tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post115446765266623168..comments2023-11-03T08:28:04.408-04:00Comments on Voice of Vision: How Were OT People Saved? Part IIEven So...http://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-50035140120436579032007-07-18T17:27:00.000-04:002007-07-18T17:27:00.000-04:00Bless you in your walk, dear, and as God unveils t...Bless you in your walk, dear, and as God unveils to you the timeless truths of His amazing grace...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-14810323044151897352007-07-18T16:26:00.000-04:002007-07-18T16:26:00.000-04:00It was indeed exhausting to read, but I was drawn ...It was indeed exhausting to read, but I was drawn to read this (I've been putting it off for too long). I don't quite understand all of the doctrines of grace, as I haven't fully researched them, but I feel like I understand grace a bit more.<BR/><BR/>I also understand more that this world is imperfect, and that it is necessary for me to release my hold of it even more. God isn't going to keep such and such, or this or that, and then make everything else new. No, it will ALL be destroyed one day.<BR/><BR/>I think I was jolted to reality a few days ago when someone mentioned just how messed up the world is. And as I looked through that grid, I saw how right they were. Nothing is worth saving or holding on to, save Jesus. And it highlights just how dire our situation is without Him.Marcianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12497282481295432323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1155049875283659722006-08-08T11:11:00.000-04:002006-08-08T11:11:00.000-04:00We will continue to discuss this on the next post,...We will continue to discuss this on the next post, it will be helpful there...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1155048424793962582006-08-08T10:47:00.000-04:002006-08-08T10:47:00.000-04:00even so--In the original autographs, not our inter...even so--<BR/><BR/><I>In the original autographs, not our interpretations or translations of modern origin, that is where inerrancy is, we of course do not have them.</I><BR/><BR/>If "inerrancy" is located exclusively within the original autographs which no longer exist; and every copy which we possess is deviant from the originals in some way or another, then inerrancy is a wholly meaningless concept, for one is appealing to that which no longer exists and to which one cannot have inerrant access (which, of course, is necessary for the proper transmission of the "inerrancy" of the text). <BR/><BR/>Therefore, the doctrine of inerrancy so-called, by your own admission, is not helpful nor accurate in describing the nature nor the function of the Scriptures within the life of the church.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1155045509001291752006-08-08T09:58:00.000-04:002006-08-08T09:58:00.000-04:00as E-D has pointed out, inerrancy would require th...<I>as E-D has pointed out, inerrancy would require that one understands all the nuances, both cultural, social, and historical. This is impossible, and was even for the people to whom the scriptures were written.</I><BR/><BR/>In the original autographs, not our interpretations or translations of modern origin, that is where inerrancy is, we of course do not have them.<BR/><BR/>This will be continued on our next post, about <I>sola scriptura</I>, so check it out...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1155006034855065552006-08-07T23:00:00.000-04:002006-08-07T23:00:00.000-04:00stevehall-I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usag...stevehall-<BR/><BR/><I>I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism.</I><BR/><BR/>Unquestionably dismiss? What does that mean? All that I rejected was the doctrine of inerrancy. I fail to see how this is equivalent with unquestionably dismissing the scriptures. E-D has spoken some on this, but I will speak my peace as well. <BR/><BR/>My rejection of inerrancy comes not from a rejection of their divine origin, but is rather an affirmation of such. Here is why: To hold to inerrancy, one essentially concedes to modernistic categories of what constitutes truth. These categories are to some extent legitimate, to some extent not. It is clear from studies of ancient cultures that they viewed history, for example, differently than modern people do. We tend to ascribe worth to history only if it gives an 'objectively' factual account of what actually occurs. (I won't go into how doomed to failure even this approach is, even today, since history is still interpreted by the historian, whoever that may be, and two people can come to substantially different conclusions about what 'happened', even with the same information.) I don't say that that to mean that the history in the bible is all fable and fairy tale; simply that history was approached differently. Or takes cosmology. It is undeniable that the writers of the sacred manuscripts had 'inaccurate' (from a scientific perspective at least) view of the universe in relation to geocentrism, the heavens, etc. However, these views find their place in the inspired texts. So, if one must hold to inerrancy, one must either deny the findings of science (as fundamentalists tend to do) or reinterpret the scriptures with such violence as to render the meaning essentiall different than what is written. Both perspectives concede the game, so to speak, to modernism. Inerrancy, in essense, allows modernistic thought to determine the rules and parameters of enagaging the scriptures, and forces the believer to evaluate the divine origin of the scriptures based on their fidelity to naturalistic categories. That is, it makes the divine origin dependent on how well the scriptures line up with modernistic conceptions of what is true and what is real. Since the scriptures are believed by the believer to be of divine origin, to hold to inerrancy ends the game before it ever begins, because the evaluation will come by reducing the divine origin to its fidelity to naturalistic observations.<BR/><BR/><I>With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.</I><BR/><BR/>I would not deny that there is a wealth of knowledge on Koine Greek. However, as E-D has pointed out, inerrancy would require that one understands all the nuances, both cultural, social, and historical. This is impossible, and was even for the people to whom the scriptures were written.<BR/><BR/>In regards to good linguists saying one can make an exact correlation- which linguists?Deviant Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430691235471675645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154977467727951552006-08-07T15:04:00.000-04:002006-08-07T15:04:00.000-04:00stevehall--Just remember that there is a huge and ...stevehall--<BR/><BR/>Just remember that there is a huge and important difference between "consequence" and "penalty."Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154975798251483292006-08-07T14:36:00.000-04:002006-08-07T14:36:00.000-04:00I don't understand why you think the category of "...<I>I don't understand why you think the category of "penal" is necessary to that of "substitution." I see no reason why the two would be essentially linked to one another.</I><BR/><BR/>“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”<BR/><BR/>"If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.” <BR/><BR/>Scripture such as these undoubtedly speak of a “penalty” for sin. If Christ, through His substitutionary sacrifice, did not absorb this penalty for us, then it could not have been a truly tangible sacrifice(in regards to our need); then Christ died for nothing & we all remain doomed to “everlasting fire.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154966112364029062006-08-07T11:55:00.000-04:002006-08-07T11:55:00.000-04:00I don't understand why you think the category of "...I don't understand why you think the category of "penal" is necessary to that of "substitution." I see no reason why the two would be essentially linked to one another.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154964841047826982006-08-07T11:34:00.000-04:002006-08-07T11:34:00.000-04:00“It is the "penal" aspect that I reject, not the s...<I>“It is the "penal" aspect that I reject, not the substitutionary nature of atonement.”</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>I don’t understand how it can be truly substitutionary without being also penal in nature, for “He was wounded for <B>our</B> transgressions” & “bruised for <B>our</B> iniquities.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154964674304385442006-08-07T11:31:00.000-04:002006-08-07T11:31:00.000-04:00stevehall--It is unequivocally true that simplisti...stevehall--<BR/><BR/><I>It is unequivocally true that simplistic “word for word” translation of languages is often impossible; but as any linguist would say, we do have the ability to arrive at an “exact correlation” through the use of phraseology. This is the proper method for translating any language.</I><BR/><BR/>This is just not true. The very nature of communication prevents exact correlation of meaning between hearer and listener, even if they are using the same language (i.e., the phrase "substitutionary atonement" has a huge range of meaning that we--even though we use the same "words"--do not necessarily share). The fact that translation of the New Testament from a dead language, separated from the present by numerous centuries, both in use and culture, mitigates any possibility of "exact correlation," no matter how creative or precise one's "phraseology" may be.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154963322619587952006-08-07T11:08:00.000-04:002006-08-07T11:08:00.000-04:00“exact correlation of meaning in translation is fu...<I> “exact correlation of meaning in translation is fundamentally impossible. Even "literal" translations fail at direct equivalence, for meanings are more than simply words.”</I> <BR/><BR/>It is unequivocally true that simplistic “word for word” translation of languages is often impossible; but as any linguist would say, we do have the ability to arrive at an “exact correlation” through the use of phraseology. This is the proper method for translating any language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154962915822599772006-08-07T11:01:00.000-04:002006-08-07T11:01:00.000-04:00stevehall--I don’t mean to insinuate that either o...stevehall--<BR/><BR/><I>I don’t mean to insinuate that either of you dismiss Scripture in whole, but dogma such as your rejection of the substitutionary & atoning nature of Christ’s death (per your blog of March 16) necessarily negates portions of Scripture, ie, 1 Thes. 5:9, 10- For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him; to arrive at your conclusions, you must supplant weighty elements of Scripture with “Darwin’s contributions.”</I><BR/><BR/>You have misunderstood my position. I do not deny the substitutionary nature of atonement. In fact, the very blog entry to which you allude is about penal substitutionary theories of atonement. It is the "penal" aspect that I reject, not the substitutionary nature of atonement.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154961625445634232006-08-07T10:40:00.000-04:002006-08-07T10:40:00.000-04:00“I think you misunderstand DM's point. He is not a...<I>“I think you misunderstand DM's point. He is not advocating that the Scriptures be rejected.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t mean to insinuate that either of you dismiss Scripture in whole, but dogma such as your rejection of the substitutionary & atoning nature of Christ’s death (per your blog of March 16) necessarily negates <I>portions</I> of Scripture, ie, 1 Thes. 5:9, 10-<B> For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him</B>; to arrive at your conclusions, you must supplant weighty elements of Scripture with “Darwin’s contributions.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154957793574499152006-08-07T09:36:00.000-04:002006-08-07T09:36:00.000-04:00These will be issues for the next post, which I ho...These will be issues for the next post, which I hope to have "up" today...until then carry on...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154957683156040102006-08-07T09:34:00.000-04:002006-08-07T09:34:00.000-04:00stevehall--I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usa...stevehall--<BR/><BR/><I>I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism. Archeological artifacts such the “Rosetta Stone” prove we have the ability to resurrect dead languages we previously knew nothing of; but certainly Koine Greek does not fall into this category. Modern Greek does not deviate wholly from ancient Greek, just modern English does not deviate wholly from Middle English; to simply know the newer would give us some ability to discern the older. I’ve never studied Middle English, regardless, I have read &, to a degree, interpreted Middle English text excerpts based solely on my knowledge of modern English. I’m sure I would comprehend fully if I took the time to study Middle English, but this would be pointlessly redundant, as others I trust already have this ability; if I did not trust them, I would do well to study it myself, but at any rate, it would be fanciful to disregard those texts based only on my lack of comprehension. With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you misunderstand DM's point. He is not advocating that the Scriptures be rejected. What he was talking about is that the considerations of the impossibility of perfectly and exactly reconstructing--much less interpreting them--mitigate against consistently holding to the stace of the "inerrancy" of Scripture as MacArthur presented it. After all, the doctrine of inerrancy absolutely requires: <BR/><BR/>1.) <B>A perfect reconstruction of the original texts.</B> As they are no longer extant, and every manuscript available is, in one way or another, different in relation to others, it is impossible to reconstruct the original, supposedly textually "inerrant" documents.<BR/><BR/>2.) <B>An exact translation that precisely captures every meaning and nuance of meaning as expressed in the original language.</B> As anyone who interprets anything from another language will tell you (and even as you have found out in your excursions in Middle English), exact correlation of meaning in translation is fundamentally impossible. Even "literal" translations fail at direct equivalence, for meanings are more than simply words. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, the doctrine of "inerrancy" fails before it begins, and the only recourse which one has is to do what the KJV-onlyists do and claim that the translators were divinely moved, inspired--whatever--in their interpretation.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154954834925883282006-08-07T08:47:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:47:00.000-04:00“it would assume that nearly 2000 years removed fr...<I>“it would assume that nearly 2000 years removed from a language that is dead we have the exact understanding of all the words, phrases, idioms, cultural allusions, etc., that were inherent within the texts at the time they were written. Obviously no one could possibly affirm this.”</I> <BR/><BR/>I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism. Archeological artifacts such the “Rosetta Stone” prove we have the ability to resurrect dead languages we previously knew nothing of; but certainly Koine Greek does not fall into this category. Modern Greek does not deviate wholly from ancient Greek, just modern English does not deviate wholly from Middle English; to simply know the newer would give us some ability to discern the older. I’ve never studied Middle English, regardless, I have read &, to a degree, interpreted Middle English text excerpts based solely on my knowledge of modern English. I’m sure I would comprehend fully if I took the time to study Middle English, but this would be pointlessly redundant, as others I trust already have this ability; if I did not trust them, I would do well to study it myself, but at any rate, it would be fanciful to disregard those texts based only on <B>my</B> lack of comprehension. With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154953598332656402006-08-07T08:26:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:26:00.000-04:00stevehall--E~d- You are categorically rejecting th...stevehall--<BR/><BR/><I>E~d- You are categorically rejecting the legitimacy of John 14:6 by the insinuation of a salvic method other than bowing the heart & mind before the person of Jesus;</I><BR/><BR/>No, I have done no such thing. If you read through this and the other related meta, you will see where I have dealt with this concept thoroughly. <BR/><BR/><I>with strong evidence of another “way,”</I><BR/><BR/>I have not said that there is any other "way" to God. All I have done is question the limiting of the "way" to possession of a certain range of data sets. <BR/><BR/><I>your assertion would be more valid, but all you have given to qualify this is an iconic image of God, whereby you declare He must dispense to all humans the testimony of salvation thru Christ alone, else the testimony not be true.</I><BR/><BR/>This is not accurate either. I have consistently maintained that Christ is the only means of salvation; I have merely expanded this meaning on the basis of a fuller Logos-Christology concepetion of the nature and scope of Christ's work. <BR/><BR/><I>One must delete portions of Scripture in order to amalgamate it with any philosophy representative of what we would do if we were God, for we are apparently not.</I><BR/><BR/>I have deleted nothing, nor have I suggested that any passages be deleted. All I have suggested is that there are alternate ways of understanding their meaning than the interpretation which you offer.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154953277972519432006-08-07T08:21:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:21:00.000-04:00stevehall--e~d- How can you continue to attempt to...stevehall--<BR/><BR/><I>e~d- How can you continue to attempt to circumnavigate God’s only Agent of salvation based on a single individual who lived 4000 years ago?</I><BR/><BR/>I am not circumnavigating the primacy and exclusivity of Christ as the "Agent" of salvation. All I am saying is that based upon the example of Abraham (and the rest of the faithful saints that lived "before" the Incarnation of Christ in Jesus), it is obvious that access to the salvation offered in Christ is not absolutely limited 1.) to knowledge of the historical person of Jesus and/or 2.) access to the Scriptures. <BR/><BR/><I>As you paradoxically noted, he could not hold to Scripture, since it had not been given as yet.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how that's paradoxical...<BR/><BR/><I>I completely affirm God’s salvation of Abraham, but he was saved because he was faithful to the measure of revelation he had been given. We are likewise saved when we are faithful to the measure we have been given.</I><BR/><BR/>And what measure have we been given? You affirm the salvation of Abraham on an INDIVIDUAL basis, yet now you shift to a chronologically defined CORPORATE understanding. In this way, I don't know that the point you are making is going to end up coming out consistently.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154953094082400732006-08-07T08:18:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:18:00.000-04:00Deviant Monk said, When God called Abraham, Abraha...Deviant Monk said,<BR/> <BR/><I>When God called Abraham, Abraham knew next to nothing about God. But Abraham had faith, and his faith justified him. Obviously the basis of Abrahams's faith and justification wasn't that he knew a certain list of things about God; rather, God called him, and he obeyed. He was faithful to God's revelation to him. At the end of his life, Abraham probably knew very little about God, (indeed, nobody really knows all that much about God, compared to how much there is to know about God) but Abraham is the father of all who have faith because he had faith and was faithful.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, God called Abraham, that is the key. Was God calling others, and for what purpose? The reason Abraham was able to obey is because he was the called out one...<BR/><BR/>That was all the revelation given at the time, but now, in NT times, it is different, and the ones whom God calls he does so through the proclamation of the gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154952937453064832006-08-07T08:15:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:15:00.000-04:00even so--It would seem easy if you were to say tha...even so--<BR/><BR/><I>It would seem easy if you were to say that the amount required would be whatever He has done and just to follow what you have been given. Jesus does call it a straight and narrow road, and few that find it, after all.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that the road is narrow and that there will be many that are not ultimately reconciled to God. However, and as Paul makes infinitely clear in Romans 1-2, the problem is not that revelation is insufficient; the problem is that human beings are sinful and that their hearts are hard, desiring their cycles of sinfulness and self-destruction to reconciliation with God. In other words, the problem is not a lack of information.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154952775953749772006-08-07T08:12:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:12:00.000-04:00even so--As to scripture, in what way do we meet H...even so--<BR/><BR/><I>As to scripture, in what way do we meet Him, </I><BR/><BR/>In Scripture, we meet Christ in reflecting upon and engaging within the life and history of those who have come before us and delivered the message unto us. This, interestingly enough, is exactly the impetus for the original writing of the Scriptures, as the apostles and others reflected upon their experiences with Christ and of carrying his gospel throughout the world. This is one of the huge problems of modern day Scripture reading and interpretation, i.e., that it occurs on an individualistic level and not within the community of believers and life of the body. It is only within this latter context that the Scriptures have a fully formed and consistent meaning.<BR/><BR/><I>and then also as to other places, in what way. Perhaps I mean to ask of the quality of such revelation as compared with each other...</I><BR/><BR/>One major place that we meet Christ is in the community of believers, by participating within the life of the people of God. I would suggest that the "quality" of revelation (which I think is a misnomer, BTW) is the same, since the meaning of Scripture and participation within the life of the body of Christ cannot be bifircated.<BR/><BR/><I>As to other places, how much do you have to meet Him in order for it to be salvific, IOW, how much needs to be revealed in order for you to follow His will correctly enough for salvation?</I><BR/><BR/>How much of the Scriptures do you have to read? Obviously, this question (like the one above) is not speaking to the actual issues involved in salvation. Justification with God is not based upon an amount or quality of revelation to which one has access; it is about faithfulness to the will of God.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154925724699938992006-08-07T00:42:00.000-04:002006-08-07T00:42:00.000-04:00even so-As Christians, we are committed to the Bib...even so-<BR/><BR/><I>As Christians, we are committed to the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. We believe it is reliable and true from cover to cover, in every jot and title (cf. Matt 5:18).</I><BR/><BR/>Let's assume inerrant is true- what does inerrant extend to? Every jot? If this is true, it is absolutely inescapable that one could not by any means reasonably claim inerrancy for the scriptures we have today, for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. We don't have the original manuscripts, and no one (except KJV-only extremists) believes that the Greek (and hebrew and aramaic, for that matter) maunscripts we have today resemble perfectly those of the orginals. But if one presumes that 'every jot and tittle' is inerrant, then something is very wrong, since inerrancy would be lost forever, or at least relegated to maunscripts that no longer exist, thus effectively destroying inerrancy anyway.<BR/><BR/>2. Translation can never convey the exactness that inerrancy requires. Of course, one could say that only the orignal languages are inerrant, which leads to other less palatable conclusions- one being that it would essentially create a hierarchy of biblical interpretation that Protestantism seems to despise; and secondly, it would assume that nearly 2000 years removed from a language that is dead we have the exact understanding of all the words, phrases, idioms, cultural allusions, etc., that were inherent within the texts at the time they were written. Obviously no one could possibly affirm this.<BR/><BR/><I>Scripture, therefore, is the standard by which we must test all other truth-claims. Unless that axiom dominates our perspective on all of life, we cannot legitimately claim to have embraced a Christian worldview.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, let's take the truth claim of sola fide. What does the Bible have to say about it? James says that it is by works that a person is justified, and not by faith alone. ( How this could be construed as anything other than an explicit denial of sola fide is beyond me...) Paul says that the only thing that counts is faith working itself out in love. Therefore, based on macArthur's statements, to believe sola fide would be to leave a truly Christian worldview behind, since one would not be informed by the scriptures to reach such a conclusion.<BR/><BR/><I>A truly Christian worldview, simply put, is one in which the Word of God, rightly understood, is firmly established as both the foundation and the final authority for everything we hold true.</I><BR/><BR/>Rightly understood, huh? There's the rub. And how does MacArthur define 'rightly understood?' I fail to see how how he defines 'rightly understood', coming from the perspective of slao scriptura, could rise about the preconception of personal infallibility.<BR/><BR/><I>When we begin with a right view of Scripture, the Bible itself ought to shape what we believe from start to finish. It should govern how we behave. It should frame our entire perspective on life. In other words, if we simply start by affirming what the Bible says about itself, the rest of our worldview should fall into place, with the Bible as the source and touchstone of all we believe. So this is the crucial, foundational starting point in developing a Christian worldview."</I> <BR/><BR/>A nice sentiment, but entirely incapable of being practically implemented. Beginning with a 'right view of scripture' simply devolves into one's personal opinion of what the right view of scripture is. Not to mention that it is impossible to not brings one's biases, preconceptions, worldview, etc., into one's understanding of what the scriptures say. <BR/><BR/>What does the bible say about itself? I don't see where the bible says it is inerrant, (at the very least in the sense that inerrancy is construed to mean) nor do I see where the bible says that it is to be the only rule for faith and life. So to make such propositional statements about what the scriptures say about themselves betrays an essentially unscriptural starting point, which MacArthur himself condemns.<BR/><BR/><I>What I see is that e~d and dm seem to say is that the revelation of the bible is not sufficient for salvation, or at least that it is not necessary in today's economy, because perhaps it wasn't at certain times in the OT economy.</I><BR/><BR/>E-D has already addressed this, but I thought I'd add a few thoughts. Where do we draw the line of scriptural revelation? After the NT was written? After it was codified? Were the scriptures insufficient before the entire canon was decided on by the church, since the entire scriptures as we understand them now are supposed to be the repository of God's revelation? I just don't understand this... There were generations of Christians long before the scriptures were ver widely distributed, let alone canonized, let alone collected into an entire volume. Did people who only read Thessalonians not have the chance to be saved because they didn't get a chance to read or hear Romans? <BR/><BR/><I>And, going back to our primary, secondary cause discussion, it would seem, according to this account, that God allowed the devil to attack Job, so was God responsible? In the ultimate sense, I suppose so, but Satan was culpable for acting upon his own desire to ruin Job, and he is actually the primary cause.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you are the only one talking about primary and secondary causes. I was responding to a pleading for monergism, with its conception of eternal unilateral action. I actually showed how it would allow for no such thing as secondary causes. (I say this in retrospect, since I wasn't concerning myself with secondary causes at the time.) The discussion was not framed around God 'allowing' something to happen- I was showing how in monergism God is the absolute and only cause of everything, which is of course the foundational philosophical presupposition within monergism. To speak of God's eternal foreordaining of everything that comes to pass (to use the words of the Westminster Confession) effectively renders any discussion of secondary causes essentially meaningless.<BR/><BR/><I>As to scripture, in what way do we meet Him, and then also as to other places, in what way. Perhaps I mean to ask of the quality of such revelation as compared with each other...</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry to jump in this conversation, but I wanted to add some thoughts. We don't meet a Christ in scriptures that were dropped from heaven magically infused with a self-evident, transcendent, objective meaning; rather, the scriptures are the product of the church, of the experience of the church with Christ and the apostles, of the teaching of the apostles, and the ongoing evolution in the church's understanding of God, faith, etc. This is evident from the Council of Jerusalem's decision concerning the Gentiles, the later, highly developed Christology found in the Gospel of John as compared to the more simplistic creedal hymns and confessions found in Paul's writings, as well as a shift in emphasis in understanding of Jesus from the Jesus/Son of Man of the Synoptics to the Christ/Logos of John. One can even see this in the evolution of liturgical praxis and theology from a more simplified version in Paul's early Corinthian writings to John's obvious theologizing on the significane of the Eucharist within the life of the church in the Gospel of John. <BR/><BR/>Thus we can see within the scriptures themselves that the understanding of Jesus was being continually refined and broadened, so any attempt to pinpoint the specifics that qualifies salvific knowledge is undermined even by the scriptures themselves.<BR/><BR/><I>As to other places, how much do you have to meet Him in order for it to be salvific, IOW, how much needs to be revealed in order for you to follow His will correctly enough for salvation?</I><BR/><BR/>Why the quantitative language? Trying to find the exact data set, as E-D has been arguing, is impossible. Any conclusion would be arbitrary, and I would like to know how one could avoid sheer capriciousness in compiling such a checklist for faith.<BR/><BR/>When God called Abraham, Abraham knew next to nothing about God. But Abraham had faith, and his faith justified him. Obviously the basis of Abrahams's faith and justification wasn't that he knew a certain list of things about God; rather, God called him, and he obeyed. He was faithful to God's revelation to him. At the end of his life, Abraham probably knew very little about God, (indeed, nobody really knows all that much about God, compared to how much there is to know about God) but Abraham is the father of all who have faith because he had faith and was faithful. <BR/><BR/>stevehall-<BR/><BR/><I>e~d- How can you continue to attempt to circumnavigate God’s only Agent of salvation based on a single individual who lived 4000 years ago?</I><BR/><BR/>Since E-D has affirmed the Logos which infuses all creation as the ground of all salvation, I don't see how one could honestly accuse him of circumnavigating the aformentioned Agent. And seeing as Abraham is hailed by the NT as the archetype of faith by Paul, the writer of hebrews, James, etc., I don't see how that exactly qualifies as just a single individual who lived 4000 years ago. Paul's and James' argument for justification is entirely based on the example of Abraham, so your objection hardly seems warranted.<BR/><BR/><I>As you paradoxically noted, he could not hold to Scripture, since it had not been given as yet. I completely affirm God’s salvation of Abraham, but he was saved because he was faithful to the measure of revelation he had been given. We are likewise saved when we are faithful to the measure we have been given.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if you know it, but you seem to have capitulated to E-D's argument. <BR/><BR/><I>Man’s first sin was being discontented with the level of understanding he had blessed with, which resulted in an “appetite” for something more. God, for reasons of His own, had not seen fit to declare all knowledge to man, & man might never have fallen away had he not craved a greater revelation. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, it seems that the first sin, according to Genesis at least, was disobeying God. Perhaps the being discontent with the given level of understanding was in a chapter of Genesis that I don't have.<BR/><BR/>Such an understanding of sin (i.e., yours)would create an interesting anthropology, to say the least. So God creates human beings with the innate desire to learn, grow, discover, be creative, be in relatonship with God- which, by the way, would necessitate the desire to know and understand more; yet it is these very qualities (which I would argue are actually part of the imago dei) which made humanity sinful. Sounds to me like God was setting humanity up for a fall... <BR/><BR/>Of course, from a monergistic perspective, even this desire to grab more revelation which you construe to be sinful would be part of God's eternal, unilateral action. I guess God didn't want anybody to know too much...maybe God has something to hide. Like being the cause of all sin...Deviant Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430691235471675645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154916164304675642006-08-06T22:02:00.000-04:002006-08-06T22:02:00.000-04:00sorry, the end of the first paragraph should have ...sorry, the end of the first paragraph should have read: "<I>but</I> we are apparently not. (<I>God</I>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16790134.post-1154912663618033322006-08-06T21:04:00.000-04:002006-08-06T21:04:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com