The fact of the Word and our mutual regard for its primary place centers our attention and presents a circumference to our discussion without (and here is the miracle I think) setting any limits to our progress in The Life. I must add that "verbal and plenary inspriation" is no more the workings of God than an appeal for the "providential" supply of the Word.
In your opinion were the men who wrote inspired?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:53:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, I know what you mean about the inspiration. I have thought long and hard, and finally come to a conclusion that works for me. I cannot prove or disprove that what I have in my Bible is the absolutely accurate inspired word of God. It seems on one hand that God would not allow it to be any other way, yet He has allowed false teachers to teach fables.. He allows killers to kill and thieves to steal. Why would He not allow liars to lie?
Having noted that, I still need a starting place for absolute truth, and if it is not the Bible, then there is no absolute truth. I must trust the Bible because there is nothing else written in which I can put my trust. I know that my God lives, and I know He will judge me by what is in my heart. I have therefore made a decision to accept The Bible as God's absolute truth until He tells me otherwise. If I am in error, let Him judge my heart.
Terry
This argument/discussion I have been having with one or two on this forum has a lot to do with our (yours and mine) very brief discusion. Not to belabor the point, but Barth was one, as I see in his writing thus far, who was unwilling to fight over certain notions effecting the subject of the Word while fully accepting it as his prima authority. Whether we call it "absolute truth" or authority suprema, the result is very much the same.
We really have nothing to talk about if the biblical message is not highly regarded and mutally so. To discuss my opinion verses yours is one thing -- to discuss my opinion about the written Word verses yours is a very different matter. In the first case, the only limit to the discussion is my imagination. In the second case, it is still my imagination ("what I think," " my interpretation" ...... if you prefer) but it has a centre, namely the historical accounting of history, past, present and future. And so, we are not just coming up with ideas, boundless and without end. Instead, we are expressing an opinion inspired by the Divine Text. Unity of thought may not be the result, but neither will we find ourselves arguing about the fastest car or the best bass boat. The fact of the Word and our mutual regard for its primary place centers our attention and presents a circumference to our discussion without (and here is the miracle I think) setting any limits to our progress in The Life. I must add that "verbal and plenary inspriation" is no more the workings of God than an appeal for the "providential" supply of the Word. Joseph, if you remember that story, saw a providential supply in the story of his life. The two choices allow for God to be fully in control and that is the important thing, to me.
JD
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
