What about Jesus can we know, in the first place, ‘through science’? Wookin Panub may be going on too narrowly with his point, but it is not an invalid point, is it?
I very much doubt that Wookin Panub is paranoid about that. But you yourself fall under a similar description or two, one of which is clearly paranoia regarding the supposed paranoia of those such as Wookin Panub.
No one is claiming we know anything about Jesus through science, so it is an invalid point. We are claiming the church was born because of the testimony of witnesses (some of whom went on to author or inform books of the NT) about Jesus Christ: who he was, what he did, and the hope of God’s coming kingdom. The church was not born because of Scripture, but because of the gospel of Christ, a gospel that was transmitted orally from person to person, long before it was codified and written down.
It is not coherent, since that doesn’t prove that scripture is not our foundation. Furthermore without scripture you wouldn’t have anything to base off of. Even if the “Christ” did exist, and performed miracles, even rising from the dead, that in no way will prove He is the Christ, because there would be no scripture for which to fulfill proving who He was…
Without Christ, you wouldn”t have the Bible or Christianity. On the other hand without the Bible, you would still be able to know about Christ because He started Christianity.
How do you think people were converting to Christianity in 40 AD? There was no Bible back then. But there was a Christ.
It is the way he is making it. An idol or false God is something that is good, but it is wrong when we make it Ultimate or God, just as science is good, unless we make it Ultimate.
Funny, I thought Jesus Christ was the chief cornerstone.
Ok…let me put it this way. It creates a false epistemological dichotomy between the authority of Christ actions and the authority of God’s word (God breathed). It is between who God sent to redeem us; what God sent in order that we can know who redeemed us. And, YES! I am guilty of this as well
It does not need to be this vs this. Andy Stanley was wrong in his teaching “the bible tells me so”
I keep trying to parse this last sentence. It’s hard to follow as it’s not really grammatical.
I apologize. I tend to get lazy and sloppy when I type A LOT!
If a man named, Jesus said he was the, ‘Christ’, and went on to perform many great feats, including rising from the dead. That will only prove that he is a man who does amazing things, but will not prove that He is the messiah, let alone the son of God. Christ did all of this and still most did not believe. So, how does Andy Stanley think he can convince unbelievers/God haters/rebels of God that Christianity is true based solely on the resurrection of Christ?
I would say that the ‘way’ in which someone makes a valid ‘point’ can have far more bearing on the point being effected upon the given receiver than is the ‘point’ itself. But is this what Wookin Panub is doing? Or, instead, is it more the way in which his point is being received here in this forum?
Of course. But are you implying that the scriptures have only marginal value today?
There’s also zero hint of airplanes and people used to say that they violated the nature of God.
Nobody really says that. Stanley preaches from scripture. He has not thrown out his Bible.
I trust the Bible. I’ve read it more than any other thing I have read. I trust what it says. And it says that Jesus is the Word of God, and that God has given him all authority. So it’s not either “Jesus” or “the Bible.” It’s because of the Bible that we acknowledge Jesus as the Word of God.
Please respond to the point that I made. @Wookin_Panub has made it clear that he thinks that the Bible must be accepted as the Absolute Word of God or nothing.
I will repeat, how can he and you if you care to join him, say that the Bible is the Foundation of the Christian faith, when the Bible itself says that Jesus Christ is the Foundation, the Alpha and Omega, the Word of God, et al.
It looks to me that you do not believe the Bible speaks the truth.
Well I’m sorry Wookin, but you need to know and you need to care, for the simple reason that you need to make sure that your facts are straight. Not getting your facts straight will make you look clueless and ignorant at the very least, and recklessly or wilfully not getting your facts straight will make you look dishonest. Either way, you will not be upholding the Bible; on the contrary, you will be undermining it. Furthermore, if you have any form of teaching responsibility in your church – whether as a pastor, or an evangelist, or a youth leader, or even merely as a home-schooling parent, not getting your facts straight about something you are teaching is a serious breach of trust. Read James 3:1 again.
People who think they don’t need to know the ins and outs of evolution in order to debunk it end up claiming that it’s about crocoducks and shape-shifting cats turning into dogs. Or that fossils-are-used-to-date-rocks-and-rocks-are-used-to-date-fossils. Or that Sir Arthur Keith said something about evolution being unproven and unprovable four years after he died. Or that radiometric dating is “nothing but guesswork.” Or any number of other similar wild, clueless, blatant falsehoods.
Look, Wookin, citing 2 Peter 3:8 is NOT “jettisoning Genesis 1-11.” On the contrary, it is affirming Genesis 1-11. It is, in effect, acknowledging that no matter how old the earth is, or who or what did or did not evolve from what, that the Bible is still the Word of God and it is still trustworthy and true. Jettisoning Genesis 1-11 means saying “Genesis 1-11 contradicts science therefore it must be a useless fabrication.” By accusing me of “jettisoning” Genesis 1-11, you are ascribing to me a position that I do not hold.
One other thing. “Secular science” – whatever that is supposed to be – has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The age of the earth is determined by measuring things, measurement does not give you different results depending on your worldview, and claiming otherwise is another example of not getting your facts straight. In any case, whenever I hear anyone making snide remarks about “putting your trust in secular science” it tells me one thing: that you have an uninformed hostility towards science in general and not just towards evolution. It’s passive-aggressive and ignorant. Cut it out.
No. I am saying the foundation of the Christian faith is Christ, not the Bible.
This correct, but we need to remember that Christ commissioned His apostles to spread and teach God’ Word, and this has remained with us as scripture, so it is wrong to separate the bible in this way (implying
[quote=“Christy, post:156, topic:38107”]
not the Bible.
For me, there is a qualitative difference between “I put my faith in the message of the apostles (i.e. Jesus Christ crucified, risen, exalted), as recorded in the Bible.” and “I put my faith in the Bible.” Maybe that is uncalled for, but I have seen a lot of weird Bible worship in my circles that I think is borderline idolatrous.
I understand - however we should remember that scripture tells us that not all of those who call Christ Lord are Christian, so be it the Bible, or declarations of faith in Christ, we as Christians need both scripture and our personal, reflective view of our faith. Scripture provides the means to self-reflection and understanding of faith.
I agree. That doesn’t make it the foundation though. Super important, yes.
I work with a people group that does not have a translation of the Bible in their own language. So personal reflection on the word of God is not an option for some of the Christians. They are dependent on what they have been taught by others about Christ. Is this an acceptable situation? No, that’s why we’re working so hard to change it. But is their faith somehow unfounded or inferior to the faith of those of us who have easy access to Scripture? I don’t think that is right.
This more or less mirrors the early Christians, especially gentiles who did not have access to the Bible of the day. I would add however, that they believed after hearing the word preached by those who were steeped in the teachings of the bible of that day, AND heard from witnesses of Christ. The foundation was due to the Holy Spirit imparting faith, but this was after they heard to Word from those faithful in spirit and in understanding scripture.
Right. Several of us have said more or less the same thing upthread. No one is claiming the Bible is dispensable.