Does God ever not keep His promises?

[Overaged]

When I insist on Bible evidence, what I am doing is holding people to *their* standards, not my standards. Sola Scriptura is *their* claim, I just test whether they really mean it. Turns out, most times, they don't.

The Bible is one revelation of God, the world is another. Both (IMO) contain something of Eden and something of the Fall, and are admixtures of truth and error.

I've said it before - I reject bibliolatry, with a small or large B. No book is sufficient to contain the totality of God.

The fact that I test the claims of those who claim the Bible *is* large enough does not mean that I accept those claims myself.

Not everything in the world would be "a revelation of God." How do you distinguish between what is or what is not? It would be interesting to see what kind of "test" you have for that. And who says *your* test is acceptable to use?

"bibliolatry" is a very unfair, unrealistic term to use for people who have/strive to have the Bible as their rule of faith. "bibliolatry" means "worship of the Bible." What kind of test do you use to determine who is worshipping the Bible and who is not? Is this something you can even 'test" for on an internet forum with people you don't even know.

I want to try and respect your level of education Bravus; but honestly; I think it just gets in your way sometimes. You subject everything to "tests" to things you can see/observe; and if you can't do this, you just dismiss it as some kind of quackery. By what authority do you circumscribe all things spiritual to "tests?" It has to be your own authority; and that is a dangerous position for a man to be in. Your own authority is NOT the arbiter of truth.

In the Bible; God spells out the divine plan for development of christian character:

"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

People can either accept or reject the divine plan; but don't stoop to grade three theology by accusing people of "biblolatry." Or "sophistry."

[Overaged]

I hasten to add that it's not all about me either. You'll notice I don't say a lot about my beliefs. I'm not trying to hide anything - I'll always give a straight answer when asked - I just don't find it that interesting to talk about myself. And there's such a gulf between me and most here that there's really not much more to say.

It's important to remember that I'm not here either to win arguments or to make converts. I'm here to have a discussion. When I say I 'test' others' claims, it's in that context.

Its not a "test" when you label people as resorting to "bibliolatry" or "sophisms."

[Dr. Shane]

Sola Scriptura is *their* claim, I just test whether they really mean it. Turns out, most times, they don't.

[Bravus]

All I can do is call 'em how I see 'em.

[Overaged]

All I can do is call 'em how I see 'em.

In other words you are the ultimate authority for what is truth? That's not very scientific is it?

[Bravus]

?

[Woody]

I for one am glad that Bravus tests the words of our prophet as our prophet instructs us to do.

As for me I will stick with scripture and the SOP.

[Overaged]

But we are told in neither of the two to "test" by using our own authority

[Woody]

But we are told in neither of the two to "test" by using our own authority

SO ... ???

I don't see anybody doing that or promoting that. Why make that statement? To cast doubt on Bravus? Or me?

[Overaged]

bravus has admitted it; and yes; it is my desire to cast doubt on his stated source of authority for "testing" us. And I might add, he is the one trying to cast doubt by his use of "sophism" and "bibliolatry," and other such things to describe those of us who decide to use the Bible as our authority.

[Dr. Shane]

We have to use our own mind and power of reasoning to decide what we are going to put our faith in. However there comes a point where we have to put our faith in something. "Paint or get off the ladder" is how the saying goes.

Is the world around us better explained by a supernatural creator being involved or is there a more likely, more probable explanation - like life came from non-life and matter came from nothing? Whichever way we think is more probable, we need to follow that road. For me, I see that a supernatural creator is more probable than something from nothing.

Once I establish that, I need to move on to discovering who this supernatural creator is. The question, as it pertains to this thread, is "Is there a religion (past or present) that has a God that keeps His promises?"

[Woody]

Yes. We ALL put our faith in our own mind and power of reasoning. Not in scripture. We put our faith in our ability to understand scripture. And obviously we all see scripture differently. As I frequently state here - there are no two people that view all aspects of scripture the same. Thus ... we have to put our faith in our ability to interpret. For there is no one way. If there was only one way ... there would only be one person saved.

Or could it BE ??? That all this 'knowledge' is not all as important as we make it out to be?

[LifeHiscost]

All the time. There are ways to claim he always keeps his promises but they require massive (il)logical gymnastics.

Is that first sentence a statement or question?

God always speaks the Truth, and when He makes a promise it is important to determine whether there are conditions tied to the promise. Sometimes time is an element that makes it appear as if a promise has been unfulfilled.

Seeing God as One Who does not fulfill His promises would indicate a lack of trust which predisposes to faulty reasoning, then pointing the finger at God as the delinquent Party.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."Hebrews 13:8 NKJV

"The Lord in the midst of her is [uncompromisingly] righteous; He will not do iniquity. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He fails not, but the unjust [person] knows no shame."Zephaniah 3:5 AMP brackets theirs LHC

"“ Come now, and let us reason together, Says the LORD ..."Isaiah 1:17-19

God blesses!

[Woody]

Quote:

God always speaks the Truth, and when He makes a promise it is important to determine whether there are conditions tied to the promise.

God's conditions for His promises are SO high ... that no one qualifies. Yes, He keeps His prommises if you qualify. But no one qualifies.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Conditional promises seem like threats. :/

[Woody]

Conditional promises seem like threats. :/

Yes Rudy. You have hit on something. They are not something to be blessed with. They are something to be threatened with.

[Woody]

Have you heard Christians sit back and say ... "well it must be God's will". IOWs they accept whatever comes their way. Instead of working on making good things happen ... they sit back and let chance determine what "God's will" is.

[Dr. Shane]

Yes. We ALL put our faith in our own mind and power of reasoning. Not in scripture.

I can't go that far. I used my mind to make the decision to trust Scripture. After that, the authority of my mind became greatly reduced. Now that I have decided to follow Scripture, I let it make decisions for me. When I am in doubt about the clearness of a passage on an issue, I consult with other believers about it. "Where no wise guidance is, the people falleth; But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." (Prov. 11:14)

I have a committee in my head that would like to make a lot of decisions for me. They don't get paid for their advice and it is worth exactly what I pay for it - nothing. I must lean on the Bible and the Bible alone. When an issue is unclear, the Bible (Prov. 11:14) tells me what to do.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes. We ALL put our faith in our own mind and power of reasoning. Not in scripture.

I can't go that far. I used my mind to make the decision to trust Scripture. After that, the authority of my mind became greatly reduced. Now that I have decided to follow Scripture, I let it make decisions for me. When I am in doubt about the clearness of a passage on an issue, I consult with other believers about it. "Where no wise guidance is, the people falleth; But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." (Prov. 11:14)

I have a committee in my head that would like to make a lot of decisions for me. They don't get paid for their advice and it is worth exactly what I pay for it - nothing. I must lean on the Bible and the Bible alone. When an issue is unclear, the Bible (Prov. 11:14) tells me what to do.

Okay. So the difference is that you rely on others. And I rely on my own study of scripture. Would that define our differences?

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

All I can do is call 'em how I see 'em.

In other words you are the ultimate authority for what is truth? That's not very scientific is it?

Sorry, you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. That statement was one of humility, not arrogance. It was recognition that any comments I make are purely the way I see the issue. They are tentative, subjective, personal. I make zero claim to be the authority on anything, and all my truth claims are tentative. I'm not setting myself up as judge: as I said, I'm having a conversation.

[Woody]

Quote:

Sorry, you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. That statement was one of humility, not arrogance. It was recognition that any comments I make are purely the way I see the issue. They are tentative, subjective, personal. I make zero claim to be the authority on anything, and all my truth claims are tentative. I'm not setting myself up as judge: as I said, I'm having a conversation.

I think your communications have been very clear on that fact.

[Bravus]

I've never used the term 'sophism' - I assume that would be the belief that sophistry is the One True Way to argue. I *have* used the term 'sophistry', when the arguments given have appeared that way to me. I'd be very happy to be shown to be wrong: it should be possible to demonstrate that any particular argument is substantive rather than sophistic.

'Bibliolatry' may be a bit provocative, I suppose, but it's a way of getting an idea into one word that would otherwise take several sentences. If you can offer a less provocative term for the attitude that the Bible is the test of everything I'd be happy to switch to it.

Both terms, from my perspective, were used descriptively rather than pejoratively. They were handy words for summing up particular ideas, not ways to attack others. Again, not trying to win, trying to converse.

[Overaged]

Bravus, sorry if I made you think I was calling you "arrogant;" certainly that was not my intent to reflect on your inner motives. My intention was strictly intended as an observation, based upon words that you wrote here. You may very well have been "humble" when you made those comments - I don't know, that's not up to me to determine!

I think you play around too much with semantics, in an evasive sort of way. A humbly evasive way, of course. Sophistic, sophism, whatever; it's all the same thing, and by your use of that, and "bibliolatry, then dismissing it as "provocative;" it merely skirts the issue. The issue here is that your posted comments are a very judgmental, and labelling of others, that you & a couple of others here sure get upset about when you think someone is doing it to you. Your bolding of the word "completely" in your above post reflects that well.

If you think I am interpreting the Bible wrong; that is different than labelling it as "bibiolatry." I hope you can see that.

There is a difference between using your own authority as a rule of faith, and using the Bible as the rule of faith. Why that has to be perceived as some sort of affront; I don't know. But those are the differences being posted here. Humbly posted, of course.

[Dr. Shane]

Okay. So the difference is that you rely on others. And I rely on my own study of scripture. Would that define our differences?

That is a huge difference because the Scripture tells us not to lean on our own understanding but that in the multitude of counselors there is safety. So if we are relying on ourselves, we are not following Scripture.

[Dr. Shane]

'Bibliolatry' may be a bit provocative... If you can offer a less provocative term for the attitude that the Bible is the test of everything I'd be happy to switch to it.

What is the difference between "Bibliolatry" and Sola Scriptura? I always considered Bibliolatry to be when the book itself was worshiped - rather than the message. Examples would be to never place the Bible on the floor or never place anything on top of the Bible.