| tlmfru 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
|
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:Ghhuj.85817$N67.30559@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Bill, I appreciate your post, and will try to make my position clear.
> I hope so, anyway. :-)
>
>
> That isn't what I'm saying (see below).
>
respond[color=darkred]
>
> That isn't what I'm saying either.
>
you can read the Bible as you think it should be. But when[color=darkred]
the Bible, it just HAS to be considered circular.[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not defending "my way of reading the Bible". My argument is not based
> on any doctrine.
>
trying to convey.[color=darkred]
read the Bible as I do."[color=darkred]
>
> Sorry I haven't been clear enough. I will make this as short as I can
> and still be clear. I'm apologize if the length makes it more difficult
> for you. :-)
>
> First, let me make it very clear that this is a logic based argument,
> not a doctrine based argument, vis-a-vis a narrow aspect of how true
> believers in Christ "should" view the Bible. This necessitates that
> the argument be framed within the context of a person who already has
> faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of
> their sins before God, which is the definition of "Christian".
>
> People choose to believe or place faith in anything they want. But in
> here, we're talking about a very specific faith that only has meaning
> within a clearly defined context. Essentially, that there is a God, that
> God has a moral code, that God judges and punishes those who violate
> His moral code, that the believer at least has violated that moral code,
> that God has made a way for such violations to be forgiven, that such
> forgiveness can come through a substitutionary sacrifice, that Jesus
> died to be that sacrifice for us, and that we appropriate forgiveness
> through our faith Jesus' sacrifice. Without that context, there is no
> meaning to the concept of having faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of
> sins. Every Christian faith has these common beliefs at least, and any
> religion that does not hold those beliefs is, by definition, not part
> of Christianity. The above is a "minimal" definition of Christianity,
> less than which Christianity becomes meaningless.
>
> Obviously a person must come to some knowledge of that context just to
> understand the concept of who Jesus is, or that they need forgiveness.
> That knowledge may come through any number of ways; personal testimony
> of another Christian, hearing an evangelist, direct revelation from God,
> etc. But the issue pertinent to this discussion is: what is the source
> of that knowledge? The source is without question the Bible. Nowhere
> else can a Christian find the account of who God is, what sin is, why
> man sins, how God judges sin, who Jesus is, how Jesus made atonement
> for our sins, how faith in that atonement can bring forgiveness, and
> all the other context that defines Christianity. Except for direct
> divine revelation, there is no other source.
I'd say, given a choice, that direct revelation from God is infinitely more
reliable than the Bible. In fact, the possibility of direct revelation in
principle obviates the need for a Bible at all. After all, such information
comes direct from God (by definition) and is not filtered through any human
mind, no matter how divinely inspired and directed. God is capable of being
in full-time, direct communication with every spiritual entity that exists,
anywhere, anywhen, so no intermediaries are needed. If you took the
position that the Bible is a good introduction to the subject, to be used
cautiously and honestly in the effort to achieve divine revelation, then I'd
bet you'd encounter a great deal less opposition to your beliefs.
PL
PL
|