How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone Not to Proselytize?

Francis Schaeffer on the Origins of Relativism in the Church

Words to Remember

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

One of My Favorite Songs

An Inspiring Song

Labels

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Darn Good Post on "Free Will"

This'n'll be goin' in the sidebar. Well worth your time if you are interested in the subject.
For those interested, this is the important part, in my opinion, of Mr. Patton's view of the Scriptures:
I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
How much more than that a person could want, I'm not entirely sure.
Posted by at
Labels:

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousMarch 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM

    From Mr. Patton's blog:

    "Let me further define the faulty presupposition of the “technically precise view of inerrancy.” The presupposition is this: All writers of Scripture, by virtue of divine inspiration and inerrancy, must have recorded everything in a technically precise way. This means that everything that is recorded represents the events exactly as they occurred. Any deviation from the technically precise account, according to advocates of this view, amount to a complete undermining of the accuracy and authority of Scripture.

    I take issue with this view. I do not believe that inspiration and inerrancy require technical precision. What I ask myself it this: Why would it be so difficult to believe that the authors of Scripture would take liberties in their recording of the Gospel narrative? Ouch! . . . Right? But think about it. Does taking liberties in the way someone recounts an event mean that they are producing fabrications or lies? Does it mean that they are untrustworthy accounts? Can’t people tell the same story different ways and even nuance that story according to their purposes and still be accurate?

    We would never place these types of restraints upon people today. The Gospel writers were simply telling the story of Christ as enthusiastic reporters of good news who were emotionally committed to the truths upon which they were reporting. This happens every day in our own news reporting system and we don’t hold their feet to the fire of technical precision."

    In other words, the Scriptures are NOT inerrant in their actual words, which clearly undermines every proof verse you can give, as well as every possible deductive reason you can give for any doctrine. To put it another way, look at Matthew 22:23ff. Did the Saducees say, "well, Moses just wrote what he thought God said, and not really what God said? He might have made a mistake in the tense of the words there, after all, and it would still be as accurate as we might expect, so your argument, Jesus, doesn't hold water."

    No, they didn't. And there's a reason they didn't. Because they believed the Scriptures are accurate down to the tenses of the words--and even farther. In fact, if we go with Mr. Patton's way of seeing the Scriptures, Jesus didn't have an argument _at all_ in this case.

    Who are you going to believe, Mr. Patton, or Jesus?

    Russ

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)