How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

I have seen Jesus Christ and so have you, John; through the eyewitness testimony of the Disciples of Jesus Christ.

I see you skipped over my post because you can't take my challenge to prove that Jesus was/is the Son of God. Or prove that He is the creator. Both of these things have to be taken on faith, and unless you can come up with the proof, you have to admit that your beliefs are based on faith.

What gets me is the fact that you can just close your eyes to this obvious truth, and keep right on spouting the same nonsense.

What you said to John here is ridiculous. You can't see anybody through some words written on a page by someone else. (unless you have faith) Doesn't matter if they were eyewitnesses. Even the disciples who saw Jesus face to face could not prove that He was the Son of God. They had to take it on faith that He was what He said He was. Why do you think Jesus kept telling them to believe/have faith in something they could not prove over and over and over again? Here's a clue: IT WAS IMPORTANT!!

You have proven that you have faith in at least some parts of the Bible. So you need to stop telling people they don't need faith. It makes you look ignorant, and shows just how far off track you have really gone in your hubris.

I know most of your beliefs from talking to you over the months. And I would have to say that you have more faith than most.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

There are very, very few people who believe that Jesus was a turtle. Perhaps you should join that group.

Cool.

I agree. It's nice when a response is simultaneously succinct, to the point, and entertaining, to boot. Although, booting a turtle could be simultaneously deleterious and painful to non-steel-toed combatants.

[pnattmbtc]

What do you think about Christ's statement that it was expedient for Him to go away so that the Spirit would come? I've heard it said that if we had Christ in Person, we wouldn't want the Holy Spirit, but that just doesn't really explain it for me. Why could we not want and appreciate both?

Most of the things of God are solid, but this explanation is a little squishy for me.

Dya think they can't occupy the same space or something?

I think it's simply that as long as they were with Christ, they didn't feel the need of the Holy Spirit. Who can blame them? Wouldn't we have felt the same?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

What do you think about Christ's statement that it was expedient for Him to go away so that the Spirit would come? I've heard it said that if we had Christ in Person, we wouldn't want the Holy Spirit, but that just doesn't really explain it for me. Why could we not want and appreciate both?

Most of the things of God are solid, but this explanation is a little squishy for me.

Dya think they can't occupy the same space or something?

I think it's simply that as long as they were with Christ, they didn't feel the need of the Holy Spirit. Who can blame them? Wouldn't we have felt the same?

Ok, so we make the claim that the Holy Spirit can't work unless we ask Him to, and that we are not likely to ask Him to if we have Jesus with us in Person. He testifies of Christ and there's no need for Him to testify of Christ when Christ is right there.

But everywhere else in the world and throughout history the Holy Spirit has been at work in the hearts of men, right?

I dunno. I'm thinking there has to be a better explanation. Why can the HS not work in men's hearts while they are with Christ? Why does Christ have to go away in order to send the HS?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: musicman

I have seen Jesus Christ and so have you, John; through the eyewitness testimony of the Disciples of Jesus Christ.

I see you skipped over my post because you can't take my challenge to prove that Jesus was/is the Son of God. Or prove that He is the creator. Both of these things have to be taken on faith, and unless you can come up with the proof, you have to admit that your beliefs are based on faith.

What gets me is the fact that you can just close your eyes to this obvious truth, and keep right on spouting the same nonsense.

What you said to John here is ridiculous. You can't see anybody through some words written on a page by someone else. (unless you have faith) Doesn't matter if they were eyewitnesses. Even the disciples who saw Jesus face to face could not prove that He was the Son of God. They had to take it on faith that He was what He said He was. Why do you think Jesus kept telling them to believe/have faith in something they could not prove over and over and over again? Here's a clue: IT WAS IMPORTANT!!

You have proven that you have faith in at least some parts of the Bible. So you need to stop telling people they don't need faith. It makes you look ignorant, and shows just how far off track you have really gone in your hubris.

I know most of your beliefs from talking to you over the months. And I would have to say that you have more faith than most.

Thank you Richard for the nice compliment at the end of your post. Since you have said that faith and trust are the same thing then you may be right about me. Who knows.

What is this deal about proving Jesus is the Son of God, or Creator? What is it about proof from and eyewitness source that is so frightening to you? If you were in court, Richard, and the judge asked you (and 11 others) to make a determination as to the guilt of a person would you demand to see them actually commit the crime in real time in front of you so you could see the 'proof' of their infraction? Certainly not. You would be asked to determine their guilt or innocents based upon evident presented to the court. This evidence comes in two basic forms; eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is physical evidence that surrounds the presented situation. This is considered quality evidence as long as the chain of evidence has not been broken.

Eyewitness testimony, especially as it is corroborated by at least two people is the most substantial evidence there is, and trumps even circumstantial evidence in the hierarchy of evidentiary weight. Even in Scripture there must be two witnesses to convict a person of a capital crime.

When you couple corroborated eyewitness testimony with irrefutable circumstantial evidence there is no doubt as to whether a plaintiff is guilty or innocent of the charges. You as a juror do not have to see it with your own eyes for it to be valid. You believe because of the evidence presented.

No one is alive today on earth that was either at Creation from the Biblical perspective or at the Big Bang in the scientific perspective. There are no living eyewitnesses to either event (or both). But yet you still believe in the Biblical description of Creation. Why? Because of evidence, both in Scripture and in science. You have weighed the evidence (hopefully) from both sides and made your determination. This determination is not based upon mere faith, but on trust in the evidence presented.

If faith has any function in the process of discovering truth then what you have found as a result isn't true, you just think it is. This is why I keep saying that faith and facts are polar opposites; if you have facts then what is the need for faith; if you have faith then the facts don't matter.

There is lots of evidence that Jesus Christ is/was the Son of God; that evidence is supplied by credible eyewitnesses (more than one) to who Jesus was, what He did, and how He did it. There were three eyewitnesses on the mount of Transfiguration as to the nature of Jesus Christ. Peter declared Jesus to be the Son of God in front of at least two additional eyewitnesses, not counting himself. The most credible eyewitness was Jesus Himself, who declared Himself to have been with the Father before the creation of the world. The words and action of Jesus Christ point to someone who was 'other-worldly', and these words and actions where testified to by at least two credible eyewitnesses, even by modern standards.

When you see Jesus Christ coming in the clouds of glory will you need witnesses to testify to you about that fact? No, you will see for yourself. Will you need faith to believe He is actually there in the sky overhead? No. And no one else will need help understanding either. Both the righteous and the wicked will know what is happening because they will see it. No one will be surprised, no will will not know of His coming, everyone will react either with shouts of joy or cries of sorrow at His appearing.

No, Richard, I don't have 'faith' that this will happen, I KNOW it will happen because of the testimony of eyewitnesses, who heard the prophecies from the 'Man' Himself, Jesus Christ. This not only includes Matthew, Peter (via Mark) and John, but also Daniel and John as the Revelator.

Am I being unreasonable in saying that I choose to take the words of the actual eyewitnesses to the life, words and prophecies of Jesus Christ than to those who have only gathered hearsay evidence? Hearsay is not called evidence in a court because it has no standing. If my eternal life hangs in the balance I want the weight of evidence to be on the side of truth not lies. And that requires to most solid and verifiable evidence there is.

[Guest]

Will you need faith to believe He is actually there in the sky overhead? No. And no one else will need help understanding either. Both the righteous and the wicked will know what is happening because they will see it.

You spent a lot of time dancing around the one fact that I wanted you to see, because you refuse to admit that you see it. I expected as much, but you're just being dishonest.

Of course you won't need faith after you see Him in the sky. That's a given. But you cannot prove what has not happened yet. You believe He will come because you have faith that He will.

God has always tested the faith of his servants from Adam and Eve all the way down to John the Revelator. And even further down the line to Huss and Jerome. And even our faith will be tested. But here you are saying you don't need any faith. Isn't that special.

Go back and read how God tested the faith of Noah, by having him build an ark and preach about something no one had ever seen. (even him)

Go back and read how God tested Abraham's faith by telling him to kill his own son.

Go back and read how He tested Job's faith by letting Satan take away all that he had.

Go back and read how He tested Danniel's faith by letting him be thrown in the lion's den.

Read also how He tested the faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, by allowing them to be thrown into the fire.

I could go on and on. How can you look at these things and say: "God does not require faith"?

Look at how God regards people who have no faith. He turns his back on them.

Deu 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

Jesus didn't want people to believe in Him because they had proof. He wanted them to believe on Him without proof. Look at what He says here:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

He held in low esteem those who had little faith and rebuked them.

Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O you of little faith, why did you doubt?

Mat 8:26 And he said unto them, Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?

Isa 7:9 ....If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.

And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, ....Of sin, because they believe not on me; Joh 16:8,9

Joh 8:24 ...for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

He even forgave sins because of faith.

Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick, a paralytic, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the paralytic; Son, be of good cheer; your sins be forgiven you.

Which by the way, is the only way your sins can be forgiven.

Faith is the foundation of what it takes to live Godly in this world. Both in the old testament, and the new.

Habakkuk 2:4 ....but the just shall live by his faith.

Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering said unto them, Have faith in God.

And finally the reason I know you have great big gobbs of faith, is because of that kooky stuff you believe in. You make wild and far reaching asumptions about things that are not biblical, you put words in Jesus' mouth that he never said, and you gloss over and discount things that he did say. (the importance of faith is just one of them)

You believe the Holy Spirit is a woman, you rearrange the meaning and understanding of prophecy from that which was given to William Miller, Ellen White, and the rest of our founding pioneers, and you are so wise in your own eyes that you have thrown away the prophet and most of the New Testament.

In fact you are so wise in your own eyes, that you actually believe that you are the only three people that God has given this amazing new end time truth to. And anyone who does not see this bizarre twisting of scripture the way you do is simply not one of the wise, as spoken of in the book of Daniel. And I can quote all three of you as having said that.

So don't tell me you don't have faith. You have loads of faith. It's misplaced, but you have plenty. I guess someone could make the case that it is only hubris and arrogance, made to look like faith. And I don't know that I could argue with them. Hmmmm, maybe it's not faith after all.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, lets not dance around anymore. I KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God because of the prophecy in Dan. 2 about the Kingdom of Heaven (stone cut out w/o hands) Dan. 8:14 and Matthew 25 tells us about the timing for this event and a description of who they are and this is so dead right that it makes me shudder. Yes, it happened right on time. Dan. 9:24 is also about time and the KOH was taken away, again right on time. Matthew 21:43 shows that only the Son of God could know this and it would come true.

Matthew 24 makes it crystal clear that there will be a good and faithful servant that will be teaching his fellow servants the truth that he has found. This too is dead on and could not have been given by anyone else other than the Son of God.

Revelation 2 and 3's prophecies are so crystal clear and so true that this evidence could NOT have been put there by anyone other than Jesus, the Son of God.

I could go on and on but all of this is real evidence--not hearsay evidence--and when one actually sees this (eyes open to see it), then faith is not needed anymore because you now have evidence proving that Jesus IS the Son of God and this is the solid foundation to build your total trust in Him.

For those of you who have not 'seen' this for yourself, some day soon it will be presented in a way that everyone will have to make a choice-believe the truth, or keep believing and practicing in lies.

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "You make wild and far reaching asumptions about things that are not biblical, you put words in Jesus' mouth that he never said, and you gloss over and discount things that he did say. (the importance of faith is just one of them)."

I have never and will never put words in Jesus' mouth. I do choose to take Him at His word, which and not read into what He has said anything that is not there.

You can't stand it when someone disagrees with your cherished understanding that you got from someone that you just KNOW must be right, like EGW or Wm. Miller, or the rest of our founding pioneers. I and my friends are wrong just because we disagree with them, not because you have bothered to look closely at what we have said without you current paradigms getting in the way. You prefer to think as others do. I prefer to think for myself.

Lastly, before I hit the rack; I never said I didn't have faith. I am trying to get rid of it little by little as I come to trust Jesus Christ and God more and more. We all start out with faith, and that is a good thing. But if you stay with faith without moving toward trust you are staying as if you are a little child, and are not growing into the mature, adult spiritual being that God wants you to be. Remember, Jesus did not need faith to move mountains, and neither will we when we learn and are sealed in the truth.

[oldsailor29]

This thread is for discussion of the nature of inspiration, and how the Bible was edited together. There is a discussion about faith in another thread.

[Guest]

Thank you oldsailor, I was just thinking the same thing. But that's what he does where ever he goes. He hijacks the thread over to his faith destroying agenda. His "Me and my two buddies are the only ones with the truth" bit. If William Miller and Ellen White were wrong, then this church wasn't raised up by God at all. It was raised by Satan. So if one believes that, then how can this be the true church? I guess it's kinda like Sheppard's Rod. They don't have a church either, so they prey on SDAs. I guess MM needs a roof over his head, and a place to preach his new religion from. It's a shame though that we allow someone to do that right under our noses, from within our own walls.

MM, even though I've shown you before that faith and trust are the same thing according to the dictionary, I know you're way to smart to believe that. So if you would please, just take it somewhere else. This thread is returning to it's original topic. Thank you.

[Guest]

( Choose a plan of Bible study.

To avoid the dangers of illegitimate proof-texting (see Chapter One of this book), the interpreter must settle on a definite plan. One can adopt, for example, a book-by-book study, a topical study (e.g., salvation, second coming, the Sabbath, hope, etc.), a biographical study (such as the life of Joseph, Hannah, Elijah, Daniel, Peter,

John, Mary, etc.), or a word study (e.g. peace, love, sin, etc.).

Following a definite plan in studying the Scriptures can help avoid the haphazard and aimless approaches of the proof-text method. A plan of Bible study should include how to study Scriptures for maximum benefit. "There is but little benefit derived from a hasty reading of the Scriptures. One may read the whole Bible through, and yet fail to see its beauty or to comprehend its deep and hidden meaning.

One passage studied until its significance is clear to the mind, and its relation to the plan of salvation is evident, is of more value than the perusal of many chapters with no definite purpose in view and no positive instruction gained. Keep your Bible with you. As you have opportunity, read it; fix the texts in your memory. Even while you are walking the streets, you may read a passage, and meditate upon it, thus fixing it in the mind" (Steps to Christ, p. 90).

[Guest]

© Make a commitment to "sola scriptura."

Upholding sola scriptura (the sole authority of Scripture) means believing and obeying all that Scripture sets forth, letting Scripture judge and control every thought and practice--including biblical interpretation. Against Scripture, there is no appeal, for "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

In upholding the sole authority of Scripture, we acknowledge that it is both sufficient (i.e., it contains all that the church needs to know for guidance in the way of salvation and for the work of ministry) and clear (i.e., it can be understood from within itself, by comparing one passage of Scripture with another) (2 Tim 3:16-17).

This means that Scripture does not need to be supplemented by an external source (human reason, experience, tradition). Neither is it

to be interpreted in the light of some outside source (e.g., ecclesiastical tradition, philosophy, science, extrabiblical religion, psychology, etc.), as though the authority of such a source

were equal to or above that of Scripture. Rather, the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture affirm the Protestant Reformation principle that Scripture must remain its own interpreter.

Both the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture imply that the Spirit, as the infallible interpreter, can enable every sincere seeker of truth to know God's will (John 7:17). This does not mean that no difficulties will be found in the Bible, but only that because the Holy Spirit attends the Word, every Christian--scholar and non-scholar--can understand the substance of the Bible's message by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

[oldsailor29]

© Make a commitment to "sola scriptura."

Upholding sola scriptura (the sole authority of Scripture) means believing and obeying all that Scripture sets forth, letting Scripture judge and control every thought and practice--including biblical interpretation. Against Scripture, there is no appeal, for "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Richard - here you are quoting Jesus, and He is being accused of blaspheming because He is teaching something previously unheard. And I would agree with the rest of your statement, with the following alterations.

In upholding the sole authority of the teachings of Christ, we acknowledge that it is sufficient. (i.e., it contains all that the church needs to know for guidance in the way of salvation and for the work of ministry)

This means that His teachings do not need to be supplemented by an external source (His prophets, human reason, experience, tradition). Neither is it to be interpreted in the light of some outside source (e.g., other Bible writers, ecclesiastical tradition, philosophy, science, extrabiblical religion, psychology, etc.), as though the authority of such a source were equal to or above that of His teachings. Rather, the sufficiency and clarity of His teachings affirm the Christian conversion principle, that His teachings must be lifted up.

[Musicman1228]

I was merely following the lead of others who led the discussion toward faith, and now I am being accused (by Richard, or course) of being a hijacker, Go figure.

Does anyone know from where or whom the idea of sola scriptura came? Is it a direct command from God?

[Dr. Rich]

Oldspice (Oldsailer) wrote: "the sufficiency and clarity of His teachings affirm the Christian conversion principle, that His teachings must be lifted up."

AMEN!

By the way Richard, when Jesus spoke the words in John 10:35, there was NO 'New Testament'-- (Just the same as when Paul wrote to Timothy)

[pnattmbtc]

Does anyone know from where or whom the idea of sola scriptura came? Is it a direct command from God?

This is an interesting question! Not only is not possible to prove this idea from Scripture, even the books of Scripture (i.e., which books should be included) cannot be proven from Scripture.

I think it comes from the Reformers.

[pnattmbtc]

This site claims the principle existed before the Reformers (http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers.htm). Here are a couple of quotes from the site:

Quote:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1; emphasis mine)

Quote:

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9; emphasis mine)

I didn't look at all of these. This second one does seem to be quite close to the "sola scriptura" idea.

[Guest]

Hi Tom

[Guest]

Richard - here you are quoting Jesus, and He is being accused of blaspheming because He is teaching something previously unheard. And I would agree with the rest of your statement, with the following alterations.

In upholding the sole authority of the teachings of Christ, we acknowledge that it is sufficient. (i.e., it contains all that the church needs to know for guidance in the way of salvation and for the work of ministry)

This means that His teachings do not need to be supplemented by an external source (His prophets, human reason, experience, tradition). Neither is it to be interpreted in the light of some outside source (e.g., other Bible writers, ecclesiastical tradition, philosophy, science, extrabiblical religion, psychology, etc.), as though the authority of such a source were equal to or above that of His teachings. Rather, the sufficiency and clarity of His teachings affirm the Christian conversion principle, that His teachings must be lifted up.

I think you can take that a little too far oldsailor, if you're not careful. God spoke through his prophets. So if we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, then you can't just throw out the prophets and say we don't need them anymore. That would include Paul, John the Revelator and Ellen White also. Anyone God has ever spoken through.

[Guest]

Uphold Adventism's Plain Reading of Scripture

Against the methods of higher criticism, Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally followed the sixteenth century Protestant Reformers in seeking the plain meaning of Scripture. This approach seeks to discover the historical, grammatical, literary meaning of Scripture, and on the basis of what the text meant to its original recipients, the interpreter makes a responsible application to contemporary needs. As we showed in Chapter One, this approach to the plain meaning of Scripture is not a proof-text method, contrary to what

proponents of the historical-critical method want people to believe.

The traditional Adventist approach to Scripture is opposed to the modern liberal approaches known collectively as the historical-critical method. The difference between these two conflicting approaches does not lie merely in the names, but rather in their underlying assumptions. For this reason, merely changing the name from "historical-critical method" to "historical method," "principle approach," "contextual approach," "casebook approach," "matured approach," "progressive approach," "Christ-centered,"

"developmental," or some other term cannot make the method acceptable.

Inasmuch as the Rio de Janeiro document ("Methods of Bible Study") that was approved at the 1986 Annual Council in Brazil is in harmony with the plain teachings of Scripture, we recommend its guidelines to Bible-believing Adventists who seek to do serious and faithful

study of the Bible (see Appendix C). The following ten principles are implied in the Adventist approach. Think of them as Adventism's Hermeneutical Decalogue:

[Guest]

1. The Literal Principle.

Interpreting the Scriptures literally means we must understand

the Bible in its plain, obvious, and normal sense. We must not allegorize or spiritualize it away in order to find some hidden, mystical, deeper, or secret meaning. The literal or plain

meaning of Scripture should not be confused with a "literalistic" interpretation, which fails to recognize figures of speech like parables, symbols, similes, and hyperboles in the Bible.

The literal principle recognizes different kinds of literature in the Bible, each known technically as a genre. Genres are of two kinds. First, some genres describe compositions of a Bible book: gospel (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), epistle (e.g., the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians), narrative (e.g., Genesis), prophecy/preaching (e.g. Isaiah), wisdom (e.g., Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), apocalyptic (e.g., Daniel, Revelation), etc.

Embedded within each genre composition is a second kind of genre.

This includes: history, parable, poetry, metaphors, symbols, or allegory. The genre of a text affects how it is interpreted. The interpretation of a poetic text (e.g. the Psalms) would be different from that of a narrative (e.g. Acts). Interpreting a wisdom book such as Proverbs may not require a historical context to understand the universal application as would a book like Philemon. Similarly, if a text is a parable, the details--people, events, times, and places--may not be historical. But even though parables may be hypothetical,

metaphorical, or simply stories drawn from everyday occurrences, spiritual truths that are illustrated by the parables always do have literal meaning. The same can be said of symbolic language in Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Revelation. Though symbols and figures are

used, by careful study one can ascertain the literal truth they communicate.

The literal principle therefore suggests that one must look for the plain, obvious, clear, normal meaning of Scripture, even in the figures of speech that are employed.

Thus, we must clearly understand the use of simile (e.g., "He [a righteous man] is like a tree planted by the rivers of water" [Ps 1:3]; the Lord's anointed Messenger "shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" [Mal 3:3]); metaphor (e.g., Jesus said of Herod, "Go ye, and tell that fox . . ." [Luke 13:32]); hyperbole (e.g., "I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim [in tears]; I water my couch with my tears" [Ps 6:6]); figures of

speech or idiomatic expressions (e.g., "the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" [isa 55:12]); paradox (e.g., "the last shall be the first, and the first last" [Matt 20:16]); allegory (e.g., Paul's allegorical use of the story of Sarah and Hagar [Gal 4:22-31]); typology (e.g., the earthly sanctuary, priesthood, kingship, and the experience of Old Testament Israel [1 Cor 10:1-13;

Rom 5:12-21; 1 Pet 3:18-22; Ex 25:40; Heb 8 and 9]); etc.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard--what bothers me is that people actually believe what they want to believe even though the words in most cases are very clear. But over all, what you wrote makes sense.

[Guest]

2. Grammatical Principle.

This principle requires an interpreter to pay close attention to

words, wordings, and context of any given text. Words like "love," "fear," or "hear" sometimes translate more than one Hebrew or Greek word and in some cases may have more than one meaning. This should not be a problem to interpreters. After all, even in the English language, depending on the context, the word love may express fondness ("I love ice cream"), preference ("I love Toyota cars"), endearment ("I love my child, wife, husband, mother, etc."), religious devotion ("I love Jesus"), or even sex ("They made love to one another").

The grammatical principle requires the interpreter to understand the meaning of words in their immediate context as well as in the larger context of the Bible. Failure to do so results in reading meanings into the Bible--such as when some homosexual theologians suggest that

when the Bible says David loved Jonathan, it refers to a homosexual relationship.

[Guest]

Importance of Words.

Words are important for two reasons. First, even though the Bible

writers employed their own words in writing Scripture, they were divinely guided in the choice of those words (see 2 Sam 23:2-3; 1 Chron 28:19; Jer 26:2; 36:2; Eze 2:2; 11:5; Micah 3:8; John 6:63; 1 Cor 2:13; Rev 22:19; cf. Ex 4:10-16; cf. 7:1-2).

As we noted in Chapter Two, the Spirit's guidance of the inspired writers in expressing their God-given thoughts and ideas in their own words is known technically as verbal (propositional) inspiration. We should not confuse this with mechanical (dictation) inspiration, a mistaken theory which claims that the Holy Spirit dictated each word of Scripture.

Ellen G. White wrote concerning her experience: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit in relating or writing the vision as in having the vision." Again: "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation" (Selected Messages, 3:48, 49, emphasis supplied). Thus, words are important.

Second, while we may use words carelessly in our private communications, such as in our private letters or school notes, words are particularly important when authoritative documents

are being written. Since we pay attention to words and wording in making our wills, in signing business agreements, and in enacting laws in Parliament or Congress, why should we expect to do any less for the words in the most important document human beings have--the

Bible?

Thus, even whether a word is in the singular or plural, or in the present tense or past tense, is extremely important. The apostle Paul used a single word in the singular as the basis for his argument showing that Jesus is the mediator of the covenant (Gal 3:16; cf. John 10:34-36). On another occasion Jesus argued his Deity on the basis of the present tense (John 8:57-58).

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: oldsailor29

Richard - here you are quoting Jesus, and He is being accused of blaspheming because He is teaching something previously unheard. And I would agree with the rest of your statement, with the following alterations.

In upholding the sole authority of the teachings of Christ, we acknowledge that it is sufficient. (i.e., it contains all that the church needs to know for guidance in the way of salvation and for the work of ministry)

This means that His teachings do not need to be supplemented by an external source (His prophets, human reason, experience, tradition). Neither is it to be interpreted in the light of some outside source (e.g., other Bible writers, ecclesiastical tradition, philosophy, science, extrabiblical religion, psychology, etc.), as though the authority of such a source were equal to or above that of His teachings. Rather, the sufficiency and clarity of His teachings affirm the Christian conversion principle, that His teachings must be lifted up.

I think you can take that a little too far oldsailor, if you're not careful. God spoke through his prophets. So if we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, then you can't just throw out the prophets and say we don't need them anymore. That would include Paul, John the Revelator and Ellen White also. Anyone God has ever spoken through.

Richard - If you are saying the Lord spoke through His prophets, then you are promoting mechanical inspiration. No doubt the Holy Spirit guided divinely inspired writers in their choice of words, but not beyond those words with which the writers were familiar.

I wouldn't say anyone who interprets the message of Jesus through Moses will not be saved, but Jesus clearly teaches conversion from Pharisaical Judaism to His message. And when Jesus spoke, it was not God speaking through Jesus. It was God speaking, period. All of His divinely inspired writers were two steps removed from this directness.

His divinely inspired writers are represented by the wide road of "Life Sketches," chapter xxx. This road starts out wide at the base of a mountain, and narrows to nothing as it ascends. The teachings of Jesus are represented by the straight and narrow path of "Life Sketches," chapter vii. On this straight and narrow path, we can see the holy city in the distance, and Jesus ahead of us, lighting the way. There is nothing in chapter xxx which says the people on that road will not be saved, but it does not go all the way to the holy city, whereas the narrow path of chapter vii does go all the way. So the people who are on the mountain road are forced to get off that road. And guess what. There is only one narrow path that does go all the way to the holy city. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the father but by me.

The people on the mountain road are struggling, whereas Jesus said, My yoke is easy and my burden is light. So why follow Moses and the prophets on that mountain road until it ends? Why not just start following Jesus instead, on His straight and narrow path, right now?