| Re: What is the true test of scripture?|
by Charles C. Ryrie moody press 1981 p77
"The second temptation also illustrates the importance of plenary inspiration. Satan tried to intice the Lord to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple by assuring Him that he could claim the promise of psalms 91:11-12 that Gods angels would guard Him. But in quoting those verses Satan omitted part of verse 11: "to guard you in all your ways." The omission distorts the meaning of the promise, which is that God will keep the righteous on their journeys,not that He will preserve them when they take needless risks. A needless risk was exactly what Satan had proposed to Christ. The Lord replied that to bank on part of a verse would be to tempt God. Instead He would rely on every word that came from God,including every word of Psalms 91:11-12."
No doubt this will sound arrogant if it does I apologise but its time to say it plainly.
This observation given by Mr Ryrie is itself partially true, in that had Christ thrown Himself down, an act which would ordinarily have lead to His death, He would have been taking a needless risk. Yet Christ came to die. Surly the reality in this use of scripture by Satan had more to do with trying to get Christ to act independently of the Father will as evidenced by Messianic prophecy in scripture. Jesus revealed in John gospel that He had authority to lay down [His] life, and to take it back again. Also there are several clear examples in the gospels where Jesus simply walked away from danger by His own authority in determining the time and manner of His death according to Messianic prophecy and He shall stretch out His arms, and not the will of men or angels. Even in the garden Jesus told Peter that if He desired it He could call upon hosts of angels to come to His defence when the temple guards came to arrest Him by violence. To place the emphasis else where is really to miss the deeper purpose of Satan quoting scriptures in order to tempt Jesus.
And herein lies the problem with how we understand scriptures.
Inerrancy is not the real issue. To know that the word of God is trustworthy is a matter of faith as well as obedience. Satan didnt distort the passage in the way it is often claimed. Quiet the reverse as a matter of simply reading the psalm and the quotation of the psalm. This one verse may well have been taken out of the fullness of the meaning of the psalm but even this does not change the reality of what the wicked one said. The angels were given charge over Christ and Christ Himself confirmed it both in this second temptation, by not rebuking Satan in the same way He rebuked the pharisees who themselves accused Christ of labouring by the power of Satan in denial of the truth; thereby blaspheming the Holy Spirit; but also in the garden by direct expression and confirmation of it to Peter attempt to defend Him against the violence which was about to be done to Him. Moreover the first attempt to arrest Jesus resulted in the whole guard being thrown to the floor. If Satan had been able to throw Jesus to His death, he would surly have done so. Just as the storm which raged against Christ on the waters was surly against Him, yet He was able to rebuke the wind and the waves. The fact is he wasnt able to harm Christ at all, because as the Lord said at the supper table, behold the ruler of this world cometh, and he has nothing in Me. This is the real meaning of the passage, not some spurious attempt to give another meaning to keep the righteous on their journey. The passage has to do with Christ Himself and not all men. It is a Messianic prophecy which must be true or else the scripture itself is proven false.
This is the only basis for testing the scriptures. Does God Himself bear witness of what is written, evidenced by its outworking in the visibility of men and angels? Or does it fall to the ground? All of this speaks to the futility of trying to prove the scriptures by whatsoever means other than by comprehending that the gospel of Christ is the spirit of prophecy and all that is written therein is life and light. Just as in John gospel in speaking about His death and the shedding of His blood, Jesus said except a man eat of my body and drink of my blood He can have no life in himself. To which a number of those who followed Him were no longer able to believe in Him because they were no longer able to believe in the words which Christ spoke concerning His body and blood, saying this is too difficult a thing to believe; then they left. The Lord said to His chosen apostles shall you leave me also? To which Peter said, to Whom else shall we turn, you have the words of life. The apostles no more understood the meaning of the Lord words than the other followers did. Yet Peter knew that Christ was the One Who was able to give life.
The whole purpose and the only purpose of scriptures is to reveal Christ crucified for sin. It is a mystery which was kept hidden for ages past and is still hidden from the one who does not put their faith in Christ Himself and none other. Any one can quote scriptures most accurately and even learn the original language they were written in, but this of itself will not produce life unless the scripture is proven true by God and not men.
| 2013/2/10 18:41|
| Re: |
Belief in the word of God does not rest on the doctrine of believing they are without error. But rather belief in the truth of God's word comes from a work of the Holy Spirit. It hs the Spirit who convicts of sin, judgement, and righteousness.
Paul reminds us that his preaching were not with wise and pursuavive words. But with a demonstration of the power of God. So that one's faith may not rest one man's wisdom but on the power of God.
In these discussion it quite easy to overlook the role of the Holy Spirit.
| 2013/2/10 20:19|
| Re: |
I agree with you, Bear.
Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe(s). He "commands all men everywhere to repent."
He bought all men with a price. Those who do not submit to him as Lord are rebels and will be treated as such.
We do not owe allegiance to the scriptures, we owe allegiance to The King.
That being said, I certainly agree that the HS will use the scriptures to lead us to the King.
Regarding inerrancy, I guess an example would be helpful. I know some numbers may be off in Chronicles, but I am wondering if Wayneman can give an example of a supposed contradiction that "makes a difference."
I used to think that the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection were inconsistent and irreconcilable, until I heard a good teacher explain that while different, they are not irreconcilable.
| 2013/2/10 21:10||Profile|
| wayneman |
PP asked "What scripture did Jesus use to prove the resurrection of the dead with the Sadducees ??"
wayneman correctly wrote: ///Exodus 3:6 - "'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'" Matt. 22:32///
When I discovered this I could not believe it, Jesus made the case for the resurrection of the dead based on the verb tense of (I am) rather than (I was). He was making this point using copies of copies that where about 1500 years after the original writings. He had just told the Saduccess that they erred not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. This doctrine astonished the multitude.
When I discovered this I looked throughout books to see if anyone else had noticed this reality, most books on inspiration do not ever mention it, I finally came across 2 books the one is by a German Gerhard Maier 'The end of the historical critical method' the other by Ryrie that I quoted before.
I do not find anything in scripture ever undermining its own authority, even though I will agree that the letter without the Spirit killeth it breaks us, It did me after I regained my trust in it, the fear that I spoke of in the last post still plauged me and even more after I regained trust in the scripture and years had passed, it was not something I could just throw off by forgetting. I am thankful now for it because otherwise I would not have trully known my own depravity.
My own sins some habitual hidden gross sins at the time, did not ever trully break me because I always rested in comparative righteousness because of the lack of authenticity I seen around me.
But that hidden fear in light of Scripture broke me. Rather I was destined to Hell or not,I had know where else to turn but to the Cross, when I trully did I experienced an instant realm of Grace and instantly the Bible changed from a Book of Laws to a Book of Grace, and instantly a question that I had always asked myself about Cain and Able was answered.
So I understand how trusting in the dead letter is futile but even if someone whom is not not enlightened actually stops viewing scripture from a preconcieved lens and starts believing its nature as it reveals of its self than it is going to do its 1st purpose and that is as a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that it works in accordance with faith to for doctrine and for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That we may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
wayneman wrote ///Anyway, we are closer together than I first thought. I also experienced that agony of doubt. Ever since I first heard the Gospel I have known deep down inside that it is Truth, even when I was intellectually convinced that the Bible was legend and folklore. It was the Mystics - Boehme, Law, Grubb,and Theologia Germanica - who rescued me from Doubting Castle.///
I have to admitt after I read your fist post, I had a sterotype of a more Liberal and not as real, as you have demonstrated in these last couple of post, I am enjoying the fellowship.
I am thankful for these Mystics rescueing you from the Doubting Castle. those are Some excelant quotes from the mystics, I have a William Law book but never spent much time in it, alot of the realities that is mentioned in those quotes I have gathered over time.
wayneman wrote ///I no longer rely reason, but on revelation///
That is wounderful.
I do not at all find that this underminds inerrancy but should also be applied to the Written Revelation as to gain more revelation.
Peter says of his personal eyewitnesses account of our Lord Jesus Christ majesty, and of his mystical experience on the Holy mount, where he personaly heard the voice from heaven he said of all of this: that we have a More Sure Word than even that of our own experience, and Peter says that it is the word of prophecy, the prophetic books in Scripture.
2 pet. ch 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
| 2013/2/10 23:34||Profile|
| amrkelly |
amrkelly wrote ///The whole purpose and the only purpose of scriptures is to reveal Christ crucified for sin. It is a mystery which was kept hidden for ages past and is still hidden from the one who does not put their faith in Christ Himself and none other///
I would disagree that the only purpose of scripture is to reveal Christ crucified for sin, that indeed is the schoolmaster part,
but scripture it's self says that it is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
When we accept it as a Holy and perfect book with every Jot and tittle being placed exactly as Gods sovereign hand as willed it to be placed, it very much becomes a spirtual book, the Most Spirtual Book and the deepest book.
When we except the seeming contridictions as sovereignly placed and trust those contridictions as a means of showing us deeper realities and meanings we push into spirtual realities.
I understand the negativity toward the fundamentalist that fights hand and nail for inerrancy and yet never experiences spirtual realities but I do not find that this negates Gods sovereign hand in placing the exact Jot and tittle that He wants for our generation.
| 2013/2/10 23:58||Profile|
| Re: What are your thoughts?? For a mature faith does inerrancy matter?|
I understand the negativity toward the fundamentalist that fights hand and nail for inerrancy and yet never experiences spirtual realities but I do not find that this negates Gods sovereign hand in placing the exact Jot and tittle that He wants for our generation. proudpapa
Yes and therefore remembering or else comprehending that this generation is more blasphemous, lawless and wicked than any other since the foundation of the world should give us cause for deep concern over the "kind" of bible God will permit at a time of apostasy and rebellion in His own house.
Therein lies the explanation as to why we have so many useless and contrary versions of the bible.
| 2013/2/11 4:27|
| Re: |
"I am wondering if Wayneman can give an example of a supposed contradiction that 'makes a difference.'"
Significantly, NO! All of the discrepancies in the scriptures, including those I listed in my first post, are trivial. From Genesis to Revelation there is a remarkable continuity in the things that really matter - e.g., there are 18 factual discrepancies between the 4 gospel accounts of Calvary and the Resurrection, but all agree on what really matters: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead and lives forever.
On doctrinal issues such as Election and the Second Coming, apparent contradictions are resolved in terms of *paradox*. Divine truth is always paradoxical. The carnal mind does not like paradoxes; its nature is to think along the lines of either/or, but God's truth often is both/and: *both* election *and* free will. Religious rationalists cannot abide this, so they embrace a "moeity" (one-half of the truth) and call it "total truth" or "systematic theology."
Systematic theology is an effort to encapsulate divine truth in a closed, finite system that answers all questions. This is closer to gnosticism than faith.
Perhaps the Lord loaded the Bible with paradoxes and evidences of human frailty to help us resist the temptation to make an idol of the Bible, or make ourselves systematic theologians.
This thread is based on a contentious topic, and had the potential to degenerate into a brawl. Happily, that has not happened. This is a good discussion.
I have participated in this thread in the hope that anyone who is in Doubting Castle because of some doctrine of inspiration that they heard in Sunday School will see that 1.) They are not the only ones; 2.) They are making things unnecessarily complicated by taking Pop Theology seriously; 3.) There is no reason to remain in doubt of the testimony of the apostles and prophets; 4.) The Bible is not our teacher; it is the textbook of the One Great Teacher. John 14:26
| 2013/2/11 6:47||Profile|
| Re: |
so in other words i am correct; we can not trust that the scriptures we have now are true. if u say "parts of it are true" then i ask "which parts? how do u know? r the true parts just the parts u like?"
u all write pages and pages of words. they mean nothing. u have brought the very scriptures in2 question. basically what each of u are saying is a quote as old as the garden of eden: "hath god said?" (loosely translated means "did god really say this? i doubt it. how could u ever know for sure?"
sad. very sad.
i like this board, and am beginning 2 feel a little more accepted here than i did originally, but i must say that there is much compromise on this board. catholic mystics are given credence and the scriptures r doubted 2 the point where the average reader of this board can easily walk away thinking "why believe the bible? they dont!"
| 2013/2/11 8:20||Profile|
| Re: |
None of the mystics I named were Catholic, and Theologia Germanica was Luther's second-favorite book. No one is assaulting the Bible; I am calling to account that form of Protestant Priestcraft that teaches us to put our faith in the Book rather than the One the Book points us to.
| 2013/2/11 8:46||Profile|
| Re: |
when i referred to catholic mystics i was referring to other conversations on this board where we are encouraged to consider the words of certain catholic mystics.
as for the rest of ur post, i have no idea what ur saying. "priestcraft"? sounds like a video game.
a little less showing off our intellect and a little more plain speak.
| 2013/2/11 8:53||Profile|