geisha779

Here is a condensed piece on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. .. . A SHORT STATEMENT 1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself. 2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises. 3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning. 4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives. 5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. This affirms that it is the MESSAGE that is without error and true. . . . that the God of the Christian scriptures is God. . . . His authority is infallible. . .. what it tells us about Jesus, faith, creation, and God's witness to Himself in the scripture is true.

Just to add Waysider, I believe many things about TWI and VP . . . not a single one of them is good. That is why I post here. AND, I do NOT equate TWI with Christianity and have no issue with making the distinction. In truth, I actually think TWI practiced a completely different faith than Christianity. . . . which is why it is so difficult for ex-way to find a church home. It is not that they go to church and secretly know that Christians are wrong or misguided. . . . but tolerate it to fellowship with them . . . one, that is not true fellowship . . . and two, it is that ex-twi are coming to a Christian church from a different faith!! All the verbiage sounds the same, but it has a completely different meaning or application. That is my opinion. . . . after struggling with fitting in at church for years. I finally realized. . . . it was not them . . . it was ME who had the problem . . . .Me, the one who learned her faith from a cult run by a pervert!

Waysider, You can think however you like. . . . . but, please do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote if you would like to question me and try to make a point. I never wrote that if one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart. That is not MY view of inerrancy . . . . that comes from a cult. That is not a working definition of inerrancy in my opinion and others as well. . . . . . . I just read a great book on inerrancy by Norm Geisler. If you are so concerned about inerrancy. . . . pick up the phone and call him. He is a very very nice man. Still vertical the last time I checked. Extremely engaging. He wrote a whole book on the topic. That is a conversation I would pay to hear. What VP espoused was a Koranic view of scripture. . . . He held that the bible is the primary and perfect revelation of God. I believe the scriptures are to point us to a person, Jesus Christ . . . . who is the revelation of God . . . no actually. . . God in the flesh. I made that clear in my last few posts. I have made the point here before that TWI's understanding of Jesus in some ways more closely resembles that of Islam than Christianity. I do not believe I said it mattered what you believe about inerrancy. What is your point? Who are you arguing with? Me? Since you are addressing me . . . . I will assume so . . . . did I say it mattered what you believe? I believe the bible to be true. The message it conveys to us about God to be the correct message . . . . the gospel, the good news, the Savior . . . . that is the perfect and true message. I have explained why I believe God's use of imperfect language and imperfect men to express Himself and point to Jesus. . . . is just fine. I don't have a problem with it . . . or what you see as contradictions. I have a different understanding than you. OBVIOUSLY. But, please don't project TWI's understanding of inerrancy onto me . . . . it is not my own. I would hope Waysider, that you don't actually take the application of a term like inerrancy, that you learned in a nasty anti-christian cult. . . . . from a controlling and manipulative madman . . . . . and use that as a basis for understanding inerrancy. Because, if you do. . . . your train of thought might be off the tracks.

What does that even mean? It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't. I have written what I believe about inerrancy ad nauseum . . . . even I am sick of reading it. However, it is articulated in my last few posts if you care to look at it. There is no "must" about my statements. . . . it is simply what I believe about God and the scriptures. Please. . . . feel free to believe I have a screw loose. . . . . I am one sandwich short of a picnic basket . . . . out to lunch. . . . clueless. . . . one beer short of a six pack . . . . believe whatever YOU choose about the scriptures. . . . but, I have answered what I think. . . . given my reasons . . . and there is no "must" in my beliefs.

It is funny, I read your post and got curious . . . I am not all that aware of what Momentus is. . . . so I googled it. ... . I was taken to Fact Net where I started reading this really good article. . . . . . . got curious as to who wrote it. . . . looked up at the name and it was you!! Well written, thanks for sharing your story on there.

Charlene, You and I have both analyzed literature before . . . right? Take Jane Eyre for example. That is a great read, I must have read it 10 times at least. . . . but, without really delving into it . . . . it is just a pretty good story. However, maybe the first time you look at it. . . . you catch some of the more obvious things like the names Bronte uses. Jane Eyre. . . . she was the heiress. . . . from the beginning you could catch a glimpse of how the story might unfold. If you were a bit familiar with English history, you might know that Eyre also holds a connotation of justice in forest law. So, you might get that she was the heiress who was going to get justice. It might take a deeper look to catch some of the more subtle, but deeper points which really enlighten you to what Bronte was trying to convey. Understanding a bit about the times in which Bronte wrote. . . . how women were viewed and how she had to obscure a societal rebuke into a gothic/romance format to convey her meaning. . . . makes it more than a good read. . . it makes it a brilliant piece of lit. Perfect for what it is! If, one walks the windswept moors near Bronte's home. . . . especially in the chilly late fall . . . with the setting sun stealing any warmth left from the day. . . . . the realities of Bronte's life and situation become even more pronounced. The sense of the times easier to feel. The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process. We just have to be humble in our approach to it. . . . and let the process God designed unfold it. I don't think it is mystical. It is all in the heart with which we approach the scriptures. But, that is true of most things in life. I don't know . . . it all makes perfect sense to me. The humanness of the biblical writers would not be a problem for God. . . . He is communicating with humans. The distinct human qualities of Jesus are not a problem either. . . . God is revealing Himself in Jesus to humans. Identifying Himself with us. None of it should be a problem for us. If He can disclose Himself in the person of Jesus. . . . human writers whom He has prepared as spokesmen. . . . . should not really be an issue. God's humility in doing this reveals a reality about Him, a condescension, a humbleness, and a willingness to relate. God doesn't need the scriptures. . . . . we do.

Kudos A unique honor indeed. . . . . :)

Hi, I can't really speak for all evangelicals and it is not really a denomination. . . I can tell you I am in a love/dislike relationship with many of them. . . . . but, the church is rich and varied . . . . not everyone has the same strength. . . . or focus. . . . so, although Christians are unified around the same core doctrines . . . . around the Savior. . . . we don't all have the same theology. The church has unity, yet diversity, without compromising the gospel. In many ways the varied churches compliment each other. Some denominations are missions minded, some teaching, some community, some worship. . . all Christians making up the body of Christ. Now, Christians are unified around core doctrines . . . . when a group of people get together and deny all those core doctrines . . . what would that be? Would that make them Christian? Or, would that make them actually opposed to Christianity? Sorry, I can't call TWI Christian with a straight face. You have a very good handle on why VP and Wayfers have defended to the death their understanding of inerrancy. Control and the arrogance of perceived superior knowledge. . . . self-preservation and identity. Christians identify with Christ . . . . TWI identifies with their understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with humbleness or holiness. . . . no matter how many times they use the words. Not everyone who believes the bible to be inerrant believes that every word is perfect. One word is as good as another to convey the meaning . . . . . language is limited, imperfect. However, if scripture is inspired. . . . God not only designed us for language, but chose in part to communicate with us from it. It is enough to give us the understanding needed. . . . . it is not a Koranic view of inspiration, but it is the sense of scripture that is scripture. Meaning, it is the message that is without error. . . . no translation of the bible has been so horrible that the gospel could not be understood from it. The gospel is without error, perfect, and true. I believe God uses language to tell us what to think about Him, how to talk to Him, and then interacts with us so that we may know Him. Language is part of that. . . . . now, if God can use human language to speak about Himself. . . . we can understand it.. . . . inerrancy is not a dirty word . . . no matter how some use it. Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. . . . it is adequate for the task. . . . Jesus Christ is to bring us to God. . . . if someone believes one is lacking in adequacy the other will follow. God humbled Himself in Jesus Christ to reconcile us, to identify with us. . . . He condescends with human language to communicate that to us. Common, everyday words bring us to a knowledge of salvation. You know what I think. . . . I believe it is God's humility that actually offends people.

Define inerrancy? All I have gotten so far is VP's wackiness. . . . if it is that the bible is without error in the truth of the message it conveys. . . . . then why do you think it is so important? If it all hinges on the accuracy of how many legs a grasshopper has.. . . for it to be truth. . . . then, I don't think we have a legitimate working definition of inerrancy.

Thanks. . . I tried to post a link. . . . but, it didn't work. It is not necessarily a pejorative, but that all depends on who one is speaking with. Some believe ultra-dispensationalism leads to to things like belief in soul sleep, or annihilationism . . . even universalism where Satan himself is saved. Now to many here. . . . in ex-cult land some of these are not considered heresy, but to the church at large. . . . . different story. You are correct . . . VP was not an ultra-dispensationalist, but he was heavily influenced by it. H.A. Ironside wrote on the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. Called it evil. All depends. There is Acts 28:28. . . . . . Acts 13. . . Acts 9. . . . pick a point in Acts and divide. I don't think you can avoid some sort of dispensationalism. . . . . it is impossible. . . . but, there can be a danger in . . . . well . . . . you know what? Never mind. . . . people can look into it or not.

Just a note about Bullinger. . . .who heavily influenced VP. . . . he was an ultra-dispensationalist. (did I spell that correctly?) :) "Sometimes known as "Extreme Ultradispensationalism" or "Bullingerism" (wikipedia). Not making a judgment of right or wrong. . . . . it is just a distinction sometimes made in theological circles. . . .

It was a bit more intense than kindly making a point they could understand. :) Remember, these were thee religious leaders of the day. . . . . they had the power and supposedly the ear of God. Yet, the Messiah was standing right before them. . . . they saw the miracles, they saw the crowds, and they kept trying to lay hold of Him. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. He was passing judgment.. . . . He wasn't just doing a Sunday Service and trying to motivate for more in the collection plate. He was telling them something deadly serious. . . . . He said the men of Nineveh were more righteous than the Pharisees. . . . and even Jonah didn't like the Ninevites . . . Jonah was upset when God relented . . . . using Cinderella as an example and saying Cinderella would be there standing up condemning them wouldn't mean much. They would have laughed Him to scorn. He was also saying that they wouldn't believe on Him. . . . . He was equating His situation to that of Jonahs. . . . . now, if I told you my alter-ego was sleeping beauty you wouldn't take me seriously. His point was also that they knew the scriptures and were familiar with Nineveh, but still couldn't understand. They also knew the scriptures as fact. . . . no argument. . . . that is why it had teeth. Jesus used real things to make His points. . . in His parables He would point to something like the birds or the flowers . . . they knew of unjust stewards and tax collectors. . . they knew prodigal children . . . . Abraham and Lazarus. . . And you are right. . . . Jonah didn't live in the belly of a whale. . . he died . . . three days. . . three nights. . . that is why Jesus told them . . . that is the only sign you are going to get.

Good points Jeff . . . . Lot's of good things in the gospels to be gleaned . . . in particular how the Lord viewed scripture. When Jesus is speaking in Mt 12 about judgment He references the men of Nineveh and their repentance in response to the preaching of Jonah. He is trying to tell them that one greater than Jonah has come. . . . and they are rejecting His preaching. Nineveh heard Jonah, but these guys are not listening to Jesus. Pretty important topic . . . . final judgment. . . . . so, Jesus, who claims to be the Son of God. . . . and is not speaking in parables here. . . . . is supposed to be referencing a folktale? Doesn't make sense. A made-up person, a folk-hero. . . . who if pretend. . . . didn't really preach. . . . and the repentance of Nineveh. . . . was also made up. . . . . and He uses this for illustrating final judgment? Well, if you remove the historical basis. . . . you remove the teeth. Jesus believed Jonah was a real prophet. . . . He did not charge these Pharisees with not believing in Him by referencing a folk-hero! He used the OT like an appeals court. . . . He rebuked them for not studying profoundly enough. Before Abraham was I AM. . . . . now if Abraham wasn't. . . . Jesus wasn't before Him? Jesus referenced Sodom, Noah, Lot, Issac and Jacob, David, He even referenced the plague of the snakes in Egypt. . . . . .He also gave the nod to Genesis 1&2 A-Z Abel to Zechariah. .He spoke of them killing all the prophets . A-Z. . . . He said they were guilty of all that blood. . . . pretty serious accusations. Jesus treated these narratives from the OT as fact . . . the force of His points depend on them being true. Jesus treated the OT as equal to history. The ones skeptics have the most difficult time with are the accounts He seemed the most fond of! :)

It IS circular reasoning :) absolutely . . . . which is why I personally try to avoid such statements here. Usually such a statement is reserved for other Christians who also have a particular high view of God. There is usually no dissension there. I have to say though. . . . I have come to appreciate your view of God. Great starting spiel . . . . I agree to a great degree! Geisha

I believe that when you start breaking it down. . . . our freewill is limited to our nature. Sure, we can choose to sin, but can we really choose to be righteous? We can try to be righteous on our own, but, we even have a term for that in our vernacular . . . . it is called being self-righteous. :) Bit of a pejorative . . . right? For a good reason to. . . . we all sin, it is our nature. No one is truly righteous on their own. Self-willed might be a more apt description than free-will. The power to choose the lesser of two evils isn't really free-will is it? And opting to choose neither is still a self-willed choice. According scripture. . . . we are still accountable for our choices. We are told to choose between two things. Salvation. life, repentance and a new nature in Christ, His nature . . . . freely offered . . . . or sin and death. . . . a given. Jesus said. . . . "You refuse to come to me to have life" . . . . . . that is a self-willed choice. . . . . because when we refuse, for whatever reason, we are opting to hang onto our own nature. Whether we decide it is not so bad. . . . or we can't believe Him. . . . or Paul is a conman. . . . . whatever the reason . . . . we are choosing to remain with the nature we have. . . . . . and according to scripture and a good look around. . . . we are all sinners.

Well said Shellon. . . . For me, it could not have worked out better. . . . hubby and I work through our TWI related issues together. . .it isn't the focal point of our relationship. . . . it never really was. . . . a healthy dose of hormones ruled :) . . . . we were baaaad Wayfers. I am just glad he ""gets" it, doesn't judge me when I am figuring it out. . . . supports me and gives me the space to change my mind when I want or need to. . . . and it has never hurt that he brings me coffee every morning. All in all. . . . . it probably serves to make us a bit more forgiving and patient with each other.

This is one SS who probably won't get the glare. . . . should be the best since Nomar. :) With the quality of pitching they won't have to worry about losing J. Bay . . . or "whatever" with PAPI. . . . . . we should do good with those close. . . one run games! Counting on Youk for some power!

I would normally avoid a statement like I am about to make. . . . at least here, but, when I affirm faith in the canon. . . . . I am also affirming the providence of an able God . . . . affirming the Spirit of God. . . . and also His love for His word.. . . the importance of His having communicated to us in this fashion and also my faith in Him.

Would not surprise me in the least.. . .:) I will say that I don't think God ever gets bored. Although it may sound funny to us. . . He takes great pleasure in His perfection. . . . over flowing joy in Himself. . . I believe so anyway. My thought is we were created out of this joy and pleasure . . . to share in it. . . .and we are complete in it. Thus saith Geisha . . .

Well, I can think of once when God stepped into time. . . . but, . . . God is eternal and not limited to same concept of time we are constrained by. . . . Where do the scriptures say we have freewill? I thought they said our nature was as the children of wrath and our choices dictated by whatever THAT heart felt. . . . is that true free will? Bet freewill turns out to be somewhat paradoxical . .

It did. . . . I laughed at myself for not figuring out what it was(seriously, took me a week). . . . . you have some great photo's up. . . . I really appreciate them. :) Your grandkids? are adorable.

Yes! LOL Disturbing. I kept looking at it. . . . trying to figure out what was up with this dog!! I am not the quickest to catch on . . . it was up there a week before I figured it out. No joke. That is so funny Clay Jay. I want it to go away too. Somethings should just not be. . . . . :)

No kidding right? I am getting that baseball fever . . . .hope this is an excellent season . . . . Dice K seems to believe it will be. . .. . despite his messed up back. What is up with that? I want to scream . . . you make a gazillion dollars a year . . . . take an aspirin! "Fatigue"? They had all winter to nap!! Speaking of aspirin .. . I was just at the pharmacy and they were talking snow and counting storms this week. One lady kept saying it snowed last night, but, we had to tell her Colrain and surrounding area doesn't really count. . . . it always snows up there!!

Although I disagree with some of what you said . . . . the over all sentiment really appealed to me and I meant to(green) plus++++ you. . . . . so sorry. . . . my bad! Hope someone will fix my error.

Got it! Sort of . . . Thanks erkj and Waysider, I did take the AC. . . . but, thankfully, I don't remember much. So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation." Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish." (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.) So from that day they planned together to kill him Now, I am betting Caiaphas was probably "out of fellowship" when he prophesied about the Lord. .. ..but, God still used him. It was his function as high priest. I am thinking he and God were not pals. No little (s) or spirit upon. God is not limited. . . . burning bush, whirlwind, donkey, blinding someone on the street. . . . audible voice. . . . . the only thing I don't see in scripture anymore.. .. is TWI's take on "revelation" and its imposed limitations of God. . . . to our ability to be "in fellowship". . . . or i.e., our conformity to TWI's principles.