@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougal writes (with the heart of a poet-- weak and illusionary):
Quote:Jerome you sum up my essence too quickly. The bible is full of beauty love and truth and I have no bitterness within my being
Your "compliments" of the Biblical text are nothing more than empty rhetoric. For we are speaking with a chasm between us: I, on the one hand, assert the full authoritative, verbal inspiration of Scripture; whereas you, on the other, find Scripture to be no more "beautiful" or "lovely" than pagan poetry. Of course the Bible is "beautiful", of course it is "lovely"; the question remains the same, however: is it true?
And again:
Quote:But believing the , as exact and literal does offer great difficulties. Take the instruction Jesus once said. "If your hand offends you cut it off better to enter heaven with one hand than hell with two" or, "if your eye offends you pluck it out better to enter heaven with one eye than hell with two"
I know I know Jesus did not mean this literally but many think he did and therein lays the dilemma
Now the problem is that a few people have actually done that awful self mutilation cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes.
Let us first distinguish between a literal interpretation, and a
literalistic one. The former sees no difficulty in the aforementioned passage of Matthew 5:29-30; for it certainly is better for one to pluck out that sinning member of the flesh than to have the whole body surrendered to flames. The latter, however, becomes fixated on the words to the point of believing it to be a principle of practice. The reason for this faulty interpretation is due to another missed distinction, namely, the Law and the Gospel. That is to say, the Law tells us that we are damned unless we abide by the whole of God's written command; it reveals how our minds are corrupt; our tongues deceitful; and our hearts wicked. Contrariwise, the Gospel tells us that we are justified by no work, merit, or action of our own, but on the sole merit of another, namely, Christ. Therefore, by interpreting the Law for the Gospel, or the Gospel for the Law, we destroy the literal meaning of the text and are left only with our own obscure notions of God's will and intent toward us.
However, in addressing the matter of the perspicuity of Scripture, I did not mean to convey that there are not passages which, indeed, are obscure, but only that, where those passages are obscured, there are several other places where they are clear. For years Christian missionaries used only the Gospel of Matthew to teach the entire Christian doctrine to the heathen. Scripture plainly teaches the truths of Christ's
satisfactio vicaria (the atonement), the
fides divina (saving faith from God), and
scriptura sua radiat luce (the Scriptures are their own light).
From this it follows that when Genesis states that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, that Adam fell into sin, that a flood swept over the face of the whole earth: it is written to be believed (though most reject it), not made to conform our own theological cravings and senses.
Here are much needed dogmatic words for a much wanting undogmatic age:
Scriptura sacra locuta, res decisa est. (the Holy Scriptures have spoken, the issue is decided)
JEROME
---------- Post added 07-14-2009 at 08:39 PM ----------
LWSleeth writes:
Quote:Was your misspelling of my name an expression of disrespect? If so, we'll not be exchanging ideas...But just in case your spelling was an honest mistake, my answer is...
Indeed, I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was a genuine error and misspelling.
However, I have not the time tonight to respond adequately to what you have written. I will respond tomorrow.
JEROME
[/CENTER]