Re: Worldviews « Result #1 on Nov 19, 2009, 8:07pm »
Everything said here is Biblically correct and if more people understood that the Body of Christ is what we become a part of because of a salvation experience then the more they are spiritually aware of what a relationship with God is all about. We join a local body of believers because the Bible instructs us to do so. In Baptist circles the congregation that baptizes one usually is the first local expression of the Body of Christ that a new believer affiliates with but that does not have to be so. Baptist generally also require baptism by immersion by them or some other congregation of believers as a requirement for membership in their local congregation which is also Biblically correct. Now, none of this, though, addressed this person's lack of understanding. All she is going by is what is directly in front of her face and that is limited indeed. Of course her immediate need is a genuine conversion experience. Where is Josie when you need her the most? Then let the understanding begin.
Re: Worldviews « Result #2 on Nov 19, 2009, 11:51am »
Here's the deal. The church consists of sinful people. Sinful people sin. We're not perfect, so no church is perfect.
Now, do we have to go to church on Sunday to talk to God? No, but we don't go to church because we believe that to be the case (she's arguing against a strawman--a belief we Christians don't have). We go because we are part of the body of Christ, and we cannot possibly have the full experience of the Christian life apart from the body. Some ask, "Do I have to go to church to be a Christian?" Nope. Salvation is by grace through faith. But then some ask, "Do I have to go to church to be a good Christian?" Yep. You cannot separate yourself from the body, disobey God's command to meet together, and disrespect the bride of Christ and be much of a Christian. God invented the church, and He loves the church.
Oh, and I always find it interesting that people who don't want to be judged are so judgmental. Isn't your friend passing judgment on the church with her negative words about organized religion? She should be more tolerant.
This is a direct quote from a 44-year-old widow with two young adult children who considers herself non-religious:
" I marked myself as non-religious. This does not mean I don't believe in God. I'm sure there is a higher power up there of some sort BUT I can't stand organized religions and their need to judge you and still ask for your money. Me and God are on a first name basis and I can talk to him anytime I what, it doesn't need to be on Sunday in a building."
Obviously, there are many inconsistencies in what she says and the Word of God. That is not the only issue here the other being is this what the Body of Christ has communicated to some in the world and how did we get to that point of doing so?
Re: Joyce Meyer « Result #4 on Nov 8, 2009, 10:57pm »
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions; I know you're very busy! The commentary analogy really helps in looking at the Amp. version. It makes more sense to me now.
Re: Inerrancy of the Bible « Result #5 on Nov 7, 2009, 10:04am »
I absolutely believe in biblical inerrancy, and I am in agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention, found here: http://sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
As you can see, inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, which we do not have. However, the English translations we do have are so accurate that we can be confident in them. We do not apply inerrancy to any particular English translation.
Inerrancy of the Bible « Result #6 on Nov 6, 2009, 2:50pm »
Dr. Miller, I would like to ask you your view of the inerrancy of the Bible. I have argued many a times with people over this matter. Would you say that the Bible that we have today, lets say the King James Version, is inerrant? What is the view of Southern Baptist on this subject? And is your view the same? Thank you for your help!
Re: Joyce Meyer « Result #7 on Nov 6, 2009, 9:23am »
The Bible in English is a translation based on the best use of linguistic, cultural, and historical tools. The Amplified Bible provides some translation and a bunch of completely irrelevant suggestions which only lead to confusion and bad interpretation. Providing numerous meanings of a word is largely unhelpful, falling into the trap of what we call the fallacy of the totality of meaning. This fallacy assumes that any and every given meaning of a word is possible in any context, but that isn't true. Does the Amplified Bible contain the Bible? Yes. But it contains so much extraneous material that I don't think it can be called a Bible in its entirety. For example, I own commentaries on numerous books of the Bible. If a commentary on John contains the entire text of the book of John and then makes comment on the text, we would not call the commentary the book of John. It is a commentary. In a sense, the Amplified Bible is a commentary (and not a very good one in my opinion).
Re: Joyce Meyer « Result #8 on Nov 5, 2009, 12:52pm »
I'm still chewing on the info about Joyce Meyer, but would like to question further the statement about the Amplified Bible. It seems a bit strong to label it "not the Bible." Why do you say this? From what I can tell, the Amp. was meant to be a true translation, as well as to include some other possible meanings for words used in the original languages. They seem to be well-differentiated in the actual Amp. by their system of brackets and parentheses, one type for actual translations and one for what I guess they'd call "amplifications." It's not my favorite necessarily, I just wondered why your statement about it is so strong? How might it be different from comparing verses in the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.? To say it is not the Bible is to, in my mind, put it on the level of The Book of Mormon, or other such documents. I'm not wanting to argue, just interested in your choice of words. Thanks!
Re: Baptistism « Result #9 on Oct 27, 2009, 3:23pm »
On a trip to Istanbul the group took a side trip to Ephesus. Our able tour guide took us out to the ruins of St. Johns Church. In the middle of the church was a sunken baptizmal with step leading in one side and out the other. It must have ben 4 to 6 feet deep. Hard to get baptized there with out getting immersed, especially since persons were shorter back then.
Re: Elederly Man that does not believe in Bible « Result #10 on Oct 27, 2009, 7:55am »
Thanks, I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing, but just wanted reassuarance. I know "God's ways are not our ways and HIS thoughts are not our thoughts"-Isaiah, but it sure would be nice to see him respond in at least one positive way toward the scriptures. I believe in my own heart that this man knows enough of the Scripture and just because he can't reconcile every Word in it to his worldview, that is not the real reason that he is rejecting it. I believe that he is rejecting it because he does know that if he ever asked God to reveal the truth of the Gospel to him, that he would come to believe in the Lord as his Savior. That is his real fear. And, he likes where he is in life right now. That is where we all are. Not only him. As Bro. Joe said not too long ago in his blog, that is why we do not have revival anymore, people are satisfied with where they are in life, I don't think that is where God wants us-
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[Quote]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
Logged
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
