Proving the Word

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by thewatchman on May 25, 2015 at 10:37am

Perfect Carla, Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on May 25, 2015 at 10:00am

:-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on May 25, 2015 at 10:47am

Good devotional

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on May 25, 2015 at 10:27am

Yes. For one who may have even heard it but say it's in error due to men's writing. I can return with Timothy saying all of the Word is inspired by God but then they could come back & say but you are using the Word to prove it. Hope that makes sense & isn't going in circles. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on May 25, 2015 at 10:37am

Going in circles is exactly the argument that is used against us by those who want us to prove that the bible is inspired.

Here's a reply I made in another discussion where I was talking about the same issue but what LT and Carla have said stands true since we all only believe because of the supernatural intervention by God to change our minds.



The argument is given that we use the bible to prove the bible and therefore we are guilty of the Homunculus fallacy where we actually are explaining nothing. However, the canon of Scripture contains 66 books and has several different authors and the books were not all written at once. Why can't we use one author to verify what another author has said, such as using Matthew to verify John? We use other historical works to verify what one historian has said against what another has said, such as in American history. If we take all the authors who wrote accounts that happened in American history and put their books all in one book and called it the 66 books of American History, would that make us no longer able to use those authors in comparison one to another in order to verify what each of them has written about American history?

Here's a good link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/09/you-cant-use-the-bibl...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on May 25, 2015 at 11:00am

The article makes a great point and most certainly worth posting, but as you and I know the true belief is still out of reach unless enabled by the Holy Spirit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on May 25, 2015 at 12:06pm

Modeling your example from the hangout discussion, I'm going to take this question in a different direction :) which is what I was aiming to do in the other discussion where I was commenting about it.

We know that salvation is up to God and we know the intellect will take us only so far, and I've never argued against those two points but have admitted that the teachings I was under in my life always downplayed Holy Spirit's activity today and basically said He gave us the bible and it's all we need now.

At any rate, the experience of being born again is handled by God and is God's work. Yet, we have jobs, too. We are to deliver the message of faith, reach out, care about people, teach, etceteras -- basically use the spiritual gifts and natural talents which God has given us and be useful by God. 1 Peter 4:10. God chooses to use us in His seeking for His lost sheep.

So, I don't frown on the use of using the intellect or on engaging the intellect of those who are lost. I understand that truly believing must go beyond just knowing the historical facts of something, such as of Christ's death and resurrection, and, where it says that even demons believe and tremble, to me, it means that they know the facts but that's as far as their belief goes. We are told in Romans 2:4 that the kindness of God leads to repentance. Repentance is in God's hands. We also know there is a difference between general revelation and special revelation. Romans 1 describes the condition of fallen man and general revelation. 

When asked to prove that the bible is inspired without using the verses in the bible that say it's inspired, for us to focus on the idea that the bible needs to be explained is where we make our mistake. The value of Y is given to prove the phenomenon X but Y depends on phenomenon X.

Going down that road is a mistake. So, pointing out in the bible historical facts that are also recorded in other texts is an alternative and can be used to teach those who have not yet been illuminated by Holy Spirit.

Yet, as you say, engaging someone's intellect has a limit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on May 25, 2015 at 3:51pm

Spiritual conviction (convincing) requires enlightenment from the Holy Spirit who opens our minds (eyes, heart) to a new level, new awareness, that was previously blocked to us. He will use out intellect in the process, but goes beyond our finite minds ability in so doing. It is not separate intellect (thinking capacity) from spiritual enlightenment but rather spiritual enlightenment is going beyond that which was previously possible intellectually.

I believe that the sharing of information has value in that there may come a day when the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance and open the mind (Lk. 24:45). 

The main point is that we do not "prove" anything to them, but rather the Holy Spirit must convince them. There is a stark difference.

There is another side point to this and that would be what is proof? Though we can look to the dictionary for definition I think application will be somewhat subjective regarding what is necessary for each person, but again it requires the work of the Holy Spirit for it to have a spiritual impact.

I agree with Carla, and have been there many times, where she speaks of the difference between those who are seeking and those who are looking for an argument. Those who are looking for an argument will inevitably seek to change the discussion from known facts presented in the Bible (disregarding them) and moving to things that are not provable through other sources regarding recorded history or miracles that defy the laws of nature.

Lord Bless,

LT

Permalink Reply by Amanda on May 25, 2015 at 5:54pm

Being argumentative is the cut off point? 

I don't see it that way. As long as someone will hear us and are listening to our words, even when their goal is to argue their own POV, and it can be frustrating, I know, to keep answering and keep the dialogue going, but I don't think that's a good reason to stop the interaction. Matthew 10:14 gives a good reason. When they refuse to hear and want to shut you up. But even when Saint Paul was stoned at Lystra in Acts 14, he moved on the next day to another city. Then he went back to Lystra. 

When I look at the apostles and their examples in the NT, I do see their frustrations and problems but as long as people were listening, even though those same people were rejecting their words, and disagreeing, they kept on preaching to them and even disputing with them, such as Paul did in Acts 9:29, until they got so mad that they wanted to kill him, and in Acts 4 we see them praying for boldness even in the face of being threatened, Acts 4:39-30, and I wonder how many are still asking God to look at the threats they are facing and to fill them with boldness to speak for the Lord? 

Yes, there is a cut off point, I'm sure. But I'm not sure just where it is. Maybe you and Carla are right, but, for now, I'm in mild disagreement :)

I remember reading somewhere once, and I'm paraphrasing, how can you preach the gospel to a roomful of atheists who want to hear what you have to say -- and the answer is, have a debate. Of course, they only want to hear you in order to refute you, but it's still an open door, isn't it, to let them hear the Word?

Permalink Reply by Carla on May 25, 2015 at 9:32pm

The reason I won't argue, is because when people argue, they are not listening.  Arguing and listening don't go together in my experience. 

A discussion with intriguing and genuinely seeking questions is different.

If the person(s) begin to personally insult or make blanket statements of all 'Christians', then I remove myself.  At this point it can cause more damage than the good we might think we're doing.  I won't walk away without saying anything.  I have let them know by saying something like "I'm sorry that has been your experience." or "I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive...there's nothing more to talk about (right now)".

Engaging the intellect is not the problem... arguing is.  We are to use our intellect....keeping in mind of course that being 'intellectual' will not win anyone over to our Lord.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on May 25, 2015 at 11:00pm

Do as you see that you're able to do and as the Lord leads you.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on May 26, 2015 at 5:47am

Carla said:

Engaging the intellect is not the problem... arguing is.  We are to use our intellect....keeping in mind of course that being 'intellectual' will not win anyone over to our Lord.

Amen!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page