The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

Theology
#621

I found this interesting paragraph, from:

The Orthodox Faith - Word of God

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

So their position - and mine - is that there can be contradictions in Holy Scripture. But not in

the relationship between God and the world

Anyway, I mentioned that I know the husband…of contemporary, Old Catholic mystic - Tiffany Snow…he’s an Old Catholic Church priest. And she is a contemporary, Christian mystic. Let me share an article of hers - regarding her visions:

The Third Secret ‘The Secret’ Didn’t Tell You

Let me quote a bit of “radical” stuff, from the article:

I was first awakened by a lightning-strike and near-death experience in 1999. Since then, there has been continual communion with the other side and further choices to empirically experience Divine Love through times of stigmata, which began in 2005. I have learned many deeper things and further clarity on things that are popular and already known. So for me, since I had come from a traditional religious background, one of my first questions was; “What religion is the right one?” The answer: “All those who love me.” Another question; “Are the Holy Scriptures complete?” The answer: “All the Holy Books are incomplete, so that man may reach out to me, and I will greet him, and he will know me by name.” All this made sense to me more than anything before, and empirical experience made it something I couldn’t ignore.

That’s enough to ponder for now!

“Divine love has always met and will always meet every human need” - Mary Baker Eddy

“Stop thinking about the difficulty and think about God instead.” - Golden Key - Emmet Fox

#622

So how might that be determined as being a kosher means of defining so-called truth when many from contrary views will all say… I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’ — none too convincing at all IMO.

And as for this so-called bracket of truth and misattribution, hmm well I’m not so sure. If God didn’t do it then God certainly didn’t say it either, so the ONLY option according to this interpretive thesis reads as follows…

Gen 6:5-7 Then the Lord Satan saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord Satan was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord Satan said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

More like taking a hatchet to the truth. IF Moses who spoke ‘face to face’ with God didn’t know, couldn’t recognise or understand the voice of God then I wouldn’t be looking to any of his words as being classified as ‘inspired’ at all.

#623

Davo to Hermano.

Very true. I mentioned earlier, I hung around - for a year or so…with Christian Scientists, who taught that everything - is mind and ideas…and clergy from the Liberal Catholic Church…who taught that Christ, was teaching Esoteric Christianity…BOTH would say, that the Holy Spirit guided them. Even those having visions of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3), would say the same thing.

And this car salesmen, is probably saying…that the Holy Spirit is guiding him, in selling the right car.

But let me add a caveat. If you take the systems of folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox…and instead of a theology and philosophy, turn them into a contemplation…on the Omnipotence, Omnipresence,. Omniscience .and Goodness of God…you will have all, that TV preachers like Joel Osteen teach…And if would be fully compatible with Christian theology, as most folks see it.

#624

When discussing the Bible, people identified as genuine Christians are often “all over the map” on any given doctrinal question, even as they advance their competing experts and evidence; so inarguably, we Christians are not all being led by the Spirit, all the time.

Honestly, should any of us say, “I choose doctrinal position ‘x’ because that is what the majority believes”? Don’t most of us say, on some occasion, “I have prayerfully considered several different positions, and ‘y’ is what I discern to be best, at least at this time, regardless of that putting me in the minority”?

The question isn’t which interpretation is traditional, or acceptable to the majority; but which one we ourselves, after prayerfully considering the alternative arguments, believe before God to be right. (I know you agree, so I don’t really understand your warning against “I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’.” After all, ultimately, all of us are subjective in our personal choices about our doctrinal positions.)

I believe Moses’ understanding of God was hit-and-miss—like yours, mine, and Peter’s:

Matthew 16:15-17
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:22-23
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Everything in the Scriptures is not of equal value or validity; some verses have predominance over others. As Professor C.S. Cowles said in his essay Scriptural Inerrancy? “Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way” [emphasis mine]—

A “more excellent way” of thinking about the plethora of human and even anti-divine personalities that speak and act throughout the Bible is to recognize that— contrary to Calvin’s determinism— God not only created human beings with genuine freedom but allowed them to exercise their free will and express themselves accordingly. In doing so he was not the least bit threatened by what they might say or do. God did not prompt the serpent or Jacob or King David or anybody else to lie. Rather, he took these occasional twisted strands of falsehood and foolishness, and wove them with the truth about himself and life into a wondrous tapestry of “God-breathed” revelation that brings glory to his name, and contributes to the overarching purpose of Scripture which is the salvation of lost humankind.

To reiterate: my fundamental hermeneutic tool for interpreting Scripture (a tool I prayerfully accepted and prayerfully retain) centers on the clear contrast Jesus made between Satan and himself —

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 (ESV)

[With these assumptions when interpreting that verse:
“the thief” is the devil; God is unchanging; Jesus exactly represents God.]

Hence, whenever any other given Bible verse appears to indicate that God threatens people (vs. warns people), or kills people, I reject that assertion as a case of misattributing to God what Jesus clarified to actually be of Satan.

I assert that this overruling (John 10:10) filter resolves discrepancies throughout the Bible regarding God’s true nature of love: God is only about abundant life, no matter what anyone else says.

1 Like
Progressive Theology
Progressive Theology
#625

When love itself becomes a god, it becomes demonic - C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

Lewis points out in “The Four Loves” that although God is love , not all love is God . He says that if any type of love became a god , it would, in fact, become a demon. We see this in how EU attributes acts of God to Satan. EU blasphemes the holy (Supra Rational).

It was of erotic love that the Roman poet said, “I love and hate,” but other kinds of love admit the same mixture. They carry in them the seeds of hatred. If Affection is made the absolute sovereign of a human life the seeds will germinate. Love, having become a god, becomes a demon. ~~ C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

#626

If God is love, then truly practicing love (agape) reflects the character of God. I don’t know what it would mean that agape “love becomes a god.” I actually think its’ importance is underrated.

#627

Right.
Agape love can never be demonic. God can never be an idol.

2 Likes
#628

It shows up in how you blaspheme the Holy. God is light (holiness) as well as love. God’s love is a holy love. Holiness when applied to God refers to everything that separates Him from His creatures and creation. It refers to moral purity but isn’t limited to it. God’s love is no mere human love. There are ways we are like God and ways we are not. For example:

God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge and sees all events, past present future

God is all knowing

God is all-powerful

God is self sufficient

God is omnipresent

God is sovereign over the universe

We are none of these things. All God’s attributes are holy. His justice is a holy justice. His wisdom a holy wisdom, His love a holy love. Jesus and the Father are one. Therefore the Holy God of the OT is the same as the Christ of the NT. God’s essence is Holiness. He is

Infinitude

Immensity

Justice

Mercy

Grace

Omnipresence

Perfection

Self-Existence

Transcendence

Eternalness

Immutability

Wisdom

Sovereignty

Faithfulness

Love

You’ve made love into a god like C.S. Lewis states. This is demonic. You call the Holy God of the Bible unjust and less moral than your intuitions of human love.

#629

I hardly understood a word of that, I’m sorry to say.
I know that you are aware that there are many words in Greek that we have translated as Love?
I was talking about AGAPE love - which by definition is the highest love, and if it devolves into something else it is no longer AGAPE.
Agape love can never be demonic.

#630

Gen 6:5-7 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

So… through much considered prayerful interpretation you affirm the Holy Spirit has led you into a knowledge that this text above (which you previously use to bolter your claim) actually speaks of SATAN and not YAHWEH… have we got that absolutely correct on this text??

#632

The apostle John wrote twice in 1 John, that God IS LOVE (verses 8 and 16). The word that he used for “love” was “αγαπη” (agape). In saying that God IS LOVE, he was not merely saying that LOVE is one of God’s attributes, but rather His very essence.

3 Likes
#633

I affirm that any text that ascribes slaughtering people to God is misattribution. Davo, I just laid out my whole case to you above, the thrust of it being,

Specifically regarding the Genesis worldwide Flood, as you may recall, I have addressed it in several threads in this forum; for example, here:

And again, here:

#634

Ok… so I accept that you read Gen 6:5-7 as fully attributable to Satan, and NOT God… I suggest from this your whole case does more violence to the reliability of Scripture than anything else. And your assertion that the Holy Spirit has guided you in this is a huge call, and it hardly seems fair to then tarnish the writer of Genesis with your own “hit-and-miss” modus operandi that really is… “all over the map”.

IF as you say God is Satan in this passage then how Hermano do you have ANY confidence in the reliability of the actual Flood story at all? Your view actually and TOTALLY undermines all other Flood-related texts in the bible — they all, including Jesus, were fully deceived believing as the text ACTUALLY STATES that such was of God; as was the fire rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah etc, etc, etc.

Jesus had very stern words about attributing the hand of God as being the hand of Satan… :thinking:

#635

The problem with attributing ALL to Satan…rather than God “somehow”, allowing bad things to happen (or ever “initiating” them) - is this…WHY is God allowing Satan, a free hand - to do what he wants?

And didn’t the Devil, first need to get God’s “buy-in” - in Job?

In my book, whether we attribute bad things - to God allowing (and/or doing) it…or to the Devil, but God allowing the Devil - to do the bad stuff…Is the same, theological and philosophical problem.

image
image.jpg800×600 175 KB

2 Likes
#636

Not only that Randy… what Hermano advocates completely undermines the atonement at every turn to where it effectively becomes non-existent, i.e., the blood on the lintel and door posts signifying GOD’S Passover NOT SATAN’S Passover in that GOD not Satan DELIVERED Israel from bondage, as per…

Ex 12:7-8, 11-12 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. — And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover. ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

To deny the Passover as Hermano’s position does is toxic for the Gospel… in fact it obliterates the it, i.e., Christ’s sacrifice has NOTHING to stand on.

#637

RIP to your grandmother Qaz. Mines passed away recently as well. I wish you much peace henceforth.

#639

Hermano, while I agree with you that God doesn’t kill people and that He is LOVE itself, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), I am surprised that you think all those learned translators have mistranslated 2 Peter 2:5. The rendering you have offered above is impossible because of the grammar of the passage. If “the world of the ungodly” did the action of bringing on the flood, then “world” would be in the nominative case (as subject). However it is in the genitive case and thus must be translated “of the world.”

So the translators have it right. It’s just that the author (believed not to have been the apostle Peter) had it wrong. Clearly he followed the Hebrew writings which affirm that God brought on the flood.

I think we have to make up our minds about the character of God as revealed by the only-begotten God (John 1:18 in early manuscripts) who is also the only-begotten Son of God, begotten as the first of God’s acts. Surely He understood the character of His Father! And the Son was Another exactly like the Father, the exact image of the Father’s essence (Heb 1:3). Prior to the Son’s revelation of His Father’s character, that character was misunderstood by the ancient Hebrews.

And how did the Son of God reveal the character of His Father?

  1. God is kind to ungrateful people and to evil people (Luke 6:35). If He is kind to them, clearly He doesn’t kill them.

  2. Jesus taught His disciples:
    I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44, 45 NAS95)

Jesus disciples, who were brought up with the Hebrew mindset of striking out at their enemies, asked Jesus a question:

…He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”

But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” (Luke 9:52-56)

Didn’t Jesus suggest here that to lash out and kill people whom you think do not treat you right has its origin in a different spirit—that is, an evil spirit?

So if we are Christians, we will accept Jesus’ teachings about the character of God and reject the understanding of the OT writers or the writer of 2 Peter who believed them.

I know many greatly fear disbelieving anything that has been written in every manuscript that has been collected into the library we call “the Bible” (The Book). I remember one Christian teacher saying that if we think there’s anything in the Bible that is false, we might as well throw the whole thing away! For such people, the Bible seems to be a God; everything that is written therein is presumed true. The disciple of Christ, on the other hand, believes that everything which Jesus said, is true.

#640

I recall Peter affirming that God sent the Flood, and that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:4-6), but I don’t recall Jesus affirming these as being from God.

But I do recall Jesus saying,

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…." John 16:12-13a.

Again, I believe Jesus exactly represents God (Heb. 1:3), and that God is unchanging (Js. 1:17). So, again, in line with other “You have heard it was said…but I say”-type corrections from Jesus—like my suggested John 10:10 hermeneutic filter—we remember the following confrontation about God’s true nature in Luke:

Luke 9:54-56 (KJV)
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

I would argue that in this Luke passage, the disciples were being influenced by Satan in wanting to kill people (as had been Elijah before them), not God.

#641

Well UNLIKE you Jesus didn’t airbrush away their texts… in fact he references BOTH these events (Lk 17:28-29) without any qualifying away nor negation by dismissal of their own accepted readings as per their Hebraic history — as per ALL Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. Consider the following…

Lk 17:26-29 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.

Sodom’s situation was LIKEWISE as had been Noah’s before… fully of God. “From heaven” is classic Jesus, meaning… from God! — Mt 3:17; 21:26; Jn 3:27 et al

No doubt you would foolishly argue this, BUT to declare their wrong spirit, i.e., heart attitude was borne of Satan is about as credible as YOUR FALSE CLAIM in attributing your same Satanic machinations to the prophet of God, as you say… “as had been Elijah before them” — just reading the source text TELLS YOU EXACTLY the truth which is a mile from what you are saying…

2Kgs 1:10, 12 So Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, “If I am a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. … So Elijah answered and said to them, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

Did you read that Hermano?… “the fire of God” — NOT fire of Satan BUT fire of God!

Little wonder your present day “universalism” struggles gaining traction and credibility with this constant and rank aborting of the biblical texts. :roll_eyes:

1 Like
#642

The amount of illogical and unfounded text-twisting, editing and deleting you guys wreak upon the biblical text just to prop up your own doctrinal inventions goes unsurpassed — you could just try believing the text and adjust your beliefs to suit, not vice versa.

God didn’t by some intemperate fit of rage lash out and kill anyone… He was deeply grieved at the continual and increasing preponderance of evil that was running rampant, to which He in Noah was hitting the restart button, which had He not intervened in the Flood such contagion of wickedness would have spread further across the land — yes, the Flood was local, limited to the world as those ancients there and then knew it.

Well no Paidion, you’d better count yourself out of that crowd because actually, no, you don’t believe that… “everything which Jesus said, is true” — as you are on record as typically dismissing the likes of…

Rev 2:21-23 And I gave her time to repent (Lk 13:3, 5) of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Mt 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Lk 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

Given your own slap-stick approach to the bible WHY don’t you consider it just as legitimate to call into question… ‘God is love’ — like you have little to no qualms in besmirching the veracity of Scripture as illegitimate as it suits your own doctrinal ends — why now be so selective when there is as much credence (none) as anywhere else?