Comments on: God Always Tells the Truth

By: K. Rex Butts

K. Rex Butts — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:06:50 +0000

Greg writes,

“Remaining faithful to the Lord requires that you follow the Bible as the only authority for God’s people. Drawing from a wide range of secular disciplines, alien ideas continually enter the Lord’s church. Rather than following the New Testament pattern for the church, these secular ideas fit the church to the pattern of the world. This dilution of biblical authority with secular additions often produces an apostasy of attrition.”

I understand the concern about mixing scripture with a variety of secular resources (philosophies). Surely this is being done today BUT the entire traditional Restoration approach to scripture borrowed from a variety secular philosophies as well. Wrong or right, I don’t think this can be avoided by any generation. In leiu of that, what we need is a recognition of those philosophical approaches that have influence on our reading of scripture with an awareness of both their qualitative points as well as their dangers. And to be clear, all of the secular philosophies (those employed by the traditionalist and those by the progressive) have both good and bad.

Your brother in Christ,

Rex

By: Todd Collier

Todd Collier — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:05:42 +0000

Why this long discussion of Biblical inerrancy? It is not relevant to the questions this forum was intended to address. Though I am sure there are indeed members of our movement who doubt the inerrancy of God’s Word, few of them are watching the proceedings here.

I am a “progressive” who is such a strict literalist that I demand book, chapter and verse for every command that is to be bound on a believer. In the absence of a direct book, chapter and verse reference – and I mean a very clear statement of God’s intent – I believe that we are debating man’s reasoned conclusions, not God’s law.

My concern is that there is much (IM/acappella, one cup or many, institutionalism, versions of the Bible, even the regulative principle itself) which is passed off by the Church as being found in God’s word where direct commands by God are sorely lacking. While enforcing our reasoned conclusions as to God’s commands we choose to ignore or minimize other, rather more direct commands, examples and inferences (house church vs building, ladies wearing head coverings, female deacons) by claiming cultural change or expediency.

It was my impression that the whole purpose of this discussion is to find out “why?” we have fallen into this pattern, how we reconcile discrepancies, and how we decide who is in fellowship with us and who is not.

By: Dell Kimberly

Dell Kimberly — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:36:26 +0000

Kieth, I hope I am wrong but I tend to believe this assertion made by Gregory is just an attempt to muddy the water. The questions posed by Jay concerning the things Gregory has previously written need to be addressed. This is the problem with discussions such as this. It is hard to pin someone down on what they actually believe. Either one stands behind the things he has written or he doesn’t.

By: Keith Brenton

Keith Brenton — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:03:59 +0000

I would have to say that the assertion that the progressive movement is hostile to the doctrine of inerrancy is a generalization and pretty hard to pin down. Are there folks who describe themselves as part of a progressive movement, or have they been labeled that by folks who disagree with some of what they believe?

Is a person hostile to the doctrine of inerrancy who does not see all scripture as literal, but still true?

Is a person hostile to the doctrine of inerrancy who does not see all scripture as law and commandment, but still true?

Is a person hostile to the doctrine of inerrancy who does not see all of God’s specific instructions to individual people in certain eras and circumstances as God’s instructions generally for all people throughout all generations?

Is any of this relevant to the questions Jay asked in good faith, or simply an attempt to derail them by indirectly asserting that Jay, as one whom Gregory terms “progressive”, would not accept the answers because hedoes not accept scripture?

If that’s the case, why not just say so?

By: Terry

Terry — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:39:53 +0000

I agree that the acceptance of biblical inerrancy is essential. I hope I’m not in the minority on this issue, but we need to trust what God has inspired. We need to trust his honesty and knowledge. It goes to the character of the God who inspired the Scriptures.

By: Dell Kimberly

Dell Kimberly — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:43:00 +0000

This is a problem with discussions such as this. Gregory has apparently chosen not to stand behind what he has written. Instead he brings in another argument to muddy the water and divert the pressure away from his writings. I would like to know, “Gregory do you still stand behind what you have written earlier?”

By: Darin

Darin — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:12:51 +0000

This idea of scripture is one that I have recently discussed on my blog.

I think this goes to the heart of the problem with the discussion as I related in part to Todd Deaver in an email.

I will be interested to hear a response though from the way the discussion has been portrayed, one side who honors scripture and one that doesn’t, I’m not sure anything productive will come of it.

I think the first key to honoring the inspired word would be to use the text for what they were intended for. One can not use the text of scripture for what they were not intended for and claim to be honoring God or the Word. You can’t be faithful to something if God did not inspire the writing for that purpose or ask someone to be faithful to it.

So one side portrays itself has honoring the Word when they use scripture for something that wasn’t intended and points back at the other side and says if you don’t agree with us you don’t honor the Word. Then we bring out any number of groups that have went astray all the while ignoring many groups who have the same practices and yet remain conservative and Christ-centered.

For further clarification it might help to read the thoughts on my blog as they relate to the development of the early church.

(P.S. I have no real idea about this issue as it relates to God’s Holy Fire. I don’t know what point it makes that causes such a stir.)

By: Bob Brandon

Bob Brandon — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:34:35 +0000

“Since Jay has an affinity for the clear definitions of checklists, I wonder, would he be willing to tell us how much of the word of God he feels is in error and how much he feels to be true?”

Tidwell, if you’re going to be snarky…

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:20:52 +0000

We can learn a lot about how to use the scriptures by noting how Jesus used them. He said not a letter, not a stroke of the pen would pass from the law until everything is accomplished. So he clearly thought every word was authoritative. The scriptures he had in mind were probably 1500 years old when Jesus said that, and he didn’t even hint that they were culturally limited or outdated. Jesus didn’t quarrel about the accuracy (or not) of the Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew. He didn’t quarrel about who wrote the books of the Law, or the prophets. He quoted the scripture as the final word to settle any argument. And he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, that they would be his messengers to all the world, and that they would speak with his authority.

So that’s how I, as one “progressive” voice, believe we should use the scriptures today.

By: Dell Kimberly

Dell Kimberly — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:49:23 +0000

Gregory,
Thanks for your post and efforts. We know how you feel about Scripture. Could you please tell us if you continue to hold the same views you espouse in your writings? As a reader following this discussion, I am very interested in reading the answers you give to the things Jay has listed. These are your writings and I am interested in knowing if you still hold these views.