on your efforts in salvation, instead of the finished work and atoning blood of Jesus Christ alone.


And I'm not relying on my efforts.   I'm following his instructions.  It sounds like you think I'm damned for following Jesus.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why did Jesus preach it?


Preach what?

----------


## RJB

> Preach what?


His words.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> His words.


In regards to what?  Following the law?  Believing?   What?

----------


## RJB

> In regards to what?  Following the law?  Believing?   What?


You glossed over my reply to you further up in the thread and are  changing the subject.

You seem to know 3 verses from Romans, 1 or two from Ephesians and maybe 1 from Galatians.

You may want to try reading the 4 Gospels and meditate on the life of Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You glossed over my reply to you further up in the thread and are  changing the subject.
> 
> You seem to know 3 verses from Romans, 1 or two from Ephesians and maybe 1 from Galatians.
> 
> You may want to try reading the 4 Gospels and meditate on the life of Christ.


What in the gospels contradict that a man is saved by faith alone in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ?

----------


## RJB

> What in the gospels contradict that a man is saved by faith alone in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ?


Why should I dignify your question when you have not shown anywhere in the bible that is says we are saved by "Faith Alone."  The only time in the bible it has those two words appear together it says "Not by Faith Alone." (James 2:24)  So you have NOT demonstrated that the bible says we are saved by "Faith Alone" *nor (more importantly) have you demonstrated where it says we are damned for not believing in the un-Biblical "Faith Alone."*

----------


## RJB

I'll reiterate:  *Where does it say we are damned for NOT following "Faith Alone?"*

Then we can move on.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I'll reiterate:  *Where does it say we are damned for NOT following "Faith Alone?"*
> 
> Then we can move on.


Apparently Jesus was just kidding with the whole example of washing the apostle's feet.

Also, just ignore the sermon on the mount where JESUS (not Paul) said “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, *let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds* and glorify your Father in heaven."

So if God lights your lamp, why would you put it under a bowl and claim that anyone who lets their shine is damned?


Apparently some are trying to justify their own lack of works by claiming that ANYONE who does works is following a false Gospel.

I've asked Sola before but didn't get an answer:  Do you love God as much as He loves you?  Do you just accept His love and never show Him any in return?

He fills my heart with love and out of that love pours love for others.  He fills my cup!

----------


## RJB

Good post.    But Sola has seen those verses before.  Right now he is attempting to change the subject.  

Just a reminder:  *Where does it say in the Bible we are damned for NOT following "Faith Alone?"*



> Apparently Jesus was just kidding with the whole example of washing the apostle's feet.
> 
> Also, just ignore the sermon on the mount where JESUS (not Paul) said “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, *let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds* and glorify your Father in heaven."
> 
> So if God lights your lamp, why would you put it under a bowl and claim that anyone who lets their shine is damned?
> 
> 
> Apparently some are trying to justify their own lack of works by claiming that ANYONE who does works is following a false Gospel.
> 
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do my best even though I may fail because I have faith in my Savior.


This question wasn't directed at you.  I was asking Sola how he reconciles that passage with faith alone (For the record, I do have an answer to that question for myself, but I was curious if Sola's answer would be the same as mine or not).  IIRC you used that passage to argue against faith alone, hence why I was asking.




> *How does trying to follow that damn me?*


Because you still believe your efforts are what make the difference.

(For the record, I do not know whether you are going to heaven or hell.)




> I'll reiterate:  *Where does it say we are damned for NOT following "Faith Alone?"*
> 
> Then we can move on.


Galatians 1:6-9

That was easy.

----------


## RJB

> Galatians 1:6-9
> 
> That was easy.


Actually not as easy as you think.  It mentions nothing of Faith Alone.  We're discussing it here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ith-Alone-quot

----------


## eduardo89

> Galatians 1:6-9
> 
> That was easy.


Where does that say those who do not believe in "faith alone" are damned? 

I'll repost this which I responded to you a while back in another thread in relation to those verses:




> Read the whole passage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Galatians 1
> 
> 6I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where does that say those who do not believe in "faith alone" are damned? 
> 
> I'll repost this which I responded to you a while back in another thread in relation to those verses:


Yeah, I know you responded, but your interpretation was wrong.  Paul's beef with the Judaizers had nothing to do with church authority.  It had everything to do with adding works to salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

----------


## Terry1

> Because you are relying on your efforts in salvation, instead of the finished work and atoning blood of Jesus Christ alone.


"Efforts" done in faith in obedience to the Holy Spirit are our "works of faith"--they are our "fruits of the Spirit", which Paul tells you to do.  Are you arguing with the Apostle Paul on this?  

What do you think the word is talking about when it says "you will know them by their fruit"?  A branch in the Vine that bears no fruit is cut off and burned. John 15:1

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Efforts" done in faith in obedience to the Holy Spirit are our "works of faith"--they are our "fruits of the Spirit", which Paul tells you to do.  Are you arguing with the Apostle Paul on this?  
> 
> What do you think the word is talking about when it says "you will know them by their fruit"?  A branch in the Vine that bears no fruit is cut off and burned. John 15:1


There you go again.  You put "works of faith"in quotes like you are paraphrasing some Biblical truth when THE BIBLE NEVER USES THAT PHRASE AND NEVER USES THE CONCEPT. 

I've asked you 5+ times now to explain  your use of that phrase and every single time you have not done it.

----------


## Terry1

> There you go again.  You put "works of faith"in quotes like you are paraphrasing some Biblical truth when THE BIBLE NEVER USES THAT PHRASE AND NEVER USES THE CONCEPT. 
> 
> I've asked you 5+ times now to explain  your use of that phrase and every single time you have not done it.


And how many times have I posted these scriptures to prove you wrong over and over and over again.  Are you reading anything at all?

1 Thessalonians 1:3 
remembering *without ceasing your work of faith*, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father,

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Therefore we also pray always for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and *the work of faith with power,
*

James 2:14 
[ *Faith Without Works Is Dead* ] What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

.James 2:20 
But do you want to know, *O foolish man, that faith without works is dead*?

.James 2:26 
*For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
*

Just how do you believe that anything gets done toward the kingdom of heaven through Christians if they do nothing and sit around waiting to die because they fallaciously believe that everything has already been done for them?  How can we witness to the lost, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and cold, help the hurting and so forth.  All of these things are done in response to what the Holy Spirit is asking us to do them as we are spiritually called.  Without being spiritually called to do them spontaneously, they are a dead work then, but if they are done in obedience to the Spirit of the Lord then they are a "work of faith" done in faith that what you're spiritually hearing is what God is asking you to do and you do that thing.  That is your fruit of the spirit.  Anything good that one does as a result of being obedient to the Spirit is your fruit of that same spirit.  Same as evil people do evil things in response to an evil spirit which is who they're choosing to listen to and follow.

----------


## robert68

> The Christian position isn't that "God is bound by a book".  But God has chosen to reveal Himself to man in propositions that man can understand in writing and in thought.
> 
> God is logical.


If “God” created everything, then everything in existence is a revelation of him.  And one person's claim about him would be as much a revelation of him as anyone else's.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If God created everything, then everything and in existence is a revelation of him.  And one person's claim about him would be as much a revelation of him as anyone else's.


That assumes that every thought God gives to man is a true belief.  But the Scriptures are full of instances where God gives men false beliefs.  God sends men a delusion so that they cannot believe the truth.  God puts lies into the mouths of the prophets.  God blinds and hardens the heart of man.

God is completely sovereign over every belief, be they true or false beliefs.  God causes man to believe the truth and He causes man to believe lies.  God is the only cause.  Behind every belief, true or false, God is the causal agent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That assumes that every thought God gives to man is a true belief.  But the Scriptures are full of instances where God gives men false beliefs.  God sends men a delusion so that they cannot believe the truth.  God puts lies into the mouths of the prophets.  God blinds and hardens the heart of man.
> 
> God is completely sovereign over every belief, be they true or false beliefs.  God causes man to believe the truth and He causes man to believe lies.  God is the only cause.  Behind every belief, true or false, God is the causal agent.



But, wouldn't that be  God lying to men?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But, wouldn't that be  God lying to men?


Of course not.  God is thrice holy.  He alone is righteous and just.  But God, in His decree, has determined that some men believe lies and go away to eternal destruction.   The fact that God causes men to believe falsehoods is all over the Scriptures. 




> 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 NIV
> 
> For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

----------


## erowe1

> If “God” created everything, then everything in existence is a revelation of him.  And one person's claim about him would be as much a revelation of him as anyone else's.


How do you figure that your second sentence follows from the first?

If everything in existence is a revelation of him (which I grant that everything is in one way or another), then wouldn't a true statement about that which exists be more true to his revelation of himself than a false one?

----------


## robert68

> That assumes that every thought God gives to man is a true belief.  But the Scriptures are full of instances where God gives men false beliefs.  God sends men a delusion so that they cannot believe the truth.  God puts lies into the mouths of the prophets.  God blinds and hardens the heart of man.
> 
> God is completely sovereign over every belief, be they true or false beliefs.  God causes man to believe the truth and He causes man to believe lies.  God is the only cause.  Behind every belief, true or false, God is the causal agent.


That makes "God" often a liar, and no one capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood (including you).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That makes "God" often a liar, and no one capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood (including you).


No it doesn't.   God causing men to believe lies and going away to destruction is not the same as lying to them.  God is under no obligation to reveal Himself to any of His creatures.   He would be completely just if He never revealed the truth of Himself to any of us, but thankfully,  in His mercy He does.   For instance, God would be completely just if He never reveals Himself to you, keeps you in your delusion that He doesn't exist, and punishes you eternally for your sins.

God has revealed to man how to distinguish truth from falsehood: the Scriptures.  The Bible is truth.

----------


## robert68

> No it doesn't.   God causing men to believe lies and going away to destruction is not the same as lying to them.  God is under no obligation to reveal Himself to any of His creatures.   He would be completely just if He never revealed the truth of Himself to any of us, but thankfully,  in His mercy He does.   For instance, God would be completely just if He never reveals Himself to you, keeps you in your delusion that He doesn't exist, and punishes you eternally for your sins.
> 
> God has revealed to man how to distinguish truth from falsehood: the Scriptures.  The Bible is truth.


What you consider truth can always be a "lie" from "God", by your own argument.

----------


## RJB

> That assumes that every thought God gives to man is a true belief.  But the Scriptures are full of instances where God gives men false beliefs.  God sends men a delusion so that they cannot believe the truth.  God puts lies into the mouths of the prophets.  God blinds and hardens the heart of man.
> 
> God is completely sovereign over every belief, be they true or false beliefs.  God causes man to believe the truth and He causes man to believe lies.  God is the only cause.  Behind every belief, true or false, God is the causal agent.


Bump to remember this gem.  When Sola spouts his usual errors, it's God's fault, lol

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What you consider truth can always be a "lie" from "God", by your argument.


The only way to argue against me like you are doing is to grant my premises.  I win the debate when you do this.

----------


## robert68

> The only way to argue against me like you are doing is to grant my premises.  I win the debate when you do this.


LoL. I granted nothing. That sounds like self delusion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LoL. I granted nothing.


If you are saying that I am being deceived by God, then you are granting my position that God does deceive,  which means you have no refutation to my argument. 

There is no way out of this logically.

----------


## robert68

> If you are saying that I am being deceived by God, then you are granting my position that God does deceive,  which means you have no refutation to my argument. 
> 
> There is no way out of this logically.


No, I said “by your argument”, and always put “God” in quotes. You don’t understand what it means to argue a hypothetical. And always exempt yourself from your own rules.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I said by your argument, and always put God in quotes. You dont understand what it means to argue a hypothetical. And you always exempt yourself from your own rules.


"By my argument" the propositions of the Scripture, and all the necessary deductions from those propositions,  are my standard for truth,  so you don't even understand my argument.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Bump to remember this gem.  When Sola spouts his usual errors, it's God's fault, lol


Why laugh though?  Do you dispute that God sends delusions to men so that they believe lies and are condemned?




> 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 NIV
> 
> For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.


Why don't you believe the Word of God?

----------


## RJB

> Why laugh though?  Do you dispute that God sends delusions to men so that they believe lies and are condemned?


Poor Sola.  It's not you're fault you're delusional, brother.  LOL

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Poor Sola.  It's not you're fault you're delusional, brother.  LOL


So....no answer to my question,  and no interaction with the text of the Bible?

Why should anyone take you seriously if you aren't going to engage?

----------


## eduardo89

> So....no answer to my question


I guess he took a page out of your playbook.




> Why should anyone take you seriously if you aren't going to engage?


Why should anyone take you seriously when you manufacture fake quotes from Catholics and lie and spread misinformation about what Catholics believe?

----------


## RJB

> So....no answer to my question,  and no interaction with the text of the Bible?
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously if you aren't going to engage?


I won't engage with anyone who suffers from delusions of (literally) biblical proportions, brother.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I won't engage with anyone who suffers from delusions of (literally) biblical proportions, brother.


How does one determine what is true and what is a delusion?   What is the standard?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess he took a page out of your playbook.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously when you manufacture fake quotes from Catholics and lie and spread misinformation about what Catholics believe?


Eduardo, when I try to bring the issue to justification or assurance or atonement,  you completely shut down.  Why do you do that?  Why don't we focus on the important things that distinguish Christianity from Romanism?

----------


## RJB

> Why should anyone take you seriously when you manufacture fake quotes from Catholics and lie and spread misinformation about what Catholics believe?


Exactly and you know who the Father of Lies is. Sola should ask himself how he can build his faith on men who post fake quotations.

BTW, to keep your sanity when "debating" with Sola may I suggest some appropriate music.  I'm at the 27 minute mark and my kids are yelling, "Daddy, turn that crazy music off." LOL.

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, when I try to bring the issue to justification or assurance or atonement,  you completely shut down.  Why do you do that?  Why don't we focus on the important things that distinguish Christianity from Romanism?


I don't shut down, you simply do not like the answers I give you and never answer the questions I pose for you. If you've taught me anything over the years, it's that 'debating' (I can hardly call it a debate when you refuse to answer questions and deliberately lie and misrepresent my faith) yields nothing fruitful. 

The most we can all do here is pray for you.

----------


## RJB

> Eduardo, when I try to bring the issue to justification or assurance or atonement,  you completely shut down.  Why do you do that?  Why don't we focus on the important things that distinguish Christianity from Romanism?


Again, why should we engage with someone with a history of posting fictitious quotations and lies about what we believe even after being corrected time and again?  You purposely misread what prior posters wrote anyway, so what's the point of an attempt at dialogue?  So are you delusional or just dishonest?

BTW Ed has answered you.  You ignore him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't shut down, you simply do not like the answers I give you and never answer the questions I pose for you. If you've taught me anything over the years, it's that 'debating' (I can hardly call it a debate when you refuse to answer questions and deliberately lie and misrepresent my faith) yields nothing fruitful. 
> 
> The most we can all do here is pray for you.


Your answers that justification is a process that happens in the heart, rather than an objective event that happens on the cross, is not satisfying Biblically. 

Justification happens at the cross.  Read every word of this verse:




> *Colossians 2:13-14 NASB
> 
> When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Justification happens at the cross.  Read every word of this verse:


And Catholics agree with that. We are saved solely by the Grace of the cross. 

You just have an unbiblical view of justification that did not exist in the first 1500 years of Christianity.

----------


## RJB

> And Catholics agree with that. We are saved solely by the Grace of the cross.


Congratulations.   You are the 300th person to tell Sola this.  Your prize is that he will also ignore this and tell you that you believe something entirely different.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And Catholics agree with that. We are saved solely by the Grace of the cross. 
> 
> You just have an unbiblical view of justification that did not exist in the first 1500 years of Christianity.


We aren't talking about grace.  We are talking about WHERE justification happens and the NATURE of justification. 

Why does Rome teach that justification is a process that happens subjectively in the heart, rather than an objective event that happens on the cross?




> * Colossians 2:13-14 NASB
> 
> When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.*

----------


## eduardo89

> We aren't talking about grace.  We are talking about WHERE justification happens and the NATURE of justification. 
> 
> Why does Rome teach that justification is a process that happens subjectively in the heart, rather than an objective event that happens on the cross?


Here is a great analogy that will hopefully make you understand what the Biblical and Catholic view of justification is:




> To Protestants who aren't used to the Catholic view of justification and sanctification, this picture can seem confusing and even contradictory. In hopes of making it clearer, let me use an analogy: God breathed life into Adam when he was just dust.  After having life breathed into him, Adam had to cooperate in maintaining that life by eating.  Adam's not alive because he ate: he's alive because God breathed life into him.  You didn't somehow merit being alive by eating breakfast. But if Adam stops eating, even when he feels the internal call to, he'll eventually die.  So the breath of God is roughly the role that Grace and faith play here, while eating is roughly the role that the expression of faith through love ("good works") takes.  Breath precedes eating, and is necessary for it to be of any worth.  But once we've come from dust to life in Christ (once He's breathed His life into us, so to speak), we're not to reject that internal call to charity, and if we do, it's damnable: our faith dies, and we die with it.  That's how we can simultaneously affirm that Adam's life came from the breath of God, and not anything he did, whether eating, or any other thing (cf. Romans 3:28); and at the same time affirm that if Adam doesn't eat, he'll be dead (cf. James 2:26).


Our Lord Jesus Christ merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross. The instrumental cause of our justification the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man can ever be justified. And through this initial justification, the Holy Spirit bestows upon us faith, hope, and love, the three things which unite us perfectly to Christ.  It's these two things (hope and charity) which Trent cautions us not to separate faith from.  And it's through this that we're able to do works which are pleasing to God: not because they're good works, but because they're our faith working through charity.  It's us living in the Holy Spirit. A Matthew 24:13, it is the ones who persevere to the end who will be saved, which is the end goal of justification.

----------


## erowe1

> You just have an unbiblical view of justification that did not exist in the first 1500 years of Christianity.


What's your basis for saying this?

----------


## eduardo89

> What's your basis for saying this?


1500 years of Christianity before his views popped up.

----------


## erowe1

> 1500 years of Christianity before his views popped up.


How do you know that a view didn't exist those 1500 years of Christianity?

----------


## eduardo89

> How do you know that a view didn't exist those 1500 years of Christianity?


Can you show me where his views existed in the first 1500 years of Christianity and were not universally (or near universally) denounces as heretical?

----------


## erowe1

> Can you show me where his views existed in the first 1500 years of Christianity and were not universally (or near universally) denounces as heretical?


Before I try, does this mean that you now concede that you don't know if the view existed in the first 1500 years of Christianity? Because you made that statement as if you already knew. And if you don't really know, then why pretend you do?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can you show me where his views existed in the first 1500 years of Christianity and were not universally (or near universally) denounces as heretical?


Here is my evidence of the view that Christians believe justification happens on the cross:




> When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

----------


## eduardo89

> Here is my evidence of the view that Christians believe justification happens on the cross:


I am not disagreeing with you there. 

I completely agree with the verses you posted, our Lord Jesus Christ merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross.

----------


## robert68

> If you are saying that I am being deceived by God, then you are granting my position that God does deceive,  which means you have no refutation to my argument. 
> 
> There is no way out of this logically.


I didn’t say "you are being deceived by God." Your English comprehension skills often seem to wane when the implications of your arguments are pointed out to you.

I wrote: “What you consider truth *can always be* a "lie" from "God", by your argument ("God" deceives people)." In other words, *it’s always possible* you’re being deceived by “God”, by your argument; not *you are* being deceived by “God”.

----------


## erowe1

> I already cited it.  Can't you read?
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a more detailed summary of the findings, read here: http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page...ticle&id=19673


For those who are interested in the evidence for domesticated camels in the era of the biblical patriarchs, here's a helpful and thorough article.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...t.aspx#Article

In addition to all of the evidence that makes it plausible for people in the Levant in the early second millennium BC to have had domesticated camels (especially people like the patriarchs who had travelled there from the East), critical readers of the articles Sunny posted will notice that none of them mention any evidence to support the claim that there were no domesticated camels in the Levant at that time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> For those who are interested in the evidence for domesticated camels in the era of the biblical patriarchs, here's a helpful and thorough article.
> http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...t.aspx#Article
> 
> In addition to all of the evidence that makes it plausible for people in the Levant in the early second millennium BC to have had domesticated camels (especially people like the patriarchs who had travelled there from the East), critical readers of the articles Sunny posted will notice that none of them mention any evidence to support the claim that there were no domesticated camels in the Levant at that time.


+rep

Awesome.

----------


## wizardwatson

The Bible is as errant as the reader.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Bible is as errant as the reader.


If you put 10 people in 10 rooms with 10 Bibles and they all come out with 10 different interpretations, where is the variable there?  In the people, or in the Bible?

In the Bible itself, it says that understanding what the Scriptures teach is a revelation from God Himself.  So a right understanding of the Scriptures is not something based on observation.

----------


## wizardwatson

What isn't a revelation from God himself?  Even the true nature of our sins is hidden from us until it is revealed through repentance.  Even ignorance is a revelation to those who witness it.

Is their anything beyond God's sovereignty that has been revealed to you in the scriptures?  "Faith Alone" makes a great bumper sticker but is a pretty blunt teaching tool and makes for short conversation.

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...53.EIyhu6x5tD4

----------


## willwash

No, it isn't.

----------

