Infallibility of Scripture

by drew sagan 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  In my experience, the most inclined to twist the interpretation of the Bible (their Bible) are those who do not allow themselves, consciously, to "pick and choose". When you are unable to say "I disagree with this text" you have to make it look acceptable in your own eyes, no matter what it actually says. Fundamentalist exegesis offers tons of examples, from harmonisation to anachronism via political correctness. The Bible can't be wrong, but then we'll have it say what we want to hear.

  Gawd that's astute!
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  I'm not being sarcastic. Actually that's what pure monotheism, including absolute providence, would imply. But it is not what "Bible believers" usually believe.

  what I find most problematic is when people pick and choose what to believe in the Bible based on ideas about what God would say and do. Then it's 100% certain ;that ;such a ;person's holy book becomes the word of men.

  Sure, but is it not what happens always?

  I don't think so That's where I believe most have it backward. It's not the church that determines the canon, it's the canon that determines the church. Many on this board hate my God (that is normal or natural). I believe all men know God's word when they hear it or see it. It's simply in man's sinful nature to want to judge God and His Word. That's why I don't generally feel the need to defend Him. But He loved me enough to change me. I don't have to have "all" the answers. I just do the best I can with what I do understand. I don't find it that difficult. I think most people understand more than they let on.

  Fundamentalist exegesis offers tons of examples, from harmonisation to anachronism via political correctness. The Bible can't be wrong, but then we'll have it say what we want to hear.

  It not just the "Fundamentalist", everyone does this, including "atheists". This is sinful man judging God's word. The difference is that the atheists say "the Bible has to be wrong, and we'll make it say what ever we want so as to discredit it or to take the shame from us and try to shame God". This is sinful man judging God's word. It's not going to change what God actually said or what he intends, nor will it remove man's gilt. Bottom line The bible is very clear on these two points, we are all sinners before God and we need faith in Jesus the Christ for salvation. D Dog
• 

  Narkissos

  DD,

  As the hyper-Calvinist you are (if I understood your past posts correctly) knows very well, a dualism of "God" and "sin" falls short of pure monotheism. Would there be anything like "sin" (or "devil," for that matter) if "God" didn't want it to be there?

  It not just the "Fundamentalist", everyone does this, including "atheists". This is sinful man judging God's word. The difference is that the atheists say "the Bible has to be wrong, and we'll make it say what ever we want so as to discredit it or to take the shame from us and try to shame God". This is sinful man judging God's word.

  I agree this sometimes happens. But there are also a lot of folks around who neither agree nor disagree systematically with the Bible. They do find much of it inspiring and cherish it, yet take issue with other aspects. This might be construed, dogmatically, as partly "illumination of the Holy Ghost," partly "sinful man judging God's word" -- or, more simply, as a honest reader's interaction with the texts.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:I've got him pegged as a Hyper-Calvinist, too, but he's been denying it for years - LOL

  DDog:
  Good to see ya around, bro
• 

  OneLord

  Hi Narkissos,

  [qoute]Then he wanted all the Bible canons and versions in the world history, including the NWT, to be exactly what they are. And the Qur'an. And the Book of Mormon. And every single piece of writing since Sumer. "All scripture" indeed. What was lost he wanted lost, what was kept he wanted kept, what was discovered he wanted discovered, what was changed he wanted changed.

  I'm not being sarcastic. Actually that's what pure monotheism, including absolute providence, would imply. But it is not what "Bible believers" usually believe.[/qoute]

  Why would this follow as a rule? Why would God be unable to preserve something and let other writings get lost or corrupted? I would agree with one thing though speaking generically; if God exists, then God has a hand in everything. But I dont think extreme calvinism is the only alternative to the popular free will teaching. God would know all things but not necessarily be the direct cause of all things. Otherwise we limit God and assume the absurdity that we would know how God works (again assuming God exists).

  [qoute]Sure, but is it not what happens always?

  In my experience, the most inclined to twist the interpretation of the Bible (their Bible) are those who do not allow themselves, consciously, to "pick and choose". When you are unable to say "I disagree with this text" you have to make it look acceptable in your own eyes, no matter what it actually says. Fundamentalist exegesis offers tons of examples, from harmonisation to anachronism via political correctness. The Bible can't be wrong, but then we'll have it say what we want to hear.[/qoute]

  From my experience, "you have to make it acceptable in your own eyes" is a trademark of the JWs. Perhaps also because they feel they need to explain everything in their businesslike manner, while it seems to me many Christians easier simply leave issues they can not reconcile.

  To me the harsh passages are not evidence that the Bible isnt God's word. I would not say I could not believe in a holy book without harsh things, but I do not find it logical or plausible that the Creator of all things and of this world would always treat men or reveal himself in manners we would find acceptable. Nor would I consider our opinions about such a being that relevant. To face this is sobering and humiliates our human pride. A very simple exercise is to consider the world situation the JWs speak about. Yes it's bad, but it's how God wants things to be of present. However we can choose and believe God has a purpose behind of all of it. Generically speaking, if God exists, then God is bigger than we can understand anyway. So I am opposed to the idea that we should make Scripture acceptable to our eyes, while I think we have every right to say when we read something or experience something we find too harsh.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  I've got him pegged as a Hyper-Calvinist, too, but he's been denying it for years - LOL

  I've learned to be comforted by that title, since or discussion, I've grown to like it. Even Calvin needed a little work.

  Good to see ya around, bro

  Same here! Missed you for a couple a months.

  Dog
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  Would there be anything like "sin" (or "devil," for that matter) if "God" didn't want it to be there?

  In my book there is a big difference between saying God is sovereign over evil (even creating it) and characterizing God as evil.

  This might be construed, dogmatically, as partly "illumination of the Holy Ghost," partly "sinful man judging God's word"

  This might be better known as sanctification and is never complete this side of glory.

  ... or, more simply, as a honest reader's interaction with the texts.

  Show me an "honest" reader, with no biases (not even Little Toe or Calvin)

  D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  I confess - I'm biased - I love my Lord
• 

  Deputy Dog

  I confess - I'm biased - I love my Lord

  I'm glad you didn't ask me about my sin.
• 

  Narkissos

  OneLord

  The natural consequence of monotheism (that which it tends to and desperately tries to escape) is: whatever is / happens, God wants.

  The problem is you can't draw any norm whatsoever from such an axiom. All the hairsplitting game of theology (e.g. Thomas Aquinas or Calvin) then consists in dissecting the "will of God" and separate how he wants "good" and "evil" (supposedly not the same way).

  Now if you appeal to mere fact as evidence of God's will -- as in "God wanted my complete Bible to be what it is because it is what it is" -- you can't in the same breath reject anything else as "God-unwanted". The very reason which forbids you to dismiss anything from your Bible logically forbids you to dismiss anything at all.

  DD,

  I never characterised "God" as "evil". Otoh I think you must have two definitions of "good": (1) "good" as opposed to "evil" and (2) "good" as embracing "good and evil" -- as in, "God is good".

  As to honesty in reading, I'd say it grows in inverse proportion to desire and fear. Asymptotically, the perfectly honest reader would be a dead man. The living can only pretend "disinterested interest".