ECT A question from a Muslim
- Thread starter theophilus
- Start date
andyc
New member
Jesus is a man.
The bible talks about a pre-human existence. This is what you need to be looking into, if you are sincerely wanting to know the answer.
andyc
New member
You mean, "distort".
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
None of these passages support "Just Me and My Bible" nonsense. No one denies the Lord gives wisdom. Sadly, not a few deny that one of the many means by which the Lord does so, in addition to personal dedication to study of the Scripture, is from those gifted by God to teach, those that are provoked by the Spirit to seek out the community of the saints, those that take every word captive seriously enough to sit at the feet of those that have come before them, and so on.
It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.
But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know more of the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .
Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholar*ship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalahashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only additional light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.
[Src: Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know more of the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .
Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholar*ship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalahashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only additional light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.
A simple survey in these very forums of the heresies, heterodoxies, and error held by those that would claim “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself” prima facie makes the argument above.
No one denies that Scripture is the sole-authority for all life and faith. What believers should deny is that there are no others from whom we can learn more and grow in our walk of faith as if these others were not indwelled by the same Spirit indwelling ourselves. Too often folks are given over to a chronological snobbery that would claim they know more in this modern time than others in the past. And these same folks make this claim without evidence that they have even thoroughly availed themselves of those same whom they would ignore. The self-refuting nature of their claims escapes them. :AMR:
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I can't help but notice you ducked post 62 ...
Learn how to use the linking features of the forum. I have no time to do the heavy lifting for you.
Do you understand that persons may set the number of posts to see per web page herein? Some have it set to 100 posts per page, some 50, some 10, some 5. Why should anyone have to go trolling about to find a post that is easily linkable if one knows how to use the site's features properly?
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What does this even mean? I offer up resources worth a look and you just want to cavil at the effort?
AMR
I don't recall having made that assertion. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
I don't recall having uttered these words. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
“THE church?”, “WE?”
In offering this you put yourself shoulder to shoulder with all others that have insisted that the doctrines of some man must be embraced before the Bible may be rightly understood … as if God Himself were not up to the task. Believing that they were the only ones smart enough to figure out what God really meant and that you were one of the few to figure that out … now that's egotism.
… or Strong's. :chuckle:
As it concerns what you believe I have no doubt that is true.
Then what are you grousing about?
I like to play as much as the next guy but I'm really not interested in playing “Straw Man”. I will happily answer for what I have said but I am not greatly interested in answering for the words of others that you are currently offering.
I understand that some folks will reach for any excuse to avoid addressing a point.
Your offering seemed to indicate that you thought I was unfamiliar with the tomes you offered and failed to take them into account before offering the advice I did to Theo... it is that notion that I took umbrage with.
Christ was put into a body with limited conduits between the soul and the external.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All your attempts at being coy notwithstanding, nothing I have posted suggests anything of the kind. You seem to be one of those "ready, fire, aim" types (cholerics).
My point stands. "Just Me and My Bible" Lone Ranger believing has no warrant in Scripture. We interpret in community of the saints. If you fail to grasp this from Scripture and think you are correct, look askance at anything men of the church have written, why are you even bothering to even discuss Scripture at all? Should you not just be off in some room all by yourself reading and studying, never needing teaching from mere mortals, unworried you have rightly grasped the sound patterns of Scripture Paul spoke about?
EDIT:
Just the same, never mind. This is all beyond the intent of the OP and I apologize to the originator for derailing it to deal with nonsensical ideas of others that belong below the fold.
AMR
Last edited:
As I've been here since 03 and you since 07 and this being our first encounter of any significant duration I think your summation of my character might be a bit "wide of the mark". I'm guessing that (cholerics) is a reference to the poster who goes by that name and, if that is indeed the case, me being unfamiliar with your exchanges I don't feel qualified to hold forth on that matter.
"We?" "The Church?" I think I'm beginning to detect something of a pattern in your offerings.
Oh, yea ... what to tell Muslims about Jesus being God ... Where's my Strong's ... :chuckle:
Cross Reference
New member
LOL!!! Exactly!!
Cross Reference
New member
In general, I view commentaries as "burnt toast", commentaries that smell of untoward bias. That is all AMR seems to have allowed sculpt his thinking.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Maybe to keep back to the topic, we could ask what they believe about transferred righteousness. They don't believe it can happen. This creates another complication which is the denial the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ happened because his righteousness was perfect and efficacious (atoning) and can be credited to poor humans for justification from their debt of sin; God proved this by raising him. So if you want to disable Christianity, you first deny that righteousness can be credited or imputed. Denying the resurrection is sort of automatic after that. I don't know of any inflammatory treatments of the question of resurrection by Muslims; they just reject it on principle.
The other reason they would reject it is that it would undercut the martyr incentive to be resurrected to a paradise with a harem to look after them once they arrived.
The other reason they would reject it is that it would undercut the martyr incentive to be resurrected to a paradise with a harem to look after them once they arrived.
In my experience Muslims are like Christians in that they come in many different flavors. If you really want to get to know what an individual believes you're going to have to go to the trouble of getting to know them. That's more effort than most are willing to put forth.
Since I was quoting godrulz, you were actually right for once and didn't know it.
You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I wouldn't want to chase down the rabbit trail of an individual who was not representative, would I? If I know there are propositional doctrines about the resurrection, about transferred righteousness, about al-taqia, about naqzic, about Medinia, about Meccia, about the sha'adah, about paradise, I'm not going to bother with one individual at first.
There are many expository treatments out there about the propositional doctrines. The fact that they are by missionaries or by former members does not DQ them.