Relativisim and Absolutism in Bible Study...

[Guest]

Not a problem for those who believe the Bible. But you're wrong though. Jesus said this many times in all the gospels.

Mat 9:22 But Jesus turned about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; your faith has made you whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

[wayfinder]

Saying "your faith has made you well" is not the same as your faith has saved you. Luke states that "this woman has committed many sins" and "faith" is used in the context of saving sinners.

[Guest]

Mar 16:16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned.

Ok how will you dodge this one? Maybe you will say "but it says be baptized also.

To which I say: So what, Jesus says you need both of these to be saved. Belief is faith. Especially when He is asking his followers to believe in something that cannot see touch or prove. Again and again He calls on his followers to believe in something they cannot prove. That's called faith my friend. here's another one:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You have so blinded yourself by thinking you have found something new, that you can't even see a truth as plain and simple as this one. Even though it is right before your eyes, and staring you in the face.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Jesus is coming to save his people and destroy all the evil that is in the world along with those who cling to it? If you said yes, then you have faith. Because you cannot prove what hasn't happened yet. You can't even prove what the Bible says happened in the past.

Can you prove that he will come again like he has promised? No you can't. Can you prove that God created the stars in the sky, and this earth? No you can't. The only way you can believe it is by faith. You can call it trust, or anything you like, but it means the same thing.

Since you cannot prove these things, you have to believe it by faith, and faith alone. That is the only way you can believe in something you cannot prove.

And since I know what you believe, I would have to say that you have more faith than all of us put together. So when you tell people that they don't need faith, or that you don't need fath, you are actually fighting against the Kingdom of God, and the very truths that you claim to believe in.

[Musicman1228]

Jesus did not say 'You shall live by faith, and faith shall set you free'. As John317 pointed out there is a difference between how faith is used in the Old Testament and how faith is used in the New Testament. When Jesus spoke of 'faith' He was using the OT usage that was the equivalent to 'trust'. All trust is built on evidence of past performance. Jesus had a track record with His Father from before time began. Jesus did not need the New Testament version of 'faith' to know what His relationship was with His Father, because He KNEW who He was and who His Father IS.

Are we not supposed to become like Jesus? If that is true then why would anyone consider needing to remain in 'faith' when there is more than ample evidence that God is trustworthy to do what He said He would do. Israel got into trouble not because they didn't have 'faith' in God, but because they did not TRUST Him to do what He promised to do.

Call me what you will, accuse me of heresy if you must, yet your words are not the words that will save me from eternal death. I am sorry if it annoys you that I don't take your words as the words of incontrovertible truth. I must give over that responsibility only to the author of all Truth, Jesus Christ.

Good night all. Have a great day tomorrow.

[Guest]

Ok I looked it up in my Strongs book, and here is what I found: The word "Believe" in the OT means this:

"Believe"

H539'âman

aw-man'

A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

And here is what believe means in the NT:

"Believe"

G4100

pisteuō

pist-yoo'-o

From G4102; to have faith in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

You see the three words "Faith, Believe, and Trust, all mean the same thing. No matter what you say or think it means MM. There it is in black and white. Every time Jesus used the word "Believe" he was saying "to have faith in".

The word "Faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 where it says: "the just shall live by faith" means:

H530

em-oo-naw', em-oo-naw'

Feminine of H529; literally firmness; figuratively security; moral fidelity: - faith (-ful, -ly, -ness, [man]), set office, stability, steady, truly, truth, verily.

And where Jesus used the word "Faith" where he said "Have faith in God" Means this:

"Faith"

G4102

pistis

pis'-tis

From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

So you see MM, you're just wrong. Why can't you be big enough to admit it?

And even if I couldn't prove that they all mean what I thought they did, (faith meaning believe, and believe meaning faith) You would still have to admit that you have large amounts of faith, and you will until Jesus comes.

Because you cannot prove that Jesus is coming (hasn't happened yet) and I know you believe He is.

That is called "FAITH"

[Twilight]

Ok I looked it up in my Strongs book, and here is what I found: The word "Believe" in the OT means this:

"Believe"

H539'âman

aw-man'

A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

And here is what believe means in the NT:

"Believe"

G4100

pisteuō

pist-yoo'-o

From G4102; to have faith in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

You see the three words "Faith, Believe, and Trust, all mean the same thing. No matter what you say or think it means MM. There it is in black and white. Every time Jesus used the word "Believe" he was saying "to have faith in".

The word "Faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 where it says: "the just shall live by faith" means:

H530

em-oo-naw', em-oo-naw'

Feminine of H529; literally firmness; figuratively security; moral fidelity: - faith (-ful, -ly, -ness, [man]), set office, stability, steady, truly, truth, verily.

And where Jesus used the word "Faith" where he said "Have faith in God" Means this:

"Faith"

G4102

pistis

pis'-tis

From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

So you see MM, you're just wrong. Why can't you be big enough to admit it?

And even if I couldn't prove that they all mean what I thought they did, (faith meaning believe, and believe meaning faith) You would still have to admit that you have large amounts of faith, and you will until Jesus comes.

Because you cannot prove that Jesus is coming (hasn't happened yet) and I know you believe He is.

That is called "FAITH"

Richard, don't let yourself get drawn...

[Twilight]

Maybe if we actually studied the worldview of "relativism" we might see how it is creeping in here.

Do not get me wrong, we all are limited in our understanding of truth.

But the Bible Truths themselves are "absolute".

So is the Holy Spirit.

Where error can creep in, is where we think that "relativism" should attach itself to the bible.

Notice the quote states:

"We" know in part.

It does not say the bible is a "partial revelation" of the truth.

Everything the bible reveals is "absolute", but it might not reveal everything.

I think that might be getting confused here.

Here is a link to "relativism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

[Gerr]

Quote:

Where error can creep in, is where we think that "relativism" should attach itself to the bible.

Notice the quote states:

"We" know in part.

It does not say the bible is a "partial revelation" of the truth.

Everything the bible reveals is "absolute", but it might not reveal everything.

I think that might be getting confused here.

I may be confused because it looks to me that what you are saying is confusing. You claim that the Bible "does not say the bible is a "partial revelation" of the truth and then in the next line you say, "Everything the bible reveals is "absolute", but it might not reveal everything."

If the Bible "might not reveal everything", then it is a partial revelation!!!

If I am starving and it's ok for me to eat from someone's vineyard or grainfield, then stealing is not an absolute commandment. If the priest can perform work on the Sabbath, and if it is "lawful to do good on Sabbath" then the Sabbath work prohibition is not absolute. If one is not guilty of murder for killing a night intruder, then the "thou shalt not kill" command is not absolute either.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Where error can creep in, is where we think that "relativism" should attach itself to the bible.

Notice the quote states:

"We" know in part.

It does not say the bible is a "partial revelation" of the truth.

Everything the bible reveals is "absolute", but it might not reveal everything.

I think that might be getting confused here.

I may be confused because it looks to me that what you are saying is confusing. You claim that the Bible "does not say the bible is a "partial revelation" of the truth and then in the next line you say, "Everything the bible reveals is "absolute", but it might not reveal everything."

If the Bible "might not reveal everything", then it is a partial revelation!!!

But what it reveals of that partial revelation is absolute...

The argument of relativism assumes that there is something not revealed than can be argued to...

If I have a bowl of fruit with an apple, banana and pear in, I have a "full revelation" of an apple a banana and a pear.

I do not have a "full revelation" of a "grape".

So I look at it from this point of view.

God has said that an apple is an apple.

So it is an apple.

It is not a "grape" because I want it to be one, or because I think apples and grapes are the same.

But I cannot argue the "grape" is an apple, when God has said an apple is an apple.

When God reveals truth, that truth is absolute.

It is not "relative".

If I say God is "truth", and "truth is relative", then I am saying "God is relative".

I do not find that in my bible, I find that in the world.

I can of course then look at your argument and say that the bible is "relative" because of its partial revelation of nature, but wouldn't I then just be arguing that God cannot "really" reveal truth through the bible to me?

He can only reveal "relative truth"?

That is not the claims I think He makes in the bible.

What do you think?

Mark :-)

[Musicman1228]

Mark,

Your thought have triggered something and I'd like your feed back.

You stated, "When God reveals truth, that truth is absolute."

I agree with that 100%. So why are there so many forms of 'truth' coming from the same source-the Bible? Why do so many Christians come up with so many different ideas as to how God operates in the world? Why are there so many different and opposing points of theology that have promoted hundreds of different Christian denominations?

If God reveals only absolute truth and the Bible (as is said) is the inerrant source for God's truth, then why the discrepancies and confusion? Is God then incapable of revealing truth even to the mind of sinful man given an infallible source? This appears ludicrous on it's face, so something must be amiss. If God truly wanted unity in His flock is appears that He went about it in a very oblique way.

God cannot lie, because He is God. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that lies have been placed somewhere in what most Christians view as their infallible, inerrant source which THEY have named 'God's Word'/the Bible. IF this is true then Christian belief based on this source would of necessity by confused. What if the Bible is not what most Christians believe it (with all their hearts) to be?

But how could this be? Didn't God somehow protect the writers of the Bible (particularly the NT) against being deceived? Didn't God protect the delivery system for this information from being co-opted by the Enemy so that Enemy could not sow confusion into Truth? I wonder.

Please read over carefully the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds again and let me know if you see a connection.

[Gerr]

Quote:

But what it reveals of that partial revelation is absolute...

You have yet to answer this:

If I am starving and it's ok for me to eat from someone's vineyard or grainfield, then stealing is not an absolute commandment. If the priest can perform work on the Sabbath, and if it is "lawful to do good on Sabbath" then the Sabbath work prohibition is not absolute. If one is not guilty of murder for killing a night intruder, then the "thou shalt not kill" command is not absolute either.

[Woody]

Quote:

You just haven't been paying attention, my brother!

I DO apologize. I will pay closer attention from now on. I like what I am seeing.

[Guest]

Richard, don't let yourself get drawn...

You're right Mark, thanks.

[Woody]

Okay Gerry. I've done as you have suggested. I am really reading your comments. And you are so right ... You are ABSOLUTELY right.

Way to Go.

[Musicman1228]

Twilight said, "Do not get me wrong, we all are limited in our understanding of truth."

Why do you believe this is true? Is the Holy Spirit not capable of leading any self-honest person into ALL truth?

[Twilight]

Mark,

Your thought have triggered something and I'd like your feed back.

You stated, "When God reveals truth, that truth is absolute."

I agree with that 100%. So why are there so many forms of 'truth' coming from the same source-the Bible? Why do so many Christians come up with so many different ideas as to how God operates in the world? Why are there so many different and opposing points of theology that have promoted hundreds of different Christian denominations?

If God reveals only absolute truth and the Bible (as is said) is the inerrant source for God's truth, then why the discrepancies and confusion? Is God then incapable of revealing truth even to the mind of sinful man given an infallible source? This appears ludicrous on it's face, so something must be amiss. If God truly wanted unity in His flock is appears that He went about it in a very oblique way.

God cannot lie, because He is God. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that lies have been placed somewhere in what most Christians view as their infallible, inerrant source which THEY have named 'God's Word'/the Bible. IF this is true then Christian belief based on this source would of necessity by confused. What if the Bible is not what most Christians believe it (with all their hearts) to be?

But how could this be? Didn't God somehow protect the writers of the Bible (particularly the NT) against being deceived? Didn't God protect the delivery system for this information from being co-opted by the Enemy so that Enemy could not sow confusion into Truth? I wonder.

Please read over carefully the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds again and let me know if you see a connection.

Sorry MM, but I see this as the same attack on the Biblical Canon.

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

But what it reveals of that partial revelation is absolute...

You have yet to answer this:

If I am starving and it's ok for me to eat from someone's vineyard or grainfield, then stealing is not an absolute commandment. If the priest can perform work on the Sabbath, and if it is "lawful to do good on Sabbath" then the Sabbath work prohibition is not absolute. If one is not guilty of murder for killing a night intruder, then the "thou shalt not kill" command is not absolute either.

I am surprised you have taken this tack Gerry.

I do not see that the allowance for someone to eat from the vineyard, when both parties know it is acceptable is the same as stealing?

I do not see that the Priest doing "Gods work" on the Sabbath is a breaking of the Sabbath, Jesus clearly stated that this was not the case with His own example.

I do not see how "thou shalt not murder" allows for murder.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Richard, don't let yourself get drawn...

You're right Mark, thanks.

You are welcome my friend. :-)

[Twilight]

Twilight said, "Do not get me wrong, we all are limited in our understanding of truth."

Why do you believe this is true? Is the Holy Spirit not capable of leading any self-honest person into ALL truth?

Yes He is, but He does not reveal everything at once.

That still does not remove the idea that truth is absolute.

It just shows that the amount of absolute truth each of us has received is limited.

---------------

You do not change the qualities of Coca Cola by changing the quantity.

It is still Coca Cola no matter how much there is to drink.

We sometimes of course mix the Coca Cola with something else, but that is our part, our natural inclination.

Mark :-)

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Mark,

Your thought have triggered something and I'd like your feed back.

You stated, "When God reveals truth, that truth is absolute."

I agree with that 100%. So why are there so many forms of 'truth' coming from the same source-the Bible? Why do so many Christians come up with so many different ideas as to how God operates in the world? Why are there so many different and opposing points of theology that have promoted hundreds of different Christian denominations?

If God reveals only absolute truth and the Bible (as is said) is the inerrant source for God's truth, then why the discrepancies and confusion? Is God then incapable of revealing truth even to the mind of sinful man given an infallible source? This appears ludicrous on it's face, so something must be amiss. If God truly wanted unity in His flock is appears that He went about it in a very oblique way.

God cannot lie, because He is God. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that lies have been placed somewhere in what most Christians view as their infallible, inerrant source which THEY have named 'God's Word'/the Bible. IF this is true then Christian belief based on this source would of necessity by confused. What if the Bible is not what most Christians believe it (with all their hearts) to be?

But how could this be? Didn't God somehow protect the writers of the Bible (particularly the NT) against being deceived? Didn't God protect the delivery system for this information from being co-opted by the Enemy so that Enemy could not sow confusion into Truth? I wonder.

Please read over carefully the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds again and let me know if you see a connection.

Sorry MM, but I see this as the same attack on the Biblical Canon.

Mark

You may see it that way if you wish, but you still did not address my questions, which are reasonable and deserve an answer. If you don't want to or can't answer them that is OK also, just don't couch your response in an attempt at obfuscation. Just say you don't want to answer and that would be enough for me. No harm, no foul.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Sorry MM, but I see this as the same attack on the Biblical Canon.

Mark

You may see it that way if you wish, but you still did not address my questions, which are reasonable and deserve an answer. If you don't want to or can't answer them that is OK also, just don't couch your response in an attempt at obfuscation. Just say you don't want to answer and that would be enough for me. No harm, no foul.

Surely any discussion here will be a discussion on "filtering" the bible?

How is that any different from all the other discussions MM?

You want to apply a filter I do not agree to.

I am concerned this is another attempt to discuss that and that would take the thread OT.

Mark

[Dr. Rich]

So Mark, God is wrong about what He said in Rev. 2:2-? Hmmm?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Gerry: You have yet to answer this:

If I am starving and it's ok for me to eat from someone's vineyard or grainfield, then stealing is not an absolute commandment. If the priest can perform work on the Sabbath, and if it is "lawful to do good on Sabbath" then the Sabbath work prohibition is not absolute. If one is not guilty of murder for killing a night intruder, then the "thou shalt not kill" command is not absolute either.

Mark: I am surprised you have taken this tack Gerry.

I do not see that the allowance for someone to eat from the vineyard, when both parties know it is acceptable is the same as stealing?

I do not see that the Priest doing "Gods work" on the Sabbath is a breaking of the Sabbath, Jesus clearly stated that this was not the case with His own example.

I do not see how "thou shalt not murder" allows for murder.

Mark

In that case, what you were claiming as "absolutes" are not as absolute as you thought after all?

[Dr. Rich]

The correct commandment is: Thou shall not commit murder. The KJV is not correct here.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Gerry: You have yet to answer this:

If I am starving and it's ok for me to eat from someone's vineyard or grainfield, then stealing is not an absolute commandment. If the priest can perform work on the Sabbath, and if it is "lawful to do good on Sabbath" then the Sabbath work prohibition is not absolute. If one is not guilty of murder for killing a night intruder, then the "thou shalt not kill" command is not absolute either.

Mark: I am surprised you have taken this tack Gerry.

I do not see that the allowance for someone to eat from the vineyard, when both parties know it is acceptable is the same as stealing?

I do not see that the Priest doing "Gods work" on the Sabbath is a breaking of the Sabbath, Jesus clearly stated that this was not the case with His own example.

I do not see how "thou shalt not murder" allows for murder.

Mark

In that case, what you were claiming as "absolutes" are not as absolute as you thought after all?

I am not sure how you have come to that last conclusion Gerry?

You are arguing they are not absolute.

I am saying they are.

My response to your points shows that there are "absolutes" where you claim there are not.

So I am finding your response is a little confusing?

Mark