The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[OzSpen]

We all know where this is headed, tell me which of the 40 different bibles is Gods word, God doesnt change does he??

It is only referring to the original documents of the Bible. They are the only ones that are breathed out by God. it does not refer to one's favourite translation.

 

[mjrhealth]

Quote
ALL SCRIPTURE means exactly that - all Scripture is breathed out by God.

So you must also then believe everything written in scripture is true.


The bible does not specify which part is scripture, considering they where refering to only the OT. Now scripture is according to mans dictionary.


scrip·ture
(skrĭp′chər)
n.
1.
a. A sacred writing or book.
b. A passage from such a writing or book.

2. often Scripture or Scriptures The writings collected as the Bible.
3. A statement regarded as authoritative.

That makes teh Koran and a gazillion other books scripture, you wouldnt believe them would you.

We are supposed to go to Chirst just as He said,

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

But no one does

just as it is written in revelation

Rev 3:20 Behold, 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.

and

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

for the Holy Spirit is given to those who hear the word( gospel ) and believe,

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But who need revelation from God, we have the bible and "reasoning". keeps these forums busy.

In all His Love

 

[OzSpen]

The bible does not specify which part is scripture, considering they where refering to only the OT.

It doesn't have to specify which is Scripture as 'all Scripture' means just that - ALL.

 

[OzSpen]

Anyone familiar with the bible should already know what I refer to. I'll cite the one by Paul:

1Co 7:6 But this I say as my opinion, and not as an order of the Lord.
1Co 7:7 It is my desire that all men might be even as I am. But every man has the power of his special way of life given him by God, one in this way and one in that.

This is fine for him to speak but as it is not commanded by God, it is not on the same level as when God does command things to be said.

The better translation of suggnomev that your translation translates as 'as my opinion' is as the ESV translates, 'Now as a concession'. Paul is talking about whether it is recommended or authorised to be a bachelor or not. All he is saying is that it is his view - not God's command - that to remain a bachelor is based on 'each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another' (1 Cor 7:7). In Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon, it gives the meaning of suggnomev as 'concession, indulgence, pardon' (A&G 1957:780). With this example, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

There is nothing contrary to inerrancy here. Paul finds that to recommend remaining a bachelor has its benefits, but such is based on the 'gift of God'. The details Paul provides are without error in the original MSS. It has nothing to do with Paul giving an opinion. The interpretation is essentially saying: I, Paul, have the gift of celibacy. I wish you had it, but I must remember that it is a gift of God'.

So you must also then believe everything written in scripture is true.

Absolutely not! Why must you make such a false assertion? I believe everything written in the Bible is without error in all that it affirms. If it states that a person is a liar, it is not affirming his lying as being true. It is affirming that what is stated about this liar is true.

I urge you to know the difference.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

The better translation of suggnomev that your translation translates as 'as my opinion' is as the ESV translates, 'Now as a concession'. Paul is talking about whether it is recommended or authorised to be a bachelor or not. All he is saying is that it is his view - not God's command - that to remain a bachelor is based on 'each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another' (1 Cor 7:7). In Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon, it gives the meaning of suggnomev as 'concession, indulgence, pardon' (A&G 1957:780). With this example, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Hardly. It's just proof that not everything scripture comes from God. Some is the opinion of man and it may or may not be correct.

 

[OzSpen]

Hardly. It's just proof that not everything scripture comes from God. Some is the opinion of man and it may or may not be correct.

I have just refuted that view, using the Greek language, but your opinion seems to know better. Your interpretation is exactly the opposite of the evidence I provided.

Bye, Bye! h34r:

 

[ewq1938]

I have just refuted that view, using the Greek language, but your opinion seems to know better.

You have convinced only yourself that everything in scripture comes from God but it's not true. I have given examples that are well accepted in the mainstream. Nothing given from the Greek contradicts that Paul was giving his own opinion.

 

[OzSpen]

You have convinced only yourself that everything in scripture comes from God but it's not true. I have given examples that are well accepted in the mainstream. Nothing given from the Greek contradicts that Paul was giving his own opinion.

From where did you gain that false information about my view of Scripture being only from myself? I represent a view that is affirmed by many authors in the evangelical Christian world. These are but a few:

• B B Warfield 1970. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
• J R White 2004. Scripture Alone. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House.
• E. J Young 1957. Thy Word is Truth. London, England / Carlisle, Penn: The Banner of Truth Trust.
• H Lindsell 1976. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
• H Lindsell 1979. The Bible in the Balance. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House
• N L Geisler (ed) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
• J W Montgomery (ed) 1974. God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.
• J D Woodbridge 1982. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
• N L Geisler (ed) 1981. Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
• J M Boice 1979. Does Inerrancy Matter? Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

So I'm not an ignoramus who has 'convinced only yourself that everything in scripture comes from God' (your language). In fact, I'm one of a whole range of scholars from around the world who support biblical inerrancy, based on the biblical and historical information available to us.

Derek Brown has compiled a list of the early church fathers who supported inerrancy in, 'Inerrancy and Church History: The Early Fathers'.

So inerrancy is not a recent doctrine and it is not idiosyncratic to OzSpen and his evangelical Christianity.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

From where did you gain that false information about my view of Scripture being only from myself? I represent a view that is affirmed by many authors in the evangelical Christian world. These are but a few:

None of those are supporting what this discussion is about. It's simply a recognized fact that there are parts of scripture that are the writers own personal feelings or opinions. Inerrancy isn't the issue here. Scripture from God contains no errors but there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans like when Job said God would laugh if an innocent man was convicted in court. Job was wrong yet his errant claim is in scripture. We must properly understand these things rather than make blanket claims as you have.

 

[OzSpen]

None of those are supporting what this discussion is about. It's simply a recognized fact that there are parts of scripture that are the writers own personal feelings or opinions. Inerrancy isn't the issue here. Scripture from God contains no errors but there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans like when Job said God would laugh if an innocent man was convicted in court. Job was wrong yet his errant claim is in scripture. We must properly understand these things rather than make blanket claims as you have.

That's your opinion!

How do we arrive at a conclusion as to whether the Nicene Creed has content that is Christian or non-Christian? Is the NC derived from a dependable Scripture or from one infiltrated by opinion?

Personal opinion will not help me determine if this is a true statement from the Nicene Creed: 'And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets'.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

That's your opinion!

How do we arrive at a conclusion as to whether the Nicene Creed has content that is Christian or non-Christian? Is the NC derived from a dependable Scripture or from one infiltrated by opinion?

Clearly each claim in it must be supported by clear scripture. Anything not clearly supported is mere opinion or interpretation as opposed to fact.

 

[Wormwood]

None of those are supporting what this discussion is about. It's simply a recognized fact that there are parts of scripture that are the writers own personal feelings or opinions. Inerrancy isn't the issue here. Scripture from God contains no errors but there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans like when Job said God would laugh if an innocent man was convicted in court. Job was wrong yet his errant claim is in scripture. We must properly understand these things rather than make blanket claims as you have.

ewq,

I do not think you understand the meaning of inerrancy. Inerrancy is based on the concept of inspiration, which means that the Scriptures are inspired, guided, or breathed by God. Thus, it is not true to say that "there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans." However, it seems your point is that the Bible records the errors of man. This is true. The Bible records untrue statements made by the devil and sinful human beings. However, within the context of the narratives, it is clear to the reader that these statements are not being proposed as commands from God to be accepted and believed. When Satan said, "you will not surely die" we understand that the devil was deceiving Eve and that this statement is not a true statement that was coming from God. Yet it is still true to say the narrative about Satan's deception is inspired and therefore it does come from God and has been preserved for us to read and understand.

So, the point here is that the Scriptures are entirely from God and are directly from God, without error, in their original autographs. Yet, it is also true that this inspired text contains narratives that reveal false and deceitful statements. Yet, read in context it is clear that such comments are to be understood as being opposed to God's truth and thus they are recorded for our education and edification.

 

[HammerStone]

None of those are supporting what this discussion is about. It's simply a recognized fact that there are parts of scripture that are the writers own personal feelings or opinions. Inerrancy isn't the issue here. Scripture from God contains no errors but there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans like when Job said God would laugh if an innocent man was convicted in court. Job was wrong yet his errant claim is in scripture. We must properly understand these things rather than make blanket claims as you have.

And too many people misread Job by pulling out a quote from Job or one of his supposed friends. The book of Job deals with the instruction of even Job himself, thus if he made an erroneous comment in the book, it's generally presumed to be corrected by God's response later in the book. This would be born out by the context of reading the entire book, just as Satan is quoted in the Bible so that we'll understand how temptation works.

The logical end of your view would be that the Bible needed to be disingenuous or simply confusing by leaving out the quote or changing it. As the Bible says elsewhere, even the bad is a part of God's plan, something he works for those whom he loves. It's recorded salvation history.

 

[Joyful]

God loves those who does His will or obey Him through Jesus Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

ewq,

I do not think you understand the meaning of inerrancy. Inerrancy is based on the concept of inspiration, which means that the Scriptures are inspired, guided, or breathed by God. Thus, it is not true to say that "there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans." However, it seems your point is that the Bible records the errors of man. This is true. The Bible records untrue statements made by the devil and sinful human beings. However, within the context of the narratives, it is clear to the reader that these statements are not being proposed as commands from God to be accepted and believed. When Satan said, "you will not surely die" we understand that the devil was deceiving Eve and that this statement is not a true statement that was coming from God. Yet it is still true to say the narrative about Satan's deception is inspired and therefore it does come from God and has been preserved for us to read and understand.

So, the point here is that the Scriptures are entirely from God and are directly from God, without error, in their original autographs. Yet, it is also true that this inspired text contains narratives that reveal false and deceitful statements. Yet, read in context it is clear that such comments are to be understood as being opposed to God's truth and thus they are recorded for our education and edification.

That is exceedingly well said, Wormwood. You have summarised the inerrant view well.

I would add that because we don't have the original documents (but we have some very close to them), there could be the possibility that there is the occasional statement about which there is questionable meaning. However, with about 5,500 years of commentary for the Hebrew OT and 2000 years for the Greek NT, commentators and critics have pretty much ironed out most of the supposed difficulties.

An added problem is when any of us brings our worldview presupposition to the text and impose them on the text to obtain meaning. I've seen this with modernism and more especially with postmodernism in my PhD dissertation. However, it's just as easy for evangelicals to do it as well with an imposition of a literalistic view on a text that is metaphorical. Some of the worst hermeneutics I've seen of the text by evangelical are among those who are allegorical preachers. It reminds me too much of postmodernism and what it does with the text. However, allegorical preaching is not new to the current and recent generations. Origen, one of the church fathers, was a trimmer at using it to destroy the meaning of the text.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,

I do not think you understand the meaning of inerrancy. Inerrancy is based on the concept of inspiration, which means that the Scriptures are inspired, guided, or breathed by God. Thus, it is not true to say that "there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans."

You might misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy. You missed this: "based on the concept of inspiration" because where God does not cause inspiration there can be error as we find here:

Job 9:23 When a good person dies a sudden death, God sits back and laughs.

This is not true yet it is found in scripture. God did not inspire Job to say this and the countless falsehoods he said about God. The concept of rightly dividing scripture means we must be able to discern things and in this case between that which is INSPIRED by God and is inerrant and that which God does not inspire and may be errant.

The Bible records untrue statements made by the devil and sinful human beings.

Yes so you are wrong to say I don't understand inerrancy since we actually do see it the same way. Why then did you post this in supposed disagreement and to supposedly to correct me?

So, the point here is that the Scriptures are entirely from God and are directly from God, without error, in their original autographs. Yet, it is also true that this inspired text contains narratives that reveal false and deceitful statements. Yet, read in context it is clear that such comments are to be understood as being opposed to God's truth and thus they are recorded for our education and edification.

All being my original sentiment which you originally fought against in the start of the post yet what you say here mirrors what I said.

 

[ewq1938]

The logical end of your view would be that the Bible needed to be disingenuous or simply confusing by leaving out the quote or changing it.

No, that is not logical at all. What wormwood said below is what my position is and has been from the beginning of this part of the thread:

So, the point here is that the Scriptures are entirely from God and are directly from God, without error, in their original autographs. Yet, it is also true that this inspired text contains narratives that reveal false and deceitful statements. Yet, read in context it is clear that such comments are to be understood as being opposed to God's truth and thus they are recorded for our education and edification.

Matching the essentials of what I said:

Scripture from God contains no errors but there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans like when Job said God would laugh if an innocent man was convicted in court. Job was wrong yet his errant claim is in scripture.

 

[DogLady19]

Hardly. It's just proof that not everything scripture comes from God. Some is the opinion of man and it may or may not be correct.

It's interesting how so many people think that everything in the Bible is a rule... But the fact is, some scripture is instructive, some is historical narrative, and some is prophetic. Solid hermeneutics is essential to sanctification.

All scripture is true. But keeping it in context allows the student of the Word to discover whether something is instructional, historical or prophecy. The story of Job is historical, NOT instructional. It is TRUE that Job said that God would laugh.

The fact that Paul's "opinion" is part of scripture makes it true... It IS Paul's opinion... a suggestion, and apparently a wise one.

This seems trivial to argue about. What do you get from this passage? What does it mean for you? What does it mean for the Church? How does this passage lead you to sanctification? If you don't know, then you are missing the point of the passage.

All scripture points to Christ. It was Paul's opinion that marriage under some circumstances can lead a person away from Christ. And he isn't wrong about that.

 

[OzSpen]

You might misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy. You missed this: "based on the concept of inspiration" because where God does not cause inspiration there can be error as we find here:

Job 9:23 When a good person dies a sudden death, God sits back and laughs.

This is not true yet it is found in scripture. God did not inspire Job to say this and the countless falsehoods he said about God. The concept of rightly dividing scripture means we must be able to discern things and in this case between that which is INSPIRED by God and is inerrant and that which God does not inspire and may be errant.

ewq,

One of your major problems with Job 9:23 is that you have not done adequate research to understand its meaning. To understand its meaning, we need to know that according to Job 9:1, this is Job answering.

Job 9:23 reads in several different translations:

New International Version
When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.

New Living Translation
When a plague sweeps through, he laughs at the death of the innocent.

English Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

New American Standard Bible
"If the scourge kills suddenly, He mocks the despair of the innocent.

King James Bible
If the scourge slay suddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When disaster brings sudden death, He mocks the despair of the innocent.

International Standard Version
If a calamity causes sudden death, he'll mock at the despair of the innocent.

NET Bible
If a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks at the despair of the innocent.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If he scourge, let him kill at once, and not laugh at the pains of the innocent.

English Revised Version
If the scourge slay suddenly, he will mock at the trial of the innocent.

Revised Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

New Revised Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

The word translated as 'calamity' in ESV, RSV and NRSV has the footnote, 'The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain'. You are basing your understanding of God laughing on a word whose meaning is uncertain. i think you are on the wrong side of the debate.

Before you tear strips off God's inerrant Word, I recommend you take a breather and examine the text as it does not seem to say what you want it to mean.

Good studying!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hardly. It's just proof that not everything scripture comes from God. Some is the opinion of man and it may or may not be correct.

You have not refuted what I wrote. Yours is nothing more than your assertion when I provided etymology for exegesis. The opinion of man is recorded in God's inerrant Word (theopneustos, 1 Tim 3:16).