Open Blogging

You may also like...

110 Responses

  1. Michael says:

    Greg posted this on the prayer thread.

    Michael
    2 Tim 3:16…”all scripture is given by inspiration God” or we could say “all scripture is God breathed”…same thing. That being the case as well as the understanding that God is perfect in all things and unable to make any mistakes, I find complete validation for the inerrancy of scripture. This does not mean that there have not been errors in translations over the centuries however it does mean that the finished product of the scripture we have in our hands today is inspired and dispatched to the men God chose to put His God breathed words into the historical canon of scripture. When any of spend much time debating things such as inerrancy of scripture, we are at risk of what Paul spoke of in 2Cor 11:3 when he said, “but I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel as he made clear in Rom 1:16 stating “it is the power of God unto salvation”. It is not the inerrancy of scripture that is important as there is no power unto salvation there. The danger of arguing yeah or ney on the subject of inerrancy is that you may cause some to stumble or “disqualify” God in there own minds. The ONLY thing that is important is Jesus came to save sinners like me, he died for me to pay a debt I could never pay and most importantly, he conquered all death when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father until that day (soon) when he returns for those whom have believed this good news….not those who have argued well intellectually the pros and cons of inerrancy.

  2. Michael says:

    You start by defeating yourself.
    “2 Tim 3:16…”all scripture is given by inspiration God” or we could say “all scripture is God breathed”…same thing. ”

    The only Scriptures these could have referred to was the Old Testament…the Christian canon had not been formed.

    ” The danger of arguing yeah or ney on the subject of inerrancy is that you may cause some to stumble or “disqualify” God in there own minds. ”

    Don’t tell them the truth, it will ruin them”…there is no such thing as being safely ignorant.

    The first three hundred years of the church converted without a bible…

  3. Greg says:

    Not so…ALL scripture….your position on inerrancy is a common one from those who want write their own narrative on the Bible. This a dangerous place to be as it opens one up to philosophizing the Bible to fit the narrative

  4. Josh says:

    Inerrancy is a hypothetical doctrine at best. It affirms the perfection of documents we have never seen. In that, it may be true or false, but can’t possibly be a cardinal doctrine.

    The only danger I see is in not questioning. God’s big enough to handle it.

  5. greg says:

    Josh,
    It is a lot easier for me to believe the inerrancy of scripture when I consider 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years and the story is the same cover to cover, that being one of redemption, than it is to wonder why all these authors did not write the exact same thing. If I opened the gospels and they were identical, it would be very suspect to me. The fact that they are not the same…..validates it for me. There are going to be different styles of writing and different observations and thoughts by these men that God used, but at the end of the day God inspired these writings by His Spirit through these men. That is good enough for me. I tire of those who want to twist up what they claim to be contradictions in the Word to fit their narrative.

  6. Michael says:

    greg,

    “Not so…ALL scripture….your position on inerrancy is a common one from those who want write their own narrative on the Bible. This a dangerous place to be as it opens one up to philosophizing the Bible to fit the narrative”

    What I wrote is verifiable truth.
    I have no agenda, no ” narrative” other than the one contained in the text.
    The only danger is to those who need to believe in Christian superstition to continue in the faith…

  7. Josh says:

    OK, doesn’t really deal with inerrancy, but that’s fine.

    Have you ever given thought to why three of the gospels do have identical passages? Do those seem suspect to you?

  8. greg says:

    Michael,
    “christian superstition”……I rest my case….like I said, dangerous place to be

  9. greg says:

    Josh,
    Inerrancy must go back to one central and foundational truth. That is, do we believe that God literally wrote all scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit in and through the men he selected to put the pen to the parchment. If not, then the argument for inerrancy or lack there of, is futile. Man is not capable of being inerrant….only God

  10. Michael says:

    greg,

    Is the Johannine comma part of the scripture or not?
    Who killed Goliath?

    Which version is the inerrant one?

    My faith in Jesus is strong…my faith in ancient scribes, not so much…

  11. greg says:

    Michael,
    So you have a question about the integrity of the men (ancient scribes) that God used to pen the scriptures?

  12. Josh says:

    Greg, right, and that is what inerrancy is claiming. Next though, many questions arise. Were the original authors inspired? What about the scribes? Translators? Is any translation inerrant? Why do we have the 66 book canon, and were those who selected the canon also inerrant?

  13. Michael says:

    greg,

    It has nothing to do with integrity…though we know that there were textual changes made by some scribes.
    It has everything to do with trying to copy large documents without modern lighting and eyeglasses.

    None of the errors we know of change a single cardinal doctrine of scripture.

    They simply make pure inerrancy a silly superstition that one need not accept to know Christ fully.

  14. Josh says:

    Is it about their integrity, or just their fallibility? Were the scribes inerrant?

  15. greg says:

    Josh,
    those are not questions I struggle with. I believe that God, being the author of all scripture, is able to produce a finished product ( the Word of God that we hold in our hands today) that imparts to us the instruction and wisdom that we need. I know this to be true because the truths of the bible have radically changed my life over the last 30 years. For me, it is the simplicity of the gospel. In the beginning God…… If we do not understand that, then I think we struggle with many things that are written in the bible. For me it is the simplicity of the Word, founded on my belief that God knows what He is doing and He never makes a mistake. That works for me. Do you believe that? If you do then many of the questions you ask become largely irrelevant.

  16. greg says:

    Micheal,
    Pure inerrancy in the context of God being purely inerrant is my argument. The fact that as we know there have been mistakes made in translation by men, is not my argument. I believe God fully understands that the bible I opened up this morning and studied, complete with any and all of what I might view as mistakes or contradictions, is sufficient to accomplish the work in me that he sent it for…you too!! If I believe that God is in complete control of the content of what I have in my hands today, I have no need to waste my time on endless questions about the inerrancy of scripture, unless that is that I somehow do not really believe that every single word in the scriptures is ultimately, at the end of the day, known to God. It becomes a total waste of time.

  17. Michael says:

    greg,

    This debate bores me.
    The doctrine of inerrancy itself is the danger….because it is so easily refuted that people who make it an article of faith get all shook up when they find it isn’t true.
    The Bible is true, reliable, and trustworthy in things pertaining to salvation.
    That’s all that matters.

  18. greg says:

    Michael,
    Sorry you are bored!! I do not feel like you have yet apprehended what my argument is …..based on your responses. The doctrine of inerrancy is only a danger to those who are stumbled by it. My faith is not in the men that wrote the bible, but rather the God who wrote it and because of that there is no “doctrine of inerrancy” So the bible is not true, reliable and trustworthy on the many topics and stories that are not salvational???? That’s all that matters???? So the stories and profound life applications of David in 1 Sam and 2 Sam, for example, do not matter??? Wow….that is an interesting perspective for sure!!

  19. Michael says:

    greg,

    This is why the argument bores me.

    “So the bible is not true, reliable and trustworthy on the many topics and stories that are not salvational???? ”

    I did not say that, but it’s the kind of response we get when we challenge the doctrine.

    It shows a profound lack of ability to deal with theological thought.

    The “profound life applications” are interpretative…what is the “profound life application” that David was a rapist, yet a man after Gods own heart?

    You never answered my question…is the Johannine comma part of what God wrote or not?

  20. Josh says:

    Greg, I can’t tell if you are arguing for or against inerrancy. I get that you like the bible, and that it has made a difference in your life. I’m sure that is true for all who comment here.

    I guess I am just missing your point.

  21. greg says:

    Michael,
    “I did not say that” What I read is “the bible is true, reliable and trustworthy in things pertaining to salvation. That is all that matters” While agree that you did not explicitly state that other things in the bible are not true, reliable and trustworthy, anyone who can read would understand that the very strong implication in your wording is that salvation is the only thing that is true or reliable or trustworthy. I totally reject that argument as non sense. The entirety of the bible is life changing and living. If that is the case (and it is) why are you so concerned about what you refer to the “doctrine of inerrancy”

  22. Josh says:

    Greg – I can read and did not think Michael was implying that.

    Maybe you misunderstood?

  23. Michael says:

    Greg,

    Please answer my question about the Johannine comma…

  24. greg says:

    Josh,
    It is certainly possible, however the meaning that I believe Michael is conveying is central to his argument on the “doctrine of inerrancy” This is dangerous in that we now can say that we are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible work for us and which do not.

  25. Josh says:

    Ok, so you are arguing in favor of inerrancy. Gotcha.

  26. Michael says:

    “This is dangerous in that we now can say that we are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible work for us and which do not.”

    Nope.

    It means we are going to be aware that there are questions of authorship and and scribal errors and textual emendations in certain places.

    Who killed Goliath?

    Why won’t you answer the simple question about the Johannine comma?

  27. greg says:

    Michael,
    for me the question of Johannine comma is like asking can God make a rock that He cannot lift. To me these types of questions, with respect, are endless babblings that the scripture says to avoid. (1 Tim) It is not relevant to my argument.

  28. Josh says:

    Greg – maybe try restating your argument in a few sentences. I’m missing it.

  29. Michael says:

    greg,

    It’s not “babbling” it’s a crucial question about the text you are making claims for.

  30. greg says:

    Michael,
    My point is, to what end is it fruitful to go down that road. If God did indeed literally write the bible through the men He selected, (and He did) why does that generate questions in you regarding whether or not the bible is reliable in its entirety? The argument causes many including those whom have not yet believed, that might be looking in on this dialogue, to unnecessarily question something God has already made clear. He said, “ALL scripture is breathed by me, meaning OT and NT. He did not qualify it by saying, by the way there will be some errors and contradictions in the scripture, He said ALL. It goes through Him…. It seems like you struggle with this concept. Really gets down to do you believe God (He said it….not me)

  31. greg says:

    Michael,
    No….it is coming in conflict with what God has already said

  32. Josh says:

    OK Greg – some modern bibles have the long ending for Mark, others leave off several verses.

    Which is the inspired word of God?

  33. Michael says:

    greg,

    You are free too believe whatever you choose to.

    The church would not decide on the NT canon for a couple hundred years after the Timothy passage.

    It has nothing to do with “believing God”.

    You are left with insulting my faith and integrity…because you cannot answer rudimentary questions.

  34. Greg says:

    These types of attacking comments are typical of those hold tight to the world view of “babbling on” endlessly regarding questions that accomplish absolutely nothing in the area of building one’s faith in God. Indeed, they can be harmful and Paul warned about this. Rudimentary is certainly a mis characterization of your questions. I think more accurately, endless babblings that at the end of the day only really hurt the cause of Christ as they are distracting and disruptive. The real question and only “ one that matters” is what do you believe?

  35. Michael says:

    greg,

    These are not attacking comments…they are simple questions whose answers undermine an unnecessary doctrinal imposition on people of faith.

    Recognizing that inerrancy as defined by fundamentalists is an error does not mean that the meta narrative of God’s mission to save is in error.

    None of the early creeds mention the Scriptures at all…yet they are the foundation stones of the Christian faith.

  36. Greg says:

    Michael
    Fair enough
    Blessings

  37. Josh says:

    Speaking of “babbling on”…

  38. Greg says:

    Josh
    Nice

  39. Officerhoppy says:

    Greg
    “Inerrant” ion reference to scripture is a term that seems to raise the hackles of a few of our brothers and sisters in the EO tradition. I don’t understand why they are such ardent opponents of the term.

    A more benign term is “Infallible”. It doesn’t cause such an adverse reaction and may be a bit closer to the truth.

    According to Duane the NT scriptures are simply an accurate record of the apostles encounter with and understanding of Jesus. He, if I understand him correctly, rejects the notion the scriptures are God Breathed. But I’ll let him clarify that.

    Duane and possibly Michael, put a lot of faith and trust in the patristics and early church fathers. So, you’ll see lots of posts about church history.

    Jut saying

  40. Michael says:

    It is evident that not only are many here utterly uniformed about church history and the formation of the canon, they are resolutely so.

    I’ll do something I never do, which is speak for Duane.

    Neither one of us have “faith” in the patristics or early fathers.

    They are the sources closest to the time of the writings and demonstrate what the early church believed and practiced.

    Therefore, they rightly hold weight in these discussions.

    Let me summarize the the arguments that have been put forth for inerrancy.

    “This is what I believe and facts don’t matter to me”.

    Thus, one can believe that all scriptures are “God breathed ” that had yet to be written or canonized.

    Thus, known scribal errors and emendations can be ignored.

    Thus, scholarship is for liberals and demons.

    And you wonder why people are leaving the church…

  41. Greg says:

    Wow
    Micheal, this last post is more telling to me and brings clarity to some of your earlier posts. It certainly illustrates the wide differences in what we believe. Honestly, I do not believe you have really understood what I am saying. I base this solely on your responses. That’s ok though we can have coffee when we get to heaven and laugh about all of it because it won’t matter at that point.

  42. Greg says:

    Ofc hoppy
    Thank you for your post… it does help my understanding

  43. greg says:

    Ofc Hoppy,
    I am curious about something. As a long time pastor, off the top, by percentage what would you think is the breakdown, from new believers to seasoned saints and everyone in between, of those who simply believe the Bible and everything in it as being inspired (God breathed), and don’t struggle with whether or not there were transcription errors from time to time, but simply trust that God is able handle all of that…..versus those who would be on a journey questioning everything A to Z….any and all mistakes or perceived contradictions and spending much of their time trying to disprove something. I realize there are some in each camp, just curious what your take over 20 years would be.

  44. Duane Arnold says:

    Article VI of the 39 Articles…
    “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”

    This raises questions. How did the church regard the canon of scripture? When did the church establish the canon of scripture?

    We know the answers to these questions. It is not difficult, it is just that some people are either too lazy or too willful to look at the evidence. I have a high view of scripture. I do not regard scripture as some sort of “magic book” that suddenly arrived whole and entire at the first apostolic Bible study held in the upper room! The Bible is the product of the church, that’s the importance of knowing the history of the church and knowing those witnesses to the scripture’s authenticity. Again, this is really not as difficult as some are making it out to be.

  45. greg says:

    Ofc Hoppy
    I mean to me it seems that some fundamentally do not believe the literal meaning of God breathed. It matters little, I think, whether the cannon of scripture was complete. God is above mans doings with the cannon of scripture and He says that He inspired the Word. To me it gets down to, do you believe Him. If you do it is just as much a game changer as if you do not. Your thoughts?

  46. Michael says:

    “versus those who would be on a journey questioning everything A to Z….any and all mistakes or perceived contradictions and spending much of their time trying to disprove something. ”

    Virtually the only time I spend on the topic is here…and the intent is to provoke thought and study….not to disprove anything.

  47. Michael says:

    “It is not difficult, it is just that some people are either too lazy or too willful to look at the evidence.”

    I’ll say the amen…

  48. greg says:

    Michael,
    Sorry that does not make a lot of sense to me, given your argument

  49. Nathan Priddis says:

    Greg. Thou doth protest too much.

    You do not know your Church history. If you did, you would know the Doctrine of Innerency has nothing to do with the Scriptures. It originated in Princeton, New Jersey in the latter 1800’s. It was ..

    ..deceptive.
    ..a fraud.
    ..a contradiction of Scripture.
    ..a contradiction of The Westminster Confession. (This is of note because the proponents were claiming to defend traditional Protestant doctrine…and where Presbyterians.

    But most importantly, Innerency undermines the authority of the Word of God, and work of the Holy Spirit, instead placing this authority on human scholarship.

    Innerency clearly states, the Word of God was free from error….in it’s original autographs ONLY. Autographs that all agree are no longer in existence.

    I recommend some history reading on your part. If you don’t know what historical entry point, suggestions can me made to you. Regardless of Innerency, Church History is good to know anyway.

  50. Duane Arnold says:

    First off, it is Canon, not cannon. Secondly the argument is being made for a wholly subjective view of Scripture as it’s verification.

    This, of course, overthrows two millennia of biblical study and scholarship. The authority is subjective, and the interpretation is subjective. In this construct, language means what I want it to mean and, therefore, the Bible itself says what I want it to say. This is so far distant from classical Christianity as to be ludicrous.

  51. Michael says:

    greg,

    Just because something doesn’t make sense too you, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    I have a lot of things I’m currently studying…things that matter much more than this endless debate.

    Many people who understand that the Bible is not “inerrant” have a high view of Scripture…and don’t panic at the thought that every English word of every English translation may or may not be correct.

    The cardinal doctrines of the faith are unchallenged by literary and historical reality…

  52. greg says:

    Duane,
    I have never had any interest in my walk in the questions you or Michael for that matter pose. It makes it so simple. I do believe God inspired every word. That being the case I find it easy to just read it literally for what it is. God is able to cause it to do the work in me that He wants to when he wants to……and certainly does. I find no need to question the authenticity at all. We are not talking about man writing the scripture…..this is God and He is able…..:”do you believe I can do this” Jesus said. To me the issue is one of what do you believe. I like what Billy Graham said when early in his ministry he struggled with many of the same questions you pose, he said

    “There are many problems with it for which I have no solution. There are many seeming contradictions. There are some areas in it that do not seem to correlate with modern science. I can’t answer some of the philosophical and psychological questions Chuck and others are raising.”

    And then, my grandfather fell to his knees and the Holy Spirit moved in him as he said, “Father, I am going to accept this as Thy Word—by faith! I’m going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be Your inspired Word!”*

    Seems as though things worked out quite productively for the Kingdom as God was able to use one fully yielded, humble man to lead millions to Christ.

  53. Duane Arnold says:

    “It makes it so simple…”

    Simplicity is what you want, and simplicity is what you have chosen. It does not mean that your subjective view is correct. It is merely “simple”.

  54. Duane Arnold says:

    … And by the way, at the end of his life the one thing that Billy Graham said that he regretted was that he had not engaged in more vigorous study.

  55. Michael says:

    “I have never had any interest in my walk in the questions you or Michael for that matter pose.”

    In other words, you’ve never wrestled with or studied the issues, but you’re sure you’re right…by faith.

  56. Duane Arnold says:

    “One of my great regrets is that I have not studied enough. I wish I had studied more and preached less. People have pressured me into speaking to groups when I should have been studying and preparing. Donald Barnhouse said that if he knew the Lord was coming in three years he would spend two of them studying and one preaching. I’m trying to make it up.”

    Billy Graham

  57. greg says:

    Duane,
    Remind me again why it is so important to engage in endless conversation regarding the endless studies of two millenia of biblical study and scholarship…..versus just simply reading my bible everyday and trusting God to do the work in me. Why do I want to be distracted with the endless study of the authenticity of the bible according to man. How about according to God. Your really questioning God and what He has already made clear in scripture.

  58. greg says:

    Michael,
    Never said I have not studied, however more out of curiosity and not trying to validate something God has already made clear in His Word

  59. greg says:

    Duane,
    Simple is good….I will accept that. You certainly can argue, by any standard, that Billy Graham was used perhaps more mightily in God’s plan of redemption than any other. I think all of us will have that regret that we did not “dig deeper” in the truths of the scripture.

  60. Duane Arnold says:

    “Remind me again why it is so important to engage in endless conversation regarding the endless studies of two millenia of biblical study and scholarship…..versus just simply reading my bible everyday and trusting God to do the work in me.”

    Of course, you know better than anyone else. I haven’t quite made it to that kind of spiritual arrogance. Rather, I see myself as walking in the footsteps of others, those who have walked this same path for 2000 years. Maybe that is the difference…

  61. greg says:

    Michael,
    I never said I was right, those are words you have inaccurately constructed. I have said this is what works for me and frankly many other believers I know that simply walk by faith. Certainly I have committed to much study and wrestled with many things (still do). I prefer to study God’s word and not the endless things of 2000 years ago are nothing but a distraction. God does not need any of that argument to accomplish His work in me. It is mans attempt to validate everything that God has already validated.

  62. Michael says:

    greg,

    If that works for you, good for you.

    I encounter more and more people who refuse to take anything by faith when there is evidence otherwise.

    They refuse to close their minds…so the challenge is to prove not that your English translation is perfect, but that the narrative is true.

    Your circular reasoning would be most unhelpful in that conversation.

  63. greg says:

    Duane,
    Question is what was Billy Graham wishing that he had studied more. I suggest to you that it was scripture that he had before him and how to teach it in context rather than preaching about his study of the authenticity of scripture. He had already settled that in his heart. It is interesting that his ministry really began to flourish once he made the decision to believe the words in the bible….by faith

  64. Duane Arnold says:

    He also studied his foremost critic, Reinhold Niebuhr, because “I respect him, and have much to learn from him”.

  65. greg says:

    Duane,
    Maybe…..but I highly doubt it. The difference is you are arguing something that at the end of day has no eternal value at all. I does not change what God has already made clear. More importantly, it is disruptive to many people that maybe have not yet believed or are young in the faith. It takes them away from pure, simple faith.

  66. Michael says:

    “More importantly, it is disruptive to many people that maybe have not yet believed or are young in the faith. ”

    It actually gives them real faith in Christ that isn’t dependent on a perfect text.

    “It takes them away from pure, simple faith.”

    There is no such beast recorded in life or Scripture…

  67. greg says:

    Michael,
    Romans 10 says if you confess with your mouth and BELIEVE in your heart that God the Father raised him from the dead….you shall be saved! He did not say if “you refuse to take anything by faith” you will be saved. The world says show me and I will believe…God says believe me and I will show you.

  68. Duane Arnold says:

    It is a direct quote. You simply don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear. That is the problem…

  69. greg says:

    Michael,
    Maybe so….however your suggestion is a very long journey to “real faith in Christ” I do not believe that is God’s heart. He can an certainly does take some down the road of intellectualism and saves them. I have know a couple myself. Both of the ones I have know were many, many years coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus. I guess I could have chosen that path, it is just that I have found it so easy to just put all my faith in Jesus and the scriptures…..completely trusting Him in all things. It has been very rewarding with no regrets

  70. Michael says:

    greg,

    Now you’re just babbling…I’m done now.

  71. Duane Arnold says:

    “I do not believe that is God’s heart…”
    “I have know a couple myself…”
    “I could have chosen that path…”
    “I have found it so easy…”

    It kind of says it all…

  72. greg says:

    Ya huh

  73. greg says:

    Duane,
    thanks, I appreciate that

  74. Michael says:

    There is nothing wrong with having a “simple” faith and trust in Christ….right up to the moment when you challenge and demean people who have given much to go beyond simplicity for the sake of their own faith and to minister to others.

    If you want to challenge people on another level, be prepared to answer and engage honestly.

    If you can’t or won’t do that…shut up and be happy.

  75. Officerhoppy says:

    Greg
    Which ever side of the fence you sit, the one thing we can all agree on is the scriptures are reliable. For different reasons, but they are reliable.

    Best just to accept that and move on.

  76. greg says:

    Michael,
    first of all, I appreciate you comments and am sorry if you thought any of my comments are demeaning. It seems you are very sensitive in this area and I am good with that. I have tried to share what works for me and others. For me, the path you are on does not work. As mentioned, if your journey leads you or others to a deep relationship with our Savior Jesus then I say Amen to that. Maybe my argument is a little zealous on my end and maybe it just happens to be a subject you are passionate about and sensitive. I can accept that. As it relates to honesty, that is a curious comment. What was it I said that was dishonest? Some of your questions, in my judgement, are not germane to the argument and I did not see any point. That does not make me dishonest….just careful. I think encouraging people to shut up is not so eloquent or helpful. However since it is your blog I suppose you can say whatever you like.

  77. greg says:

    Ofc Hoppy
    10/4…good advice

  78. Michael says:

    “However since it is your blog I suppose you can say whatever you like.”

    This we agree on….and I did.

  79. greg says:

    That you did….congrats!!

  80. Duane Arnold says:

    And for the record…

    “When Dr. Niebuhr makes his criticisms about me, I study them, for I have respect for them. I think he has helped me to apply Christianity to the social problems we face.”

    Billy Graham
    Christianity Today

  81. greg says:

    Duane,
    Always good advice!!

  82. Duane Arnold says:

    While we’re at it… Billy Graham also stated that he had read “nearly everything” that Reinhold Niebuhr had written, in addition to being conversant with the work of Paul Tillich, and, of course, his great regard for the Anglican theologian, Michael Ramsey, among many others…

    Deep and wide learning is not antithetical to faith. In fact, faith and learning go hand-in-hand…

  83. Dread says:

    Food fight Monday
    It was a quiet weekend.

  84. greg says:

    Duane,
    I certainly never claimed learning is antithetical to faith. I have said one thing and one thing only. The camp your in commonly attacks this idea faith and learning must go hand in hand. I do not believe that at all. That does not mean they cannot go hand in hand however I believe they are mutually exclusive of each other. Because I choose to take what I have described as the simple path and be ridiculed by you and Michael earlier for doing so does not mean that it is not a correct path for me or others. Nor does it mean that I do not have interest in intellectual things regarding the historicity of the bible. I get a little tired of you bible scholars that want to somehow say that intellectualism and learning about Jesus must go hand in hand. Billy Graham could have read and studied every work ever written regarding first century theology……at the end of the day he simply kneeled before God and the Word of God and said I CHOOSE to believe by faith everything that is in this book. He did not intellectualize it. He subsequently read the works of many scholars but not out of some motivation to authenticate,or disprove any first century or later writings. He had already settled that in his heart on his walk in the country and time with God. Many times you scholars fail to see this or refuse to. This was before he read the works you cited. As you say faith and learning can go together and if that is your journey….praise God. However when you fail to recognize that it is not the only path and but rather simply one path……I find it very shortsighted. Not to mention what you are missing by just sitting at the feet of Jesus and simply believing every single word of scripture and let God work it out if there is a translation error.

  85. Michael says:

    Our camp wrote the manuscripts
    Our camp preserved the manuscripts
    Our camp discovered the manuscripts
    Our camp translated the manuscripts
    Our camp published the manuscripts
    Our camp interpreted the manuscripts…

    All you you could demean our camp.

  86. Michael says:

    “Not to mention what you are missing by just sitting at the feet of Jesus and simply believing every single word of scripture and let God work it out if there is a translation error.”

    Because no one who studies ever sits and is taught by Jesus….the superior faith of the willfully ignorant.

    I’m deeply impressed…

  87. greg says:

    Michael
    You are obviously not understanding and woefully misinformed regarding these things….so be it. You can keep your nose in all the books you want…..what I saying to you is Jesus is much bigger than that. You will never see that when your motivation is to intellectualize history in lieu of pure simple faith in scripture. It is nothing short of idolatry. FYI, the issue in part is that apparently you are looking for someone to impress you. Look to Jesus my friend

  88. Michael says:

    “You can keep your nose in all the books you want…..what I saying to you is Jesus is much bigger than that. ”

    No sh.., Sherlock.

    Jesus also gave me a brain and a desire to use it…and your constant implication that because of that my faith in Him is somehow smaller than or deficient to yours is an insult of deepest proportion.

    I have to look to Jesus to survive…daily.

    My faith holds up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny…I’m not sure yours does.

    You are real close to leaving here…I cannot and will not tolerate this level of ignorance and bigotry.

  89. Duane Arnold says:

    Willful ignorance… and far less of the faith than is claimed…

  90. Greg says:

    Generally when people begin point fingers at others critically as you have it is usually generated by a complete inability to receive other perspectives. You come across as very pious and legalistic. For centuries this has driven many away from the church. I encourage you to think it over. You have failed to even consider much of what I have shared much less understood. Very disappointing however not so surprising

  91. Michael says:

    I encourage you to try out for the next remake of “Hee Haw”.

    Now I leave you to other spiritual giants such as yourself.

    Bye.

  92. Michael says:

    Greg is no longer posting here, so there is no need to respond to him further.

    I don’t want to rob him of time when he could be sitting at the feet of Jesus reading his inerrant Bible.

  93. Officerhoppy says:

    Hey Guys
    Best just to stop and breathe a minute. It’s getting kinda nasty and it doesn’t need to be.

    Disagree agreeably they say.
    Just leave it at that.

    Just saying

  94. Mark Brewer says:

    Hi Michael, I would really appreciate a chance to dialogue with you regarding Calvary Chapel. I have followed your critique of Calvary Chapel. I was involved since the 70s ans Tom Snipe, attending the school of ministry, and later Pastor a Calvary in Anthem AZ. Anyway, like so many others my faith almost shipwrecked (especially after seeing behind the curtain at the competition between the Pastors. I knew Stave Mays, worked with Don McClure. My main point is that although you’ve gone out of your way to be fair with Calvary and discreet. My personal opinion, you’ve been to careful. I was part of Calvary for 30 years. and the most important thing to note was the underlying implications (and the reason we didn’t associate with other churches), was we’re the only ones doing it right. There’s a hint of cultic culture in that messaging. This along with the so called Moses model fostered a lot of abuse with the movement (which was supposed to be founded on a bunch of hippies and surfers and grace. All of which was a facade. And now to find out about Chucks failure, Jon and Ben Courson, to see the power struggle over the control of the mother ship (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (which at the heart was control
    Of millions of dollars. I don’t agree with Brian’s new direction, but I respect him for having the courage to do what he did. The men he stood up against believed it was their “birthright” to take over CCCM. My point is there’s a hint of cultic thinking in Calvary Chapel and NOBODY appears to be willing to call it out. How many people we’re damaged by these controlling Pastors (Respectfully Steve Mays was one of the worst). I tried opening a Calvary in Redondo beach after getting approval from Costa Mesa. I was contacted by Pastors from other Churches after running an add on the paper, letting me know Steve will never let another Church be started in that area. I witnessed this with him first hand. Anyway, you should look into that, and warn people (If the Pastor can’t be questioned (Moses), and the arrogance that Calvary Chapel is the only church doing it right (Calvary distinctive) this is similar to the way cults operate.

  95. Michael says:

    Mark,

    I’ve spent over 20 years telling those stories.

    It has not changed a thing…because the people in the pews do not care.

    I gave at the office…and it still costs me everyday…

  96. Michael says:

    I have to leave for a while…you can contact me @ michael@phoenixpreacher.com

  97. Nonnie says:

    Oh, Mark. Bless your heart.

  98. Officerhoppy says:

    Michael
    did you ban Greg from PXP?

  99. Michael says:

    Yes, I did…I’m too old to deal with that crap.

    If a person is going to raise a topic, they should be prepared to engage honestly.

    I gave him lots of outs to disagree agreeably.

    Little story that I’ve told those close to me too many times…
    When I got online back in 90’s I joined a couple theology groups…and these were all quite learned men.
    I only knew what CC had taught me and thought I was a biblical master.
    They gutted me…sent me home with my pants down and my beard cut off.
    Turns out I didn’t know much, and much of what I thought I knew was wrong.
    They were merciful…they offered me opportunities to take classes, private tutoring, and books.
    They taught me how to think theologically…how to reason, and how to ask questions.
    I’ve never stopped studying or asking questions when I don’t understand something…which is often.

    When people want to engage honestly, learn, study new things…I’ll go miles with them.
    If you just want to denigrate learning…you can go to hell.

    God has blessed me with great teachers…I have three PhD’s on speed dial.
    My lament is that I won’t have enough time in this life to glean all I can from them and others.

  100. Michael says:

    Greg,

    You’re banned.
    Good job getting around the block.
    I’ll keep blocking you.
    We’re done now.

  101. Michael says:

    This is Greg’s final comment…I knew this was coming.

    “I seriously question if Michael just knows about Jesus intellectually or does he actually know Jesus.”

  102. Michael says:

    Greg,

    I knew this because when hillbillies can’t debate , they accuse.
    Now, I’ve moved you from moderation to the spam filter…so I won’t see you and you’ll be in the company of pornographers and weight loss “experts”.

    Adieu…

  103. Officerhoppy says:

    I don’t know the history of him here at Phxp. But I will ask what others may be thinking—was that necessary?

    I was under the impression this was a community of faith and the free flow or discussion of opposing views.

    Was I wrong in my assumption?

  104. Michael says:

    When you won’t answer questions and respond only with accusations, you’re leaving.

    That is not free flowing discussion.

    Now you can tell others why I banned him….and his posts in moderation have proven that it was the right move.

    As I’ve said for over two decades…everyone is free to start their own site.

  105. Officerhoppy says:

    I think sometimes you are intolerant of opposing ideas. You may have acted a bit quickly, I dunno.

    All I know is that when I breached the subject of inerrancy it got pretty nasty. There were some negative remarks made towards me. I don’t understand you or Duane’s position on the subject so I asked questions seeking to understand. I think they were interpreted as antagonistic when they weren’t. I have been told 5here is no bad or wrong question but regarding this subject apparently there is.

    I vamped back here after a long absence hoping to find some interesting and respectful discussion. But it seems you and Duane have made this an EO thread and those who disagree, or like men seek to understand, ref not tolerated too much.

    You have come down pretty heavy on CC thru the years. Aren’t you as guilty as them for suppressing ideas?

    The discussion on inerrancy has made me feel that I can’t safely interact here.

    So you might as well ban me too. Because I’m gonna ask questions.

    I’ve wondered why the interaction has diminished here. Now I know. Those who don’t agree with the theology dejour eventually get banned. Eventually it will be just you and Duane

  106. Michael says:

    I’m not intolerant…but I will challenge.

    No ideas have been suppressed here…and my doctrine of Scripture is nowhere near that of Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Questions are fine…but expect questions as well.

    I expect honest interaction.

    If you don’t feel “safe” here then by all means retreat to a place where everyone agrees with you.

    The fact that you twice called this an EO thread simply indicates that you don’t understand EO theology anymore than what Duane and I and others are talking about.

  107. Michael says:

    Now, I’m finally mad.

    Hopkins, you’ve had weeks of time and dozens of posts to explain your views.

    Not once have you been censored….yet you accuse me of “suppressing” ideas.

    When did you get suppressed?

  108. Officerhoppy says:

    “… you don’t understand EO theology anymore than what Duane and I and others are talking about.”

    You are correct. I don’t understand. I have no experience with it.
    So I ask questions seeking to understand
    You didn’t censor me but you were intolerant. Your frustration with me was pretty evident.
    Duane, was just mean spirited.

    Look man, I don’t have answers but I have more questions that a pastor should have. I don’t buy into the CC thing any more, I am searching for a place to land theologically and spiritually.

    You should understand that. Unless I am wrong, you were once CC, then Reformed, and now, well, I guess I don’t know, if not EO, I don’t know how to categorize you

    All I asked for was a place to parse out a different belief system.
    All I have as background is my 52 years of evangelicalism, first as a Lutheran, then an Assembly of God guy, Applegate CF, then an outsider in the CC movement.

    All I asked for is some respect and a little patience. I’m not peddling anything for defending any position

    At least that’s how I felt.

  109. Michael says:

    This is the last comment before I close shop on this thread.

    “You are correct. I don’t understand. I have no experience with it.”

    You evidently felt that you had enough experience in it to call my views (and Duane’s) EO…you didn’t ask a question, you made a statement.

    Duane and I are Anglicans, by the way…much respect for EO, but not affiliated at all.

    “You didn’t censor me but you were intolerant. Your frustration with me was pretty evident.”

    When someone asks questions I expect that they want an answer. Most of your questions will only be resolved by reading books, not reading blogs. The frustration comes when someone clearly doesn’t understand a topic and clearly isn’t seeking answers elsewhere. Not only that, they can’t or won’t engage with what is being said, but want to debate anyway.

    “Look man, I don’t have answers but I have more questions that a pastor should have.”

    Then get busy…partner up with pstrmike who has done the work you haven’t and he can show you the way.

  110. Michael says:

    Anyone who wants to engage further can email me. …michael@phoenixpreacher.com