|
Post by Natalie on Apr 2, 2019 14:43:25 GMT -6
I just remembered something I had studied before for something else. Back in the early 1900s in order to combat some things that were coming into the church, some people got together and came up with 5 fundamentals of the faith: 1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions. 2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine. 3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind. 4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. 5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth. (Some also add that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation of the end times.) The above is copied from gotquestions answer to What is Fundamentalism? www.gotquestions.org/fundamentalism.htmlBasically, rule number one of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Apr 2, 2019 15:39:59 GMT -6
I just remembered something I had studied before for something else. Back in the early 1900s in order to combat some things that were coming into the church, some people got together and came up with 5 fundamentals of the faith: 1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions. 2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine. 3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind. 4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. 5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth. (Some also add that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation of the end times.) The above is copied from gotquestions answer to What is a Fundamentalist? www.gotquestions.org/fundamentalism.htmlBasically, rule number one of this forum. And this is what the "creeds" that were developed hundreds of years ago attempted to do. Establish a core set of beliefs that all Christians should be able to agree on as truth. Things outside these core principles were open to interpretation/debate. Examples are: The Apostles Creed The Athanasian Creed The Nicene Creed All of these are a good summary of core Christian doctrine. However, you will find very few Christians that will confess 100% of any of them. Some denominations recite 1 or more of them in services, some ignore them altogether.
|
|
|
Post by rt on Apr 2, 2019 18:30:54 GMT -6
So, changing the topic a bit...when we practice discernment and we run across someone who is teaching false things, then what? Obviously, we avoid them. But is it ok to name names of people who claim the title "Christian" yet preach things contrary to the Word? So my husband and I have first hand experience with trying to bring discernment to those whose teaching does not agree with scripture. On more than one occasion we have brought our concerns to our pastor(s). Though we did our best to do so with the right attitude, it was not received well. Our experience is that most men in church leadership really do not like being held accountable. As a result we were pushed out of our home church where we attended for over 30 years. Then we we had similar discussions with a subsequent pastor in another church, he too took offense and defended his position, even though we clearly showed where he was in error. These were not just matters of opinion but clear doctrinal error. We have even had discussions with family members who happen to be pastors, who also pull the "Pastor card" when we disagreed with them about interpretation, which shouldn't be as big a deal as doctrinal error. They became very defensive and made the claim that they are the one who is educated, not us. They went to seminary, not us. We didn't push it and our relationship remains intact but over and over I see this attitude from men who stand behind the pulpits. It is sad, when men's egos and pride keep them from learning, and exploring beyond the end of their own noses. Pastors do not have a corner on biblical understanding. Yes we should respect their position, we should pray for them and support them, we should love them. Part of loving others in the body is to pull them out of ditches and warn them when they are in danger of falling into one. But it seems to me that men in leadership often prefer to stay in the ditch then accept a helping hand out of it. As far as naming names goes, I am not sure how I feel about that. I think if you do not personally know the person, it may be better to just refute the teaching with the truth and leave names out of it. Otherwise go to them privately and hash it out. On the other hand, I do appreciate those ministries that call out these false teachers by name and explain what is wrong with their teachings. So I am on the fence with that one.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 2, 2019 20:22:21 GMT -6
As far as naming names goes, I am not sure how I feel about that. I think if you do not personally know the person, it may be better to just refute the teaching with the truth and leave names out of it. Otherwise go to them privately and hash it out. On the other hand, I do appreciate those ministries that call out these false teachers by name and explain what is wrong with their teachings. So I am on the fence with that one. Some would say those ministries shouldn't do that.
But I wonder if there can be a balance. Say I am attending a church that the pastor has fully embraced some sort of false doctrine. He's been approached about it and refuses to change. So, I leave the church. I do not think that it is biblical to go blabbing about town (or in the new church) that he is a false teacher. I do think that I could speak to other friends in the church about it and why it's false, but it's a private matter. However, there are well known pastors out there that I would not know to avoid if there's weren't people naming names. I would not have known about TD Jakes had I not read about him through one of those ministries. (There are others out there, but for the sake of this thread I picked Jakes because his doctrine is clearly wrong.) We see their books being sold or whatever and need to know what they teach. I think then it is also ok to warn others if we see them leaning towards those teachers.
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Apr 3, 2019 5:37:06 GMT -6
A little tangent...I think it's related to this discernment thread...I've been spending a lot of time on You Tube the past few months, and if you are discerning, you can clearly see the wolves in operation. You can see how many are being led astray, back into bondage to dead works. Many of these small You tube "ministries" espouse grace thru faith, but then very deceptively turn around and teach the sheep that they must do this that and the other thing (works) or risk being left behind. So I actually seek out these wolves and refute their false gospel as the Lord leads me.
But one of the channels I love very much is a guy by the name of David Benjamin. He has been teaching the true gospel of grace the past several months. Very knowledgeable, very articulate and very insightful where it relates to discerning the subtle lies that have crept into the church to confuse and enslave the sheep. He is a champion of the gospel of grace and shares it through the lens of his own journey, which has been a winding road that finally led to the truth.
He just posted a video last night that draws a distinction between those being led astray and those that are leading people astray..."More on the Difference between a Wolf and Someone Ensnared with Legalism".
I'd encourage you to watch this one and then go back into his other videos on grace. He has an amazing grasp of the gospel and all of Paul's teaching. They've been a great blessing to me, and I hope they will bless you, too.
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Apr 3, 2019 6:24:47 GMT -6
So, changing the topic a bit...when we practice discernment and we run across someone who is teaching false things, then what? Obviously, we avoid them. But is it ok to name names of people who claim the title "Christian" yet preach things contrary to the Word? So my husband and I have first hand experience with trying to bring discernment to those whose teaching does not agree with scripture. On more than one occasion we have brought our concerns to our pastor(s). Though we did our best to do so with the right attitude, it was not received well. Our experience is that most men in church leadership really do not like being held accountable. As a result we were pushed out of our home church where we attended for over 30 years. Then we we had similar discussions with a subsequent pastor in another church, he too took offense and defended his position, even though we clearly showed where he was in error. These were not just matters of opinion but clear doctrinal error. We have even had discussions with family members who happen to be pastors, who also pull the "Pastor card" when we disagreed with them about interpretation, which shouldn't be as big a deal as doctrinal error. They became very defensive and made the claim that they are the one who is educated, not us. They went to seminary, not us. We didn't push it and our relationship remains intact but over and over I see this attitude from men who stand behind the pulpits. It is sad, when men's egos and pride keep them from learning, and exploring beyond the end of their own noses. Pastors do not have a corner on biblical understanding. Yes we should respect their position, we should pray for them and support them, we should love them. Part of loving others in the body is to pull them out of ditches and warn them when they are in danger of falling into one. But it seems to me that men in leadership often prefer to stay in the ditch then accept a helping hand out of it. As far as naming names goes, I am not sure how I feel about that. I think if you do not personally know the person, it may be better to just refute the teaching with the truth and leave names out of it. Otherwise go to them privately and hash it out. On the other hand, I do appreciate those ministries that call out these false teachers by name and explain what is wrong with their teachings. So I am on the fence with that one. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. "Eph. 6:12
who better than the leader of a flock for the powers of darkness to attack? Pride is, IMO, the most dangerous and slippery. Yes, we must pray for our leaders and also keep learning, studying and praying that we can discern what is truth.
Great video, fitz . My wife and I experienced very similar condescending attacks in the WWCoG. Not knowing what else to do at the time, I tended to keep my distance from those people.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 3, 2019 8:21:36 GMT -6
Thank you for the video, fitz!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 3, 2019 8:59:53 GMT -6
Natalie said: Maybe a different approach is not name the teacher as a false (teacher, prophet, etc) rather identify the teaching and declare "that particular teaching that (insert name) promotes is not biblical". Leave it to the listener to ask questions about the teaching rather than the teacher. Then again there is this: 1Tim 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Paul has no issue naming names here or here (although probably same Alexander):
2Tim 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: 15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.I am not certain they were teaching false doctrines like we are speaking of in this thread. If they were resisting the gospel and promoting Judaism, then clearly but we experience different things today with our splintered church who have trouble getting along
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Apr 3, 2019 9:00:10 GMT -6
I just remembered something I had studied before for something else. Back in the early 1900s in order to combat some things that were coming into the church, some people got together and came up with 5 fundamentals of the faith: 1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions. 2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine. 3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind. 4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. 5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth. (Some also add that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation of the end times.) The above is copied from gotquestions answer to What is Fundamentalism? www.gotquestions.org/fundamentalism.htmlBasically, rule number one of this forum. Many, Many of these could be used for good (and for the most part are) BUT they can just as readily be twisted to into something completely wrong.... Thus the reason I tend to stay away from "creed" like statements.....
Let us take the first one as an example .... In fact I think the first one is most often used (and heard about) but it is also the biggest one abused.
The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.
On the SURFACE this seems pretty straight forward -- but it has been twisted so many ways -- it actually gets scary.
Let's start by looking at the first part "The Bible is literally true."
Great -- But is that "Literally true" -- in the Greek language? -- the Hebrew language? -- what about the English Language?
There is a huge following of the KJV ONLY movement in the USA ... Their belief is that the King James Version (some actually say only the 1611 version) is the only truly inspired word of God and is the ONLY inerrant version around.
Big problem though -- so many errors (including spelling, grammar, doctrine....) were found in the 1611 version -- that there were many "updates" to the KJV -- that the traditional KJ version of today (not the New KJ Version mind you) -- that over 80% were different between the two.
As far as contractions go ... here are a few to savor
Hmmm -- What Time to Use
Mark 15:25 says “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” – John 19:14-16 says “…about the sixth hour…they cried out…crucify him….Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.”
Hmmm -- what is in an age
2 Kings 24: 8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 36: 9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in Yahweh’s sight.
That is so tempting.... James 1:13 says “..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” –
Gen 22:1 says “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…”
Now are these errors or just contractions? (and there are MANY, MANY More)
(Yes, Yes -- many of these "errors" or "contractions" can be "explained away" -- in very plausible adjustments -- only problem is they (the issues) end up disagreeing with various text fragments -- which cause more adjustments)
AND That is just the Standard Literal inerrant view ... one also has to deal with the super Literal inerrant view
Let us take Dr. Michael Heiser -- for the record does NOT believe the Earth is Flat (see this article)
YET ... the "issue here" is a very Literal reading of the Old Testament which Dr. Heiser and other OT Scholars PROVE "... the biblical text describes a round, flat earth, complete with a covering dome, to which were affixed the stars..." THIS IS HOW HE DESCRIBES "My position is straightforward. The biblical writers do indeed describe a flat round earth ...They wrote about the world this way because they lived at a time before knowledge of the natural world was sufficient to demonstrate otherwise. But I don’t believe the earth is really flat “because the Bible tells me so.”
[NOTE: PLEASE FOLK -- I AM NOT starting a Flat earth debate here]
I am Simply POINTING OUT -- A Literal inerrant view -- can "PROVE" some really eye-opening things!!!!
My over all point is .... NO MATTER how "innocent" one of these statements seem to be ......... can be twisted in ways -- that people never intended........
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 3, 2019 9:20:30 GMT -6
Kj- yes, I know what you mean. Words can be misused
Sometimes number one is worded differently and states innerant in its original languages. The Bible says what God meant for it to say. Now whether passages should get interpreted literally is something else. And also whether translators get it always right because they have their own biases.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 3, 2019 9:53:35 GMT -6
Just thinking -- literally true can also be seen as the fact that everything in the Bible actually happened...God is Creator not evolution, the flood, the establishment of Israel, etc. These "fundamentals" were written to combat things like evolution and liberalism. The Bible is truth not fiction. (And these are simply a summary of what the group from the early 1900s set as fundamentals. They expounded on them in more detail in literature that was produced. And from the list of things they wrote about some of it is non-essentials. From what I can find, everything they wrote was originally produced in 12 volumes but has since been put into 4 volumes. In case anyone is interested.)
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Apr 3, 2019 12:30:59 GMT -6
Just thinking -- literally true can also be seen as the fact that everything in the Bible actually happened...God is Creator not evolution, the flood, the establishment of Israel, etc. These "fundamentals" were written to combat things like evolution and liberalism. The Bible is truth not fiction. (And these are simply a summary of what the group from the early 1900s set as fundamentals. They expounded on them in more detail in literature that was produced. And from the list of things they wrote about some of it is non-essentials. From what I can find, everything they wrote was originally produced in 12 volumes but has since been put into 4 volumes. In case anyone is interested.) Natalie I agree (and also the reason I tend to get placed in the Liberal Section (but I ain't))
I believe everything in the Bible Is Literally True -- meaning the recording of different stories and events are TRUE.
While it is very possible that God inspired the authors to write word for word -- I doubt that He (God) did so.
I think the Stories and events happen just as they are recorded... with the exception of the parables told by Jesus (or the direct quotes of Jesus) -- the literal conversations are not literally recorded.
For example when Abraham bargains with God over Sodom -- I think the bargaining takes place -- but the actual recorded conversation is mythologized (meaning the actual words were not those recorded -- simply a similar sounding conversation)....
But who knows I been called liberal before......... what is in a name.........
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Apr 3, 2019 13:55:43 GMT -6
well, hmm, this I am not so sure I agree with this comment kjs: For sure I don't see an actual angel of the Lord standing behind the writer physically. YET, the intricate spiritual meanings behind the Words can not happen by man alone. I can concede translational errors, and this too is by Design for which we will find out as the King comes to Reign, and we are revealed more truths. No man can "accidentally" describe the Spiritual situation behind a hardened heart. Over the course of the histories within the major and minor prophets are situations which may seem random or irrelevant, but have deeper meaning behind it. The greatest example that I can think of are the Psalms. I have no scriptural examples, but to me the overall layout of the prophets (northern vs southern kingdoms) and the bondage and besiegement though physically happened, the meaning behind it can mirror the struggle man has with God even to this day. ' There is nothing new under the Son' ..pun intended.
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Apr 3, 2019 15:08:11 GMT -6
[/quote] kjs For example when Abraham bargains with God over Sodom -- I think the bargaining takes place -- but the actual recorded conversation is mythologized (meaning the actual words were not those recorded -- simply a similar sounding conversation).... [/quote] Here's the thing...as I am sure you realize, the words that were recorded are of paramount importance. So when we think about how scripture was inspired, we need to have the understanding that the words recorded were exactly the words that God wanted to be used. While I don't think God dictated word for word, i.e. He allowed the writers personality and writing style to be expressed, that's obvious when we compare Paul's writing to John's to Peter's, etc., somehow, the Spirit of God made sure that the "correct" words were being recorded. This is why we put so much emphasis in using a Strong's concordance when we study. Because those words have specific and very important meanings in the Hebrew and Greek. Often times they do not mean what we think they mean in the English translation we are reading. So, my point is, while an actual word for word recounting of a conversation may not have been recorded, the words that were recorded are critical, and they were inspired directly by God. This is also why we see so much infighting over which translation is best. KJV-onlyism is an extreme example of this (and in my humble opinion it's borderline heresy because it elevates a translation to be equivalent to the original autographs). But Christians are right to be vigilant in protecting the authenticity in bible translations, and obviously we've done a pretty good job as most bible translations to this very day are amazingly accurate. This is also why a paraphrase version (NLT) is better for easily understanding the big picture of the overall message, and a word for word translation (KJV) is best used for deeper study.
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Apr 3, 2019 16:05:11 GMT -6
kjs For example when Abraham bargains with God over Sodom -- I think the bargaining takes place -- but the actual recorded conversation is mythologized (meaning the actual words were not those recorded -- simply a similar sounding conversation).... [/quote] Here's the thing...as I am sure you realize, the words that were recorded are of paramount importance. So when we think about how scripture was inspired, we need to have the understanding that the words recorded were exactly the words that God wanted to be used. While I don't think God dictated word for word, i.e. He allowed the writers personality and writing style to be expressed, that's obvious when we compare Paul's writing to John's to Peter's, etc., somehow, the Spirit of God made sure that the "correct" words were being recorded. This is why we put so much emphasis in using a Strong's concordance when we study. Because those words have specific and very important meanings in the Hebrew and Greek. Often times they do not mean what we think they mean in the English translation we are reading. So, my point is, while an actual word for word recounting of a conversation may not have been recorded, the words that were recorded are critical, and they were inspired directly by God. This is also why we see so much infighting over which translation is best. KJV-onlyism is an extreme example of this (and in my humble opinion it's borderline heresy because it elevates a translation to be equivalent to the original autographs). But Christians are right to be vigilant in protecting the authenticity in bible translations, and obviously we've done a pretty good job as most bible translations to this very day are amazingly accurate. This is also why a paraphrase version (NLT) is better for easily understanding the big picture of the overall message, and a word for word translation (KJV) is best used for deeper study. [/quote][/div]
I do not feel to strongly about my "conversation" belief to really argue.... BUT I do think most of the record conversations as fitz points out are more summations with only the critical parts included.
For example say you were at a Friday Night Football Game with some friends -- and various things were discussed. On Saturday morning you share the conversations with your next door neighbor -- unless you actually recorded it it will be simply a summation.
That is how I think conversations in the Bible are recorded (except as I pointed out Jesus explanations / parables )
BUT I DO not get so dogmatic about it -- that I care to prove it -- it is more just a feeling.....
|
|