Is our Bible of 66 Books, the inerrant Word of God?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I for one have no doubt whatsoever that it is, but recent posts have given me cause for concern that some here do not believe it is.
We can start with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and carry in from there.
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.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
[SIZE=14pt]Hi there StanJ,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I suppose I’m one of the persons whose posts have given you cause for concern. And frankly some of yours have given me cause for concern, too. So I feel kind of obligated to explain my views on the matter.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]It would be nice if we could keep our conversation civil. I’m not here for bickering. Rest assured that while there are views on Biblical Inerrancy out there that personally I deem to amount to the next best thing to the Golden Calf, I would never want to allege that people who happen to hold them are in league with the devil. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]So here’s in short, what I believe. Short, but hopefully specific enough to be understandable (yes, Stan J, I have taken your critique that I must make myself clearer on board): [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Maybe I deserve to be called a nitpicker for this, but while I usually don’t take issue with habitually calling the Bible the “Word of God”, I feel Karl Barth did Christianity a service when he reminded us that the Bible itself tells us that strictly speaking the only “Word of God” in the proper sense is Jesus Christ (John 1). The written word of the Bible is only the word of God indirectly in that it bears apostolic witness of Christ. “The Bible must become God’s Word and this occurs only when God wills to address us in it and through it.” (http://www.academia.edu/658913/The_Word_as_Event_Barth_and_Bultmann_on_Scripture)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]So when you wrote “Faith and commitment to God's inspired written word is what it's called for” that sent a slight cold shiver over my back, because I firmly believe my Bible when it tells me that Faith and Commitment to the living Christ is what it’s called for.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I believe that God saw to it that the Biblical authors and editors, whom He revealed Himself to, tell us all we need to know about our salvation and our journey with Christ. While I’m not an expert myself, I believe that sound academic research on the Biblical texts and their historical/cultural backgrounds can enhance our understanding of the truth the authors meant to convey, but that we can only hope to truly begin to understand the Bible when we read it with Christ at its Center.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]“Prayer without study would be empty. Study without prayer would be blind.” (Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]While I believe that God revealed himself to the Biblical authors and editors and while I believe that all Christian dogma must be rooted in this revelation which is reported in the Bible, I - and traditionally Christianity at large - don’t believe the Bible to be verbally inspired in the way that Muslims believe the Qu’ran to be verbally inspired. The Bible’s authorship and editorship – even though divinely inspired - remains human, uses limited human language and experience and is not all-knowing, so it comes as no surprise that the Bible is not inerrant in every single historical or scientific detail. I don’t think it is meant to be. IMHO this much should become obvious to anybody who takes the Bible seriously enough to read the Gospels in a synopsis. I – apparently mistakenly – assumed you pretty much agreed with me on the “not all-knowing” point when you suggested that the author of the Gospel of Matthew may have written that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds because “It was at the time in the known world”. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I’m still left unsure of what your exact views on Biblical inerrancy may be. It would have been nice for example had you actually explained what you think the author of 2 Tim referred to when he used the picture of God breathing? You said you never heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and I suspect you are not keen on the Catholic dogma on Biblical inerrancy either, which personally I can almost agree with – so would you please elaborate where you stand? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]And why do you deem this dogma - in whichever form you may hold it - so important, that you basically want to make believing in it a requirement for salvation? [/SIZE]
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
@junobet

Regrettably I just spent over an hour responding to Post # 2 and the site wouldn't post it nor did it auto save it and I'm loath to spend another hour answering it again. I may change my mind in a day or two but if the site administrators aren't going to make sure that this type of thing doesn't happen, then I can't be really motivated to try. Perhaps you can try to make your posts not so verbose so I can deal with them on a much quicker basis?
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
@junobet

Regrettably I just spent over an hour responding to Post # 2 and the site wouldn't post it nor did it auto save it and I'm loath to spend another hour answering it again. I may change my mind in a day or two but if the site administrators aren't going to make sure that this type of thing doesn't happen, then I can't be really motivated to try. Perhaps you can try to make your posts not so verbose so I can deal with them on a much quicker basis?
[SIZE=medium]Oh dear, quite annoying, when that happens! Not sure whether it is the board that is to blame or the internet-connection. A little tip: ever since it first happened to me I type in my text-program and copy-paste. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You are right that I should keep myself shorter, but the last time I tried to keep myself short you said I should be more specific. I’ll try hard to find a middle-way. [/SIZE]
.​
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
Oh dear, quite annoying, when that happens! Not sure whether it is the board that is to blame or the internet-connection. A little tip: ever since it first happened to me I type in my text-program and copy-paste.
You are right that I should keep myself shorter, but the last time I tried to keep myself short you said I should be more specific. I’ll try hard to find a middle-way.
.​
It is definitely a site issue and I thought CB had an autosave faeture but I guess it doesn't because I can't find anywhere that would allow me to restore what was saved. I will try to motivate myself to answer.
 

Thorwald

Member
Apr 7, 2011
81
1
8
74
Thunder Bay
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
It is definitely a site issue and I thought CB had an autosave faeture but I guess it doesn't because I can't find anywhere that would allow me to restore what was saved. I will try to motivate myself to answer.
:lol: There is nothing more frustrating, than keying a long posting, and wonder what happened to it. I have hit this problem on so many forums, on and off. Then there are websites, that limit the number of characters for responding (BGEA for example), or make no allowance for responding (one direction communication). Then there are those, that only allow for a certain amount of time for a person to key in a response, so you are left hanging, in your posting.

Concerning 'inerrant', the KJV Bible contains errors, not perhaps in interpretation from original manuscripts, but the original manuscripts contain errors. Try matching the list of descendants found in Genesis, to the lists found in the NT (concerning the same period found in Genesis), and you will find there is one extra in the NT. Also, concerning 'GOD' and 'FATHER', there is a definite problem of contradiction [No man has seen God, and Stephen seeing God; No man has heard the Father's voice or seen His shape, and the disciples hearing, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Again, God on His throne, is seen by John, in Revelation.]. We are not sure who Isaiah saw on the throne, but Isaiah 'assumed' it was The Lord of Hosts. The OT documents many interactions between people and God (especially the Israelites) right from the time of Adam and Eve. When the word 'LORD' is used, it is difficult to interpret 'WHO' this figure is (The Lord God Almighty or The Lord of Hosts). Since both figures are GOD (Isaiah 44:6), it may or may not matter?????
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet

I do believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. And I believe it as Christians do and should, not as muslims. You mention the Bible's authors and editors. Who are these editors?

You say the Bible is human though divinely inspired and because it is human, it is not all knowing? Your term 'all knowing' is unclear. If the Bible is inspired by God, then it is all that God wants us to know at this time. Because He has not revealed everything to us, doesn't mean what is written is not every bit from Him and is all knowing in that which He revealed.

Just because humans are used by God to write His Word, doesn't mean there is human error in it. Understand we are talking about the original Scripture, original autographs. Was Christ human? Was there any error in Him. The human and Divine can come together without the error that man is prone to.

Stranger
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
There is one God, One Jesus who is teh " living Word" there is one Holy Spirit there is one truth, so if all the versions of teh bible are different " they have to be they are copy write" pray tell me which one of them is teh word of God, you change one letter the whole book becomes a lie, and of they cant agree with one another how can they agree with God???? Is God a liar, is God the author of confusion, why are so many christians confused..

But you will not come to me so you can have life.

That is one truth.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Stranger said:
junobet

I do believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. And I believe it as Christians do and should, not as muslims.

Well, not only is Karl Barth “often regarded as the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century. Pope Pius XII called him the most important Christian theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth ). So it seems quite a lot of Christians don’t believe in verbal inspiration in the very way you think they should.

You mention the Bible's authors and editors. Who are these editors?
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source



You say the Bible is human though divinely inspired and because it is human, it is not all knowing? Your term 'all knowing' is unclear. If the Bible is inspired by God, then it is all that God wants us to know at this time. Because He has not revealed everything to us, doesn't mean what is written is not every bit from Him and is all knowing in that which He revealed.
I certainly believe that God saw to it that the Bible tells us all we need to know for our salvation. But quite apparently God did not think our salvation requires knowledge of historical and scientific facts. "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[ (Baronius about Copernicus)

And as far as I’m aware of no Christian theologian in history, apart maybe from the Montanists, has ever thought God ‘wrote’ the Bible. Muslims believe Allah dictated the Quran. The traditional Christian belief is that the Bible’s authors’ - whilst inspired – used their own human words to phrase divine inspiration and did not hand in their own human personality whilst writing. That’s why we haven’t got the slightest qualms to translate the Bible into other languages, whereas Muslims will always insist on the Qu’ran being recited in the original Arabic. If you ask me, the very idea that human language could ever fully express God’s thoughts, amounts to making yourself an idolatrous image.


Just because humans are used by God to write His Word, doesn't mean there is human error in it. Understand we are talking about the original Scripture, original autographs. Was Christ human? Was there any error in Him. The human and Divine can come together without the error that man is prone to.

As somebody who once had to dabble a bit in textual criticism I can assure you that – given the circumstances - the Biblical texts have been handed down to us with remarkable accuracy. And – the fact that the Bible itself tells us that Jesus wasn’t all-knowing whilst incarnate aside (for example in Mt 24:36) - certainly you don’t want to compare the Biblical authors to Jesus Christ!
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
As somebody who once had to dabble a bit in textual criticism I can assure you that – given the circumstances - the Biblical texts have been handed down to us with remarkable accuracy. And – the fact that the Bible itself tells us that Jesus wasn’t all-knowing whilst incarnate aside (for example in Mt 24:36) - certainly you don’t want to compare the Biblical authors to Jesus Christ!
Jesus as the only begotten Son of God did not know, but that does not mean that Jesus the Christ did not know. There are obvious times in scriptures when it is simply Jesus the son of God that is speaking and other times when it is obviously Jesus, God incarnate or the Christ who is speaking. Not being able to recognize this is always problematic when people read the Bible. That is why we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit in our lives to show us these things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Born_Again

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet said:
Well, not only is Karl Barth “often regarded as the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century. Pope Pius XII called him the most important Christian theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth ). So it seems quite a lot of Christians don’t believe in verbal inspiration in the very way you think they should.


http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source




I certainly believe that God saw to it that the Bible tells us all we need to know for our salvation. But quite apparently God did not think our salvation requires knowledge of historical and scientific facts. "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[ (Baronius about Copernicus)

And as far as I’m aware of no Christian theologian in history, apart maybe from the Montanists, has ever thought God ‘wrote’ the Bible. Muslims believe Allah dictated the Quran. The traditional Christian belief is that the Bible’s authors’ - whilst inspired – used their own human words to phrase divine inspiration and did not hand in their own human personality whilst writing. That’s why we haven’t got the slightest qualms to translate the Bible into other languages, whereas Muslims will always insist on the Qu’ran being recited in the original Arabic. If you ask me, the very idea that human language could ever fully express God’s thoughts, amounts to making yourself an idolatrous image.




As somebody who once had to dabble a bit in textual criticism I can assure you that – given the circumstances - the Biblical texts have been handed down to us with remarkable accuracy. And – the fact that the Bible itself tells us that Jesus wasn’t all-knowing whilst incarnate aside (for example in Mt 24:36) - certainly you don’t want to compare the Biblical authors to Jesus Christ!

Barth was a product of the 'Enlightenment era'. He was not a great product of Protestant faith. If the Pope regarded him as great.....that should tell you something. Apparently it does not.

The inspired Scripture tells us how to be found right before God and it furnishes us with all we need to function as the people of God. It is not a science book. It is not a counseling book. It is not a geographical book. It is not a history book. But if it states something concerning science, or counseling, or geography, or history, it is 100% accurate and to be believed. Sorry you don't.

All I can say is you're very ignorant of what people believe in the Christian faith. I live in the Southern States of the U.S. We who are Christian believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. Who cares what the muslims believe? They are not us. So you don't believe God could make Himself understood through 'language'. How else did He do it?

Yes, I compare the Scriptures being human and Divine to Jesus Christ. Because He was both Human and Divine. Wasn't He? Or, are you saying He wasn't?

Matthew 24:36 says, " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Yet Jesus was not just a man but the Son also. Wasn't He? But as the Son, God the Father did not reveal this information at that time. But He later did. (Rev. 1:1) So why wouldn't I compare the Scriptures to Christ the living Word?

Stranger
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Stranger said:
Barth was a product of the 'Enlightenment era'. He was not a great product of Protestant faith. If the Pope regarded him as great.....that should tell you something. Apparently it does not.

The inspired Scripture tells us how to be found right before God and it furnishes us with all we need to function as the people of God. It is not a science book. It is not a counseling book. It is not a geographical book. It is not a history book. But if it states something concerning science, or counseling, or geography, or history, it is 100% accurate and to be believed. Sorry you don't.

All I can say is you're very ignorant of what people believe in the Christian faith. I live in the Southern States of the U.S. We who are Christian believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. Who cares what the muslims believe? They are not us. So you don't believe God could make Himself understood through 'language'. How else did He do it?

Yes, I compare the Scriptures being human and Divine to Jesus Christ. Because He was both Human and Divine. Wasn't He? Or, are you saying He wasn't?

Matthew 24:36 says, " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Yet Jesus was not just a man but the Son also. Wasn't He? But as the Son, God the Father did not reveal this information at that time. But He later did. (Rev. 1:1) So why wouldn't I compare the Scriptures to Christ the living Word?

Stranger
Well Stranger,

the enlightenment era is a product of the Protestant Reformation. My church is rather proud of the fact that it was Luther and the Reformers who paved the way to enlightenment’s “sapere aude” (dare to know/dare to think for yourself).

Why do you think enlightenment is a bad thing? Your very own nation is a product of enlightenment, the notion of universal human rights is a product of enlightenment, and that you and I can communicate via the internet whilst I’m sitting in Europe and you are sitting across the Atlantic in the Southern States of the US is product of enlightenments’ scientific revolution. And imho philosophers of enlightenment such as Kant provide us with rather good arguments when we try to explain to our atheist friends why faith in God is reasonable.

The main theologian associated with enlightenment is Friedrich Schleiermacher. Much of US-American Fundamentalism is a result of opposition to Schleiermacher and Higher Criticism. So in a way your own beliefs about the Bible are indeed just a product of the negation of enlightenment. Barth also developed much of his theology in opposition to Schleiermacher and his successors, but – unlike abovementioned fundamentalists - when doing so Barth managed to stay in touch with reason and Christian orthodoxy when proclaiming the Gospel for people in the 20th century.


If the Pope regarded him as great.....that should tell you something. Apparently it does not.
I think it’s great that a Catholic Pope praises Barth, a Protestant theologian who incorporated both Lutheran and Calvinist thought into his work. Let’s not forget that Luther never intended a church chism when he wrote his 95 theses. It is good to see that the body of Christ is finding a shared voice again after centuries of painful divisions and animosities. After all we are called to a “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:11-18).

The inspired Scripture tells us how to be found right before God and it furnishes us with all we need to function as the people of God. It is not a science book. It is not a counseling book. It is not a geographical book. It is not a history book. But if it states something concerning science, or counseling, or geography, or history, it is 100% accurate and to be believed. Sorry you don't.
I don’t project my 21th century notions of science and history into ancient writings that obviously weren’t concerned with such matters.

All I can say is you're very ignorant of what people believe in the Christian faith. I live in the Southern States of the U.S. We who are Christian believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. Who cares what the muslims believe? They are not us.
Well, you seem to be quite ignorant of what Christians outside the US/ your own Christian circles in the US believe. And one thing your branch of Christianity seems to share with many branches of Islam is a disdain for enlightenment.

So you don't believe God could make Himself understood through 'language'. How else did He do it?

See below

Yes, I compare the Scriptures being human and Divine to Jesus Christ. Because He was both Human and Divine. Wasn't He? Or, are you saying He wasn't?

Matthew 24:36 says, " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Yet Jesus was not just a man but the Son also. Wasn't He? But as the Son, God the Father did not reveal this information at that time. But He later did. (Rev. 1:1) So why wouldn't I compare the Scriptures to Christ the living Word?

Stranger
Yes, Stranger, I’m Trinitarian. And I am slightly surprised by your first sentence in this paragraph. It comes across as almost Barthian:

“God’s Word, he says, is addressed to us in “a threefold form”. It is the word preached, the word written, and the word revealed or incarnate. All three forms of the divine Word are required if anyone is really to “hear”—as the Hebrew might put it, “hearingly to hear”—the gospel that brings faith into being and sustains it. Each of the three forms of the Word needs the other—in almost a way that parallels the doctrine of the trinity. We do not meet the incarnate Word, the Logos of God in Jesus Christ, apart from hearing the written word as it is made present to us through the preached word. Nor have we really heard the biblical word or the word of proclamation until they have become the means through which we are encountered by the living Word. Apart from that encounter, the biblical word and the preached word remain mere words, even though they are themselves indispensable to the encounter. Something almost comparable to a transubstantiation must take place if these scriptural words are to become for us God’s word to us.”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Hall_BarthOnBible.pdf
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet said:
Well Stranger,

the enlightenment era is a product of the Protestant Reformation. My church is rather proud of the fact that it was Luther and the Reformers who paved the way to enlightenment’s “sapere aude” (dare to know/dare to think for yourself).

Why do you think enlightenment is a bad thing? Your very own nation is a product of enlightenment, the notion of universal human rights is a product of enlightenment, and that you and I can communicate via the internet whilst I’m sitting in Europe and you are sitting across the Atlantic in the Southern States of the US is product of enlightenments’ scientific revolution. And imho philosophers of enlightenment such as Kant provide us with rather good arguments when we try to explain to our atheist friends why faith in God is reasonable.

The main theologian associated with enlightenment is Friedrich Schleiermacher. Much of US-American Fundamentalism is a result of opposition to Schleiermacher and Higher Criticism. So in a way your own beliefs about the Bible are indeed just a product of the negation of enlightenment. Barth also developed much of his theology in opposition to Schleiermacher and his successors, but – unlike abovementioned fundamentalists - when doing so Barth managed to stay in touch with reason and Christian orthodoxy when proclaiming the Gospel for people in the 20th century.



I think it’s great that a Catholic Pope praises Barth, a Protestant theologian who incorporated both Lutheran and Calvinist thought into his work. Let’s not forget that Luther never intended a church chism when he wrote his 95 theses. It is good to see that the body of Christ is finding a shared voice again after centuries of painful divisions and animosities. After all we are called to a “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:11-18).

I don’t project my 21th century notions of science and history into ancient writings that obviously weren’t concerned with such matters.

Well, you seem to be quite ignorant of what Christians outside the US/ your own Christian circles in the US believe. And one thing your branch of Christianity seems to share with many branches of Islam is a disdain for enlightenment.

See below


Yes, Stranger, I’m Trinitarian. And I am slightly surprised by your first sentence in this paragraph. It comes across as almost Barthian:

“God’s Word, he says, is addressed to us in “a threefold form”. It is the word preached, the word written, and the word revealed or incarnate. All three forms of the divine Word are required if anyone is really to “hear”—as the Hebrew might put it, “hearingly to hear”—the gospel that brings faith into being and sustains it. Each of the three forms of the Word needs the other—in almost a way that parallels the doctrine of the trinity. We do not meet the incarnate Word, the Logos of God in Jesus Christ, apart from hearing the written word as it is made present to us through the preached word. Nor have we really heard the biblical word or the word of proclamation until they have become the means through which we are encountered by the living Word. Apart from that encounter, the biblical word and the preached word remain mere words, even though they are themselves indispensable to the encounter. Something almost comparable to a transubstantiation must take place if these scriptural words are to become for us God’s word to us.”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Hall_BarthOnBible.pdf
The Enlightenment is a product of the Reformation like the Reformation is a product of the Catholic Church. One preceded the other. If there had been no Catholic Church, there would have been no Reformation. The Reformation helped remove the restraints that the Catholic Church had upon western man. But it did so by going back to the Bible, not away from it. Others later would come along, enjoying this restraint being removed, but they did not turn back to the Bible. They turned back to the Greek classics and Renaissance humanism. Reason, and not Revelation from God, was their religion. That is the Enlightenment. Not Christian, but secular. Thus so called Christian writers would still write about the Bible, but the Bible was to be subject to mans reason.

So, you see, you have two groups of people here. Those of the Enlightenment and those of the Reformation. One is Secular. One is Christian. Barth would be a product of the Enlightenment. Whereas people like Luthor and Huss, and others would be a product of the Reformation.

Yes the Enlightenment did affect America. But so did the Reformation. Those of the Reformation would affect it first as they were the first to come here. Later, when we were forming our new government, there were those of the Enlightenment thinking envolved. But so too were there those of Reformation faith. Over time the two still clash. We in the South are known as the " Bible Belt ". And rightfully so. We are those of the Reformation faith. Where as the North turned more to the Enlightened thinking. It is my opinion that the Southern States of America is the last bastion of Protestant faith in the world.

Sure you project your 21st century notions onto the Bible. You don't believe them...or not all of them.

I don't see any similarity to Barth in my statements. Which one? Well, glad to hear you are Trinitarian. I am also.

Stranger
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Stranger said:
The Enlightenment is a product of the Reformation like the Reformation is a product of the Catholic Church. One preceded the other. If there had been no Catholic Church, there would have been no Reformation. The Reformation helped remove the restraints that the Catholic Church had upon western man. But it did so by going back to the Bible, not away from it. Others later would come along, enjoying this restraint being removed, but they did not turn back to the Bible. They turned back to the Greek classics and Renaissance humanism. Reason, and not Revelation from God, was their religion. That is the Enlightenment. Not Christian, but secular. Thus so called Christian writers would still write about the Bible, but the Bible was to be subject to mans reason.

So, you see, you have two groups of people here. Those of the Enlightenment and those of the Reformation. One is Secular. One is Christian. Barth would be a product of the Enlightenment. Whereas people like Luthor and Huss, and others would be a product of the Reformation.

Yes the Enlightenment did affect America. But so did the Reformation. Those of the Reformation would affect it first as they were the first to come here. Later, when we were forming our new government, there were those of the Enlightenment thinking envolved. But so too were there those of Reformation faith. Over time the two still clash. We in the South are known as the " Bible Belt ". And rightfully so. We are those of the Reformation faith. Where as the North turned more to the Enlightened thinking. It is my opinion that the Southern States of America is the last bastion of Protestant faith in the world.

Sure you project your 21st century notions onto the Bible. You don't believe them...or not all of them.

I don't see any similarity to Barth in my statements. Which one? Well, glad to hear you are Trinitarian. I am also.

Stranger
According to your theory the teaching of the Catholic Church was 1st but it was wrong so it needed reforming.

The Reformation (Protestantism) came along 2nd and corrected everything that was wrong in Christian teaching for the first 1500 years of Christianity (even though current Protestant teaching looks NOTHING LIKE the original Protestant teachings and reformers of the Reformation have disagreed with the original reformers). But they got it right....FINALLY!!

The Enlightenment came along after the Reformation, however, it is wrong in it's teaching and is obviously secular?

So are you, Stranger, a believer in the teachings of the original Reformation teachers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingili) or the teachings of the reformers who disagreed with the original reformers?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
According to your theory the teaching of the Catholic Church was 1st but it was wrong so it needed reforming.

The Reformation (Protestantism) came along 2nd and corrected everything that was wrong in Christian teaching for the first 1500 years of Christianity (even though current Protestant teaching looks NOTHING LIKE the original Protestant teachings and reformers of the Reformation have disagreed with the original reformers). But they got it right....FINALLY!!

The Enlightenment came along after the Reformation, however, it is wrong in it's teaching and is obviously secular?

So are you, Stranger, a believer in the teachings of the original Reformation teachers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingili) or the teachings of the reformers who disagreed with the original reformers?
The early reformers took us back to the Bible. I would have to look at what each one believed to tell you who I agree with and what doctrine of theirs I agree or disagree with. The Reformation didn't correct everything that was wrong. But it was a step.

Stranger
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Stranger said:
The early reformers took us back to the Bible. I would have to look at what each one believed to tell you who I agree with and what doctrine of theirs I agree or disagree with. The Reformation didn't correct everything that was wrong. But it was a step.

Stranger
So even the Reformers were not the final authority on the truth of scripture for you? You are your own final authority for truth?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
So even the Reformers were not the final authority on the truth of scripture for you? You are your own final authority for truth?
Scripture is the final authority.

Stranger
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Stranger said:
Scripture is the final authority.

Stranger
That is different then what you said: "I would have to look at what each one believed to tell you who I agree with and what doctrine of theirs I agree or disagree with". If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong?

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught? That means no one is right...except you! Only YOU have the truth.


What you said is that,"The Reformation didn't correct everything that was wrong. But it was a step". That implies you know what is correct and not correct. What did they get wrong?

By your own statement it sounds like you think you have the final authority on who has the truth.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
That is different then what you said: "I would have to look at what each one believed to tell you who I agree with and what doctrine of theirs I agree or disagree with". If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong?

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught? That means no one is right...except you! Only YOU have the truth.


What you said is that,"The Reformation didn't correct everything that was wrong. But it was a step". That implies you know what is correct and not correct. What did they get wrong?

By your own statement it sounds like you think you have the final authority on who has the truth.
By my 'own statement' which I gave you, Scripture is the final authority.

Stranger
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Stranger said:
By my 'own statement' which I gave you, Scripture is the final authority.

Stranger
If scripture is the final authority who has the right to properly interpret that scripture so that we know the truth in scripture?

You didn't answer my questions:

What did they get wrong?

If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong?

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught?