Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Aron,
Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.
For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.
On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible?
Drake
|
Fair enough, lets accept your suggestion that there are human concepts expressed in God's word and let's also accept that there are human concepts expressed in God's word in the OT.
But how are you to know which is which? Evangelical's test is that if it is quoted in the NT that proves it is of God and worse yet, if it isn't that is conclusive proof that it was natural. This is a test that takes it out of the hands of a "MOTA" and can be determined with a concordance. The problem is that this makes the majority of the OT natural concepts.
Or you could take the WL approach which is that he has determined which is natural and which is "the high peak revelation". He has targeted, a couple of books in the OT he doesn't like and a couple of verses in the NT he doesn't like. But the only rhyme or reason is that these verses and books don't fit his overall thesis that well. Unless WL is God this suggests to me that the issue is with his thesis and not the Bible.
But perhaps you could enlighten us on how we distinguish which parts of God's word are truly inspired by God and which are simply the musings of the natural man.