roberterasmus

Nicely put Workman, The inerrancy premise is what most "Bible believing" Christians start with (VP, Bullinger and millions of others, BTW). Throwing out the baby (inerrancy) with the bathwater (in this case VP's womanizing and BS in many places) doesn't wash (pun intended). RE

Thanks Tom, I’ll entertain the idea that Paul was aware that what he was doing was recording “wisdom that the holy spirit teaches”. Others were aware so why not he himself (2 Peter 3:16). I’ll also agree that, in the case of Paul, he had to go “outside the box and above the authority of those who would presume…” (I realize I did not finish your quote, but this was really well said) and there were a lot of others who “presumed” a lot about God and his purposes. Paul turned a lot of that on its ear with the introduction of the "secret of God". It will be interesting to follow the term “scripture” through the texts and actually see if there is a pattern. I personally think that, in the context of Romans 16:25 and 26, the scriptures referred to are the ones penned after Pentecost 28 CE (Romans 16:25-26 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith”). I also agree, at least partially, in the idea that there was a broader sense of what canon was in Paul (and Jesus’) time. How to deal with this is another matter entirely. So, on the one hand, I am “doing this” (presume(ing) to hand us a cannon to go by”) since we run around in Christian circles, and on the other I love discussions about how do we (and how did they) apply wisdom from other sources that didn’t make the supposed cut. RE

Mr. (or Mrs?) Miller, Thanks for the link. I've wanted to write to Mr. Anderson for some time. He's a guy that has an interesting, introspective style in that book. It's an interesting "take" on Paul and James. RE

I’d like to start a discussion on the “inspiration” and “inerrancy” of the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures (I do not use the terms New Testament and Old Testament knowing that both are misnomers, but please use them if you are comfortable with them.). This might take into account the canon itself, how the prophets (inclusive of Jesus) looked at holy writ, why Scripture is “holy writ”, etc. Certainly anyone can post here, but I’d ask that those who no longer actually claim a belief in the term Scripture refrain from slander, wise cracks and abuse. Hopefully those posting here can help each other learn what we mean if we use the term inerrancy or inspiration. There are tons of books and scholarly articles (both on the Internet…go to Google Books, BTW, and download some of the older ones) that might help in this discussion. There are thoughts and examples of inspiration in life other than Scripture as well. These may speak to the process as the following verses from Paul’s epistle shows: Romans 1:20-22 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." There is a God and this is actually the God of the Bible, IMHO (and in Paul’s). It is, for me, the crux of the matter as we start this. But let’s also begin with an age old Scripture from Paul to kick things off: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." This, of course, referred to his Scriptures at his time in the first Century (which were the Hebrew Scriptures), but it sets the attitude; first that there are Scriptures and what they might be intended for. Let’s have some fun! RE

Hey, Mel, I'm toying with the idea of starting a thread on "inspiration and attitude" (inclusive of the inerrancy thing) over in the Doctrinal section. See ya there. RE

Workman, Is that a "major problem" with Penwork's definition (as you said earlier in your post) or just a "major problem"? RE

To all, It’s interesting to me where Brian (not Bruce, BTW, to be mathmatically precise…sorry Taz…) comes from (theologically) and what his background is. He has been associated with what is called the “emergent church” movement (if it can be classified that way…don’t ya hate it when people try to pigeon-hole your system?) which is a compliation of people who “mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church” (wik). Personally, I’m all for that. Further, I’m for actively living my Christianity in the real world (read: compassion, love, mercy, justice, giving, etc.). But I’m also for the mathmatical precision and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures. I do not see this stuff as mutualy exclusive. Really, if you look at it, this is how Jesus lived. He was kind when it was needed, he was “in your face” at other times (usually it was with the hierarch of the “church”, BTW) and yet he was a very “jot and tittle” kinda guy. I think the reaction of most is that somehow there is always wool being pulled over the eyes when someone says this MSS says one thing and this MSS says it better, but the proof is in the pudding. Go find out and then believe or argue. If you don’t want to that’s OK too. Some of this MSS stuff is just too overwhelming, but on the otherhand it is not necessarily someone trying to start another cult. This kind of textual criticism stuff happens every day in institutes of higher learning (theological) and it’s just not that bad or hurtful. I actually like it. If it makes (or made, in the case of TWI) someone less Christ centered, change the way you approach the so called “man of God” in your church and make sure you’ve checked his resources. IMHO, the Bible is clear enough on the issues that are important for salvation and a few other things… Maybe in areas such as the Trinity or the Secret of God there have been some, shall I say, “interesting” ways that the monks monkied with the text, but Biblically we can read that Jesus was born of a woman. Not hard to figure out he was a man and not God. Logic has its place and should never be counted out of the equation when approaching homeletics or (especially) hermeneutics. Re

Roy, Thanks for the link. It is interesting to me how many people want to be gods and further how many Christians think that there are no other gods except the Father (and in Trinitarian's case the Son and HS). But there were and are other gods in reality, else why would the prophet say, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Further, reading briefly the information in the link, there is still a gross misconception about Jesus' confrontation with the "Jews" in John 10: 22- 40. He refers to Psalms 82 in his refutation about "gods" and it is stunning, if one reads that context, just exactly what Jesus is talking about. The "gods" in Psalms 82 are not men, as some suppose, but real "gods" (other than the "one, true God of John 17:3). RE

Great point Waysider, There were early Christian groups (early ones) that did not have the Pauline epistles and others that had parts of them (or decided to "accept" only parts of them) and there are groups today (in seminaries and divinity schools) that reject much of the Pauline corpus. Sure, they can believe in the resurrection without the epistles. The gospels record the event. And the rest of the stuff is, of course, available...if they are Scripture. The overreaching data in the fourteen church epistles is about the "secret of God" and that's what people would be missing. All the stuff "in Christ" that is available or not...if they are fake or spurious. RE

Hi Cman, I'm not qualified to speak to much more than I know. Maybe others want to engage with Sirg in his broad fields of knowledge and that's their prerogative. You seem to want to. I'll observe. The common ground in which I'm willing to engage conversation is Biblical (doctrinal, but Biblical). That's my training and that's my interest. IMHO, it's not "nonproductive" in any way. I'm not trying to build "walls of separation" and I'm all for growth, but "in Christ". And in certain things I'll engage a broader field of research. I'm not incapable (usually...). But when the subject is "speaking in tongues" I'll stay Biblical. RE

Thanks Sunesis, I’ll wait for the links, but I’m happy to hear directly from you. I’m not following all you say here, though I’m familiar with Bullinger’s “foundation (overthrow) of the kosmos” theory (inclusive of the prepositions “before” and “from”). And while I may not track everything you post (yet), you still haven’t shown why we (believers in the “dispensation of the grace of God”) won’t be on earth with God and Jesus in the end. If God is there and Jesus is there, why won’t the “church, which is his body” be there? Just askin’. The Church/ Bride thing is unprovable (as you intimate), but the “bride” as separate from other believing groups will take a fair amount of Scripture to prove (at least to me). Your three (3) different “spheres for eternity” thing will need some proofs too, but I’m a patient man. I wasn’t dissing you on the Paul/ Christ thing (“first citizen” bit). I realize you know “whom (you) have believed”. It’s just that Paul isnt’ “up” there yet. He’s dead. Interesting comments on the “plan B” thing, but I’m not sure I agree that the “dispensation of the Secret” was a “plan B”. I hear a lot of people talk about how the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3: 21 and look at Matthew 17: 11) might have happened if the Jews believed this or if the Jews believed that… I’m not convinced of the “ifs”. Speculation is one thing I shy away from. I read that God had a secret (not a mystery, that’s not what the Greek word musterion means) and he revealed it. It must have been in His mind and He was a good judge of things, by all counts. I’m pretty sure He knew that this “plan” was just that, a bonifide arrangement, set in His mind. And it had to be a plan that was in the works “before the ages to our glory” because He had something to show the “rulers of this age”. It’s all about spiritual matters when it comes to God, eh? And now, the “charge” for the “church, which is his body” is even greater than that so-called “great commission” given to Jesus’ Jewish disciples. In Ephesians 3:10 we see the ultimate commission for the Christian: “His (God’s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” RE

Hi, Irish, Thanks for the reply. I'm in the unfortunate postion of being an electrical engineer and a student of theology. Just as physicist/astrophysicists have a holy grail of a "unified theory of everything" (quantum mechanics at its best...think about Albert Einstein' theory of relativity and string theory combined), theologians look for the systematic theology that solves all the problems. That's where the details come in. I think jots and tittles are the wildest things and not that they are a thrill for everyone (I agree with the car analogy above, BTW), I think that some of us are called to really vet the theories as best they can. The Reformation would not have happened if Martin Luther hadn't really thought through Romans 1: 17 and Dispensationalism wouldn't have it's ascendency without the grammatical/historical/logical interpretation of Scripture by the likes of Darby, Scofield, etc. I'm just seeing things and asking questions. RE

Sunesis, There is much within what you say that I agree with, yet places where I’d like to see you ferret out things a bit more. I too think the Pauline corpus is Scripture (2 Peter 3: 16) and therefore applicable to the believer today. I’m not mid-Acts or Ultra dispy whereby the earlier and later Pauline epistles are somewhat or not applicable, but you seem to be. Is this the case? You said that, “all of his epistles up through Acts 28 are loaded with OT scripture” and then, “This is why in the prison epistles (Eph., Col, Phil., Timothy, Titus & Philemon) virtually no OT scripture is quoted. Why?” May I point out that the prison epistles were written before Acts 28 in most people’s understanding. There are certainly other reasons why Paul might not use the Hebrew Scriptures in his reasonings. I, personally think he did not need them to explain the “the unsearchable riches of Christ”. They were…unsearchable. The “if Israel had repented” language that you are using is infused with some interesting luggage theologically. Add to that your statement, “all Israel needs to repent and call on the Messiah for him to come back,” and I’m really interested in where this comes from. Care to share? Finally, so I won’t take up too much of your time, I’m agreeing with our “heavenly citizenship” (Philippians 3:20); how could I not, but your extension of that citizenship into “eternity” (“God will take a people and house them with Him and His Son in Heaven for eternity”) doesn’t sit well Biblically for me. I believe on another thread somewhere I asked you the same question; isn’t the “holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven” (see Revelation 21: 2) and isn’t God coming too ("Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” – Revelation 21:3)? I believe later in that same chapter the Lamb is there with God and God is still on the earth (they both have a throne, BTW). The logic would be that if Christ (aka – the Lamb) is on earth (with all the rest of the saints, BTW), God is on the earth, then shouldn’t we be coming too (“…so shall we ever be with the Lord” – 1 Thessalonians 4:17)? So, while I agree with you that our hope initially is heaven (we’ll be there for the seven (7) years of the “great tribulation”, IMHO) our ultimate hope would be to be with God and the Lamb in the new heaven and earth (maybe living with some Jewish and Gentile believers in the New Jerusalem??)? I also think that Jesus, not Paul, is the “first citizen of heaven” (no other humans up there…). Paul and the rest of us Christianish types will be there soon though. I took the pill as well. RE

Thanks sir, but I'm not into Deism (or a particular Theism, as the case may be) except for the God (and gods) of the Scriptures of the Hebrews and Christians. Others may take you up on your invitation. Bob

So, sir, then... In a doctrinal thread, how do we proceed? Granted, I'm only into the historical/ grammatical/logic hermeneutic. To what do you ascribe? RE

Yes, sir, My confession over in the other thread on “nostalgia” notwithstanding, I’ll attempt a little doctrinal dialogue and see if doctrine is the issue or not. As you may have noticed, I’m not into recriminations or hashing over spilt milk, but rather serious discussions over what the texts themselves say and how to best understand them. I’m sorry I missed your former unedited post here (if it was a reply to my minor discourse in Acts), but if you don’t feel you want to answer I understand. I may be able to help in your question about the strangeness of Peter’s explanation, however. If you’ll turn to a translation like the New American Standard Bible (or another that has the Hebrew Scriptures capitalized or in quotes) you’ll note that around Acts 2:17-21 is all from there (Joel 2: 28-32 generally) and then verses 25 – 35 (interspersed with more of his own explanations) are more quotes from Hebrew Scripture (Psalm 16: 8-11, blah, blah, blah…you can look them up). Peter is trying to make a case that what his audience is witnessing is a fulfillment of prophecy, even with the “bloody moons” (which fact I love to see here). Point is that the “great and glorious day of the Lord” was in view by Peter (seven year hence, BTW) and yet if you read the book of Acts, the mess that was predicted by the Hebrew prophets to come before that did not come to pass (yet). There’s a lot more to this (a discussion of the unfulfilled 70 weeks of years (from Daniel), the “abomination of desolation being set up (which has not yet happened - Matthew 24: 15), the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the kingship of the Messiah (ruling from his throne in Jerusalem), etc. Yeah, it’s strange, in one sense, that it did not happen yet. And the question becomes…why not? That’s a great question and the answer has to do with the intercalation (big theological word meaning “time out for this commercial” (in the Israel TV show)) of the Church. This is why Paul, in Romans 8:23 says that the Church has only the “firstfruits of the spirit” and why later he says (in Hebrews 6:5) that we have only “tasted (literally a “sipping to taste” (see Matthew 27:34) …of the powers of the age to come”. There’s a lot more than meets the eye in Peter’s “first sermon” in Acts 2. Bob

Thanks for the reply Oak, Whether I have some edumacasion will have to be borne out, eh? Yeah, went to U of C after Bible college (Gordon). I'm wondering whether I should really get too caught up in the doctrinal section. There are still a lot of wounds there and a certain "looking for holes" that can waste a lot of time. Maybe though...maybe. RE

Spec and Wordwolf, Is the point in the diatribes that VP was disingenuous or is it that the actual doctrine was at fault (read: rhetorical question)? The doctrine was not at fault. The dead are dead. I suppose if people want to debate that we could all start a thread at the “doctrinal” portion of GSC, but I wouldn’t come. It’s like debating the Trinity. Bought the tee shirt, don’t want to get back in line for another one. There are certain things I’ll move on with. Same in any research endeavor... But I digress; the “nostalgia for TWI research” in this case seems so far away from the discussion; it’s more like there never was any reminiscence, but rather remonstrance. Can we move on from the fact that VP did not footnote or give reference? He was a very selfish man. But the critical issue is whether what he said here was right or not, eh? Or is it that we were so put upon? BTW, this matter over the comma was not something that Bullinger just thought up either. It had centuries of discussion behind it. Read the commentaries. I remember reading Are the Dead Alive Now? before I got involved in TWI way back in 1973. I had either taken it out of the library at my school or someone had passed it on to me. In the section about Luke 23:43 VP had a reference to a Syriac text that shed some light on the matter. That reading was not known in any of the journals and commentaries that I had read up to that point (not in Bullinger and probably brought to VP's attention by Lamsa??) and it really is in the Syriac text (Charlene, here’s where the Old Syriac and not the PSHTA text family wins out). Point is, VP’s work, whether plagiarized or not, was correct (in this place). For what its worth. RE

Sir, Acts 2:11 says quite distinctly that the people in Jerusalem heard the speakers in tongues proclaim the "wonderful works of God", yet what Peter preached (it doesn't say he interpreted what the 12 were speaking in tongues, BTW) was an explanation of what was occurring. Sure it made sense to convert, but it wasn't an "interpretation" of a tongue. The record does not say this. Further, if this were an interpretation it would not square with the methodololgy of Paul in his assertions in instructing the Corinthian church on the "hows" of doing it. What is the "strange stuff" that Peter says? RE PS - Still waiting for Sunesis'explanations. Anybody seen him/her?

I find this jaundiced view here a lot and I do understand why. It is hurtful when one’s own view is not even entertained. I’ve felt this often in my educational trek. Scholars in universities (at least in the theological field) often use their students to further their own careers. It’s all about the name, don’t ya know. Religion is cruel. But in the theological realm there is a starting point and the “inerrancy of scripture” will be where all evangelicals begin. I’d rather call it “the inspiration of the Scriptures” and some day have a rousing discussion on just what inerrancy means, but that’s just me. VP, as many evangelicals, myself included, start with a canon (aka - Scripture). If you start with a “Biblical Research Center”, you of necessity have a “high” view of the texts, do you not. I’m in the same position. I wouldn’t entertain suspicion of Scripture and I’m sure he wouldn’t have either. I don’t consider that a non-research issue. If one wanted to research whether texts WERE Scripture or not, that’s another situation entirely. RE

Yeah, Charlene, I got the joke and I agreed, but by him "not being smart enough" I think I overstepped a point here. None of us will ever be "smart enough" to explicate all the Scriptures, but VP made the mistake of not delegating work that he was unqualified for to others and having a little "faith" that they just might "get it" and go beyond. We can never have that attitude. It's not about us. It's about Him. With my children, I was never afraid that they might go into some wierd cult (they are both brilliant, BTW...no prejudice here...). If my hermeneutic was wacko and they went off into some Covenantal or Reformed highway on their own because they "saw" something I hadn't, it never bothered me. But we continually vetted things within my family. We talked and talked and talked and they asked question after question after question. Hey, try talking about the Nephilim with teenagers. It's a trip. My point being, I was never afraid to discuss any point of theology (and life) with them. Not so in TWI. Good, qualified men and women were never given the certain freedoms to pursue an area of research and discussion. Bad example for the flock. Witness this site. RE

VP was not smart enough to have the "original text" in his own mind, but he did point out some things (in his theological meanderings) that I still hold to today. Yes, he (and Walter, et al) did not work around the "magic" that was/is the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a Primacy movement, but there was value in that version. They reactivated much of the oriental culture that the Greek versions buried behind wooden translations (sorry, got technical again...). The holy grail of any text critic is the autograph and I still hold the ideal in my flea-bitten mind today. I still find gross errors in the Received Text and fight with those who would pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting. Recognizing the errors in TWI is great (been to the tee-shirt factory and got a new one...says "Long live the nonchristotheocentric hermeneutic" on the front and "huh?" on the back), but the so-called "original text" is a means to an end. Justifying abberant behavior in the practical realm of living is much more gross in my opinion. RE

Well, with that writ of indulgence, I will engage a bit on this subject, poppycock comments aside. You have said, “from my study, I do not believe tongues today is what it was then”. Would you please allow us to see this “study” so we may comment? Or at least lay it out for the layman. You further say, “I believe the manifestation of interpretation was when they were preaching to people via tongues, in their language, and there were others standing near who didn't understand, thus, interpretation was needed”. Where did this occur in the book of Acts as “interpretation of tongues” and if this is merely an observation (without the words themselves), how does this square with the Pauline corpus, which, IMHO states quite succintly what “interpretation of tongues” is for. It is quite different from what you are stating and the Corinthian church was surely operating “during the book of Acts”, was it not? Certainly the “kingdom of God” was “at hand”, as you say. The Hebrew Scriptures fairly scream the nearness of the anticipted “day of the Lord” and the kingdom life in the age to come. It’s the greatest theme in the Scriptures. Kingdom given (“they shall have dominion”), kingdom lost (“for that is delivered unto me”), kingdom regained (a million places in Scripture through where Jesus hands it back to God – 1 Corinthians 15: 24). Now, that’s something that was not only missed in TWI, but we were like blind men following other blind men. You also say, “We live in an age of grace that was not prophesied about or spoken of in the OT”, and while this language speaks to a dispensational view of the Scriptures, with the life in the heavenlies (only?), I’d ask you to flesh out this theory a bit for us. I’m dispensational, but do not hold to the final location for all believers (saints) being anywhere but the earth with Jesus and his Father (“so shall we ever be with the Lord”). BTW, there were many who were not in lock step with VP on a lot of things, but I quite understand your sentiment. Bob

Sunesis, First let me say that I was not impugning your theology, but the theology of millenia past (Reformed and Classical Dispensationalism) that teach the “manifestation of the spirit” are no longer “necessary” or “around” after Acts. Further, I couldn’t care less what Wierwille taught about the “manifestation of the spirit” and would much rather have an intelligent discussion with you or others on Scripture. I apologize for giving you the impression that it was your personal poppycock. I will refrain from such personalization in the future. Really, I meant to discuss the actual texts themselves. Please forgive me. RE PS - I dont' have the time at this present moment to reply to your post (above) in detail, but if you'll give me the opportunity to do so I will.

Nicely said Gen, I like how Zechariah responded to the amazing things that God/the angel was showing him (who cares how…). Zech. 1:9; 4:4, 11; 6:4; 13:6 Then there’s John the Revelator… Rev. 7:13. They were comfortable enough with that which was revealed and/or given to simply ask… What are these?