Conference yukon::christian_v7

    This can be a tough one.  I believe that it is possible for someone to
    be saved by hearing and believing the gospel, without ever considering
    the issue of inerrancy.  However, for obedience to God and growth in
    the Christian life, a proper respect for God's word is vital.  If
    someone is willing to listen to the Lord, the matter will be resolved
    (and I can name at least one noter in this file that will attest to the
    Lord's working in this very matter :-) ).
    
    I will leave the matter of one who is saved and refuses to accept the
    integrity authority of God's word to the Lord to decide.  But I do
    believe that holding such a view will ultimately prove to be costly.
    
    Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the
        things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them
        slip.
      2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every
        transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of
        reward;
      3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at
        the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto
        us by them that heard him;
      4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and
        with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to
        his own will?
    
    Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved,
        let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with
        reverence and godly fear:
     29 For our God is a consuming fire.
    
    Mark L.

    No.  It doesn't make sense to accept God's Son yet reject His Word when
    all that we know He said is in His Word.

    Moved notes 461.3 and 461.4 to their own topic.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod

    
    
    There's a difference, Nancy, between accepting God's word and accepting
    the Bible an being inerrant.  If I read you correctly, the fact that I
    don't believe the Bible to be inerrant means that I'm not a Christian
    in your eyes.  I can live with that.  But, you're wrong.
    
        Greg

    That's not how I read her note.
    My understanding:
    The point is, if the Bible is erroneous, how can we trust any of it?
    If we can't trust it, why become a Christian?  
    All we know about what Jesus said is contained in the Bible.

    Salvation is by faith, not by doctrine.
    
    Sanctification (as much His work as is Salvation, BTW) includes
    cleaning up not only lifestyle, but false doctrine as well.
    
    I have to admit that I have trouble thinking that someone can look at
    the Bible and pick and choose pieces s/he likes, and then claim to be
    saved.  Why?  Well, it's the Bible that tells you what salvation is all
    about anyway - if other parts are flawed, how can you rest in the parts
    that you like?
    
    Be that as it may, salvation is still G-d's gift, given without regard
    to man's "merit" (as if there were such a thing), and it is not always
    100% visible by actions.  Yet and still; "you show me this 'faith' of
    yours, and I'll show you *my* faith *BY* my actions...".  There must be
    fruit.  Since no one can say "Jesus be cursed" by the Spirit of G-d,
    I'd find it hard to think one really has the Spirit living in him if he
    continually curses (and/or rejects) the Word (as Yeshua *is* the Word
    made flesh).
    
    G-d alone is the judge of such things.  However, if one claims the
    label of the believer, other believers are commanded to judge that
    person's actions.
    
    How many sides of this issue have I covered?  :-)

1) No such condition on salvation is explicitly posited in Scripture.
2) Biblical inerrancy is, in itself, an extra-biblical axiom: that is, it is
an idea which one has to start with on faith, and which one cannot prove, even
from Scripture.

We have to keep in mind that the object of our faith is Christ, the Word of God
made flesh, and not the Sacred Scriptures.  It is first by belief in Christ 
through which we are saved.

This is not to say that Scriptural inerrancy is not an important doctrine -- it
is.  But I think that God will judge us to the extent of our knowledge and the
grace we've received; that is, God will not condemn someone simply because they
do not believe in Scriptural inerrancy if they honestly and through no fault of
their own were not aware that it was true.  If no one had bothered to explain
it to them, and if they had an honest intellectual difficulty believing it to
be inerrant in the same way in which it should be regarded as inerrant, should
they be held guilty for this?

On the other hand, someone who believes the Bible is errant in parts in order
to justify their immorality, or who has been properly taught that it is
inerrant but has rejected it as such and is culpable for that rejection, is in 
a different situation.  I think it depends largely on your motives.

I guess I would have to ask the question, if we are to regard this doctrine as
one necessary for salvation, then how is someone to know that it is true and
to know that it is necessary for salvation?  How are they to find this out and
be convinced that it is true, and does everyone who is a Christian have a
sufficient chance to learn this doctrine? Can someone be held responsible for
a doctrine for which they can see no firm, convincing basis?

	re.0

	Nancy,

	I can see circumstances in which a person receives the Lord Jesus as
their personal Savior because someone preached to them. They may have not ever
read the Bible, but upon hearing the word of faith, they received it. Therefore,
here is person who is saved yet doesn't affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. They
affirm the "Bible" that was spoken to them, but not the whole.

	However, possibly this same person gets poisoned by "the higher critics"
concerning the "errancy of the Bible" and becomes stumbled. This doesn't mean
this person is no longer saved, however, it does mean that their christian life
will become a contradiction. Unless delivered from this thought they probably
would at some point begin to doubt their very salvation. Nevertheless, they will
be saved in the end.

	One point I would add about inerrancy of the Bible. We should not get
hung up on transcription errors. They may and probably have occurred and
biblical research can clear those up. 

We need to be passionate, yet sober about the Bible. 

regards,
ace

    Can the Bible be used errantly?

    Yea verily it can.

    So?

    So if you use it errantly, how does this differ from not believing it's
    inerrant?

    It's just another hair to split. You will know a tree from it's fruit,
    whether the Bible is believed to be inerrant or not.

    Glenn

    
    
    		I can say without fear of any contradiction that the Bible
    has never saved anyone.  While I believe that the Bible is pure and
    totally perfect, I see a danger in thinking its anything other than a
    book....containing Gods words yes, but still only a book.  When I think
    back to those just after Jesus's death and how they recieved salvation
    even before the scriptures had a chance to be dissiminated to them, I
    get concerned when I hear so much discussion about a book and whether 
    or not its inerrant.  Jesus is the key and the Bible is only a "map" to
    that salvation or a guide if you please.
    
    
    Dave

    Re: Note 461.10 by 23989::DAWSON
    
    I agree that Jesus is the key, but the bible is my only reliable source
    of information about Jesus.  I have decided not to accept any other
    source due to the lack of provable reliability.
    
    James

    .10
    
    In the days of old you had the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus'
    legacy well alive in the minds of folks contemporary to that age. 
    Comparing that age to our available resources today is apples and
    oranges imho.
    
    While I believe the Word of God is alive.  It's not just a book
    written... and the reason it is alive is to give us the witness we need
    to accept Christ.  The Galatians and Corinthians had Paul... we have
    God's Word.
    
    I think diminishing this book one iota may not send you to hell, only
    rejecting Christ will do that, but it certainly has consequences of
    peril to this life.

    Christ came into the world to clear up some of the problems that people
    were having with the Law. They were so bogged down by tradition and
    rituals that they lost sight of God.
    
    I do believe that the Bible was inspired by God, but I don't believe
    that He meant us to obey every single word as a divine instruction from
    Him. The world changes. We no longer offer animal sacrifices to God,
    stay outside the camp (or city) if we are "ritually unclean", wear
    head-coverings to Church (ladies only), carry out the 1001 instructions
    on what to do if we have mould in the house. We DO eat pork, many women
    speak in Church (although I know that many of you believe this to be
    wrong).
    
    We also, whatever our particular denominations and private beliefs,
    love our Lord, put our weak and shaky faith in Him, and try to do what
    we believe He wants us to do. 

I think the issue Nancy raises is a very simple one
that the Bible directly addresses.

The requirements for salvation are:

  - believe the Bible to be totally true
  - love your neighbor as much as you love yourself
  - attend church on Sunday
  - confess your sins and place your faith in Jesus'
    death on a cross for your atonement

Oops.  Maybe I got that a little wrong.  Let's try
again.

  - believe the Bible to be totally true
  - attend church on Sunday (or Saturday if you're
    a 7th day adventist)
  - confess your sins and place your faith in Jesus'
    death on a cross for your atonement

Not quite.  Perhaps it's

  - believe the Bible to be totally true
  - confess your sins and place your faith in Jesus'
    death on a cross for your atonement

Almost there.  One more attempt:

  - confess your sins and place your faith in Jesus'
    death on a cross for your atonement

YES!!  That's it!  That's what the Bible says.  Jesus will
accept you and love you and forgive you EVEN IF you don't
believe His Word, EVEN IF you don't attend church on Sunday
(or Saturday) and EVEN IF you didn't always love your
neighbor.  Now it's true that sanctification (growing into
Christ-likeness) will take place if Jesus is in your life
(we will know them by their works), but these are not
pre-requisites of salvation and never have been.  I certainly
did not believe the Bible was inerrant when I became a
Christian.  Most people don't!  Why would a non-Christian
believe the Bible to be inerrant???  How many people do you
know that fully acknowledge the truth of the Bible and God's
full provision for eternal life - and reject it.  I don't
know any.  In fact, I expect the vast majority of people who
become Christians DO NOT accept the inerrancy of the Bible
at that point in time.

Collis
 

    Whew.  After reading the first screen I was beginning to worry about
    Collis. :-)

    I think you need the Holy Spirit living inside you before you can come
    to the realization that the Bible is inerrant.  This is the first step
    in getting spiritual truths out of the Bible and is necessary for each
    of us to grow spiritually.  Without belief in the inerrancy of the
    Bible, we will forever choose what parts of it we wish to
    believe...
    
    Trust me on this, if you don't beleive the whole thing, you will
    ignore parts that don't suit your lifestyle or what you want to believe
    is the truth.  Well, at least that's the way it was for me.  Until God
    showed me (through the Holy Spirit's convicting me) that the Bible is
    true and complete, I was crippled spiritually (which does not mean that
    I had no salvation, just no growth, conviction, or joy).
    
    How many of us in other conferences see folks making God into their own
    image?  They throw away those things they do not wish to believe,
    because to do so would be to admit being wrong- which would alter their
    nice little comfortable reality.  I can say this because I can realte
    to this mindset.  
    
    
    -steve

Hi Nancy,

Good stuff here so far...  I just want to add that when someone is saved, 
the Holy Spirit is the deposit in our hearts, Who teaches us to recognise 
the voice of the LORD Jesus.  That initial step of bowing to His Lordship, 
and applying the blood to the heart is opening a door for Him to continue 
working in us.

Someone may only be able to accept a liitle milk from the Word when they 
are first saved.  If they throw up on even the soft stuff, they need to get 
more muscle fronm the LORD to digest it...  Some can dive into steaks quite 
quickly.  It depends on a lot of things, including what junk they have fed 
on in the past, and have to get cleaned out of their system first.

However, the point I'm getting to is that the Holy Spirit within (Ephesians
1:13) will respond positively to the Word; they should be pre-disposed to
accept it and understand it (as he reveals it to them). 

 "...But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
 Name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have
 said to you...." 
							John 14:26 

The clearest example I see of this is the witness of John the Baptist, in 
Luke 7:29 :

 "All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, 
  acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptised by 
  John.  But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purposes for 
  themselves, because they had not been baptised by John.

The acceptance of the first sign - the easier one - prepared their hearts
for the harder one to follow - where the same response came.

If the LORD Jesus is truly in someone's heart, He's not gone to sleep 
there.  He's working on them :

 "He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the 
  day of Christ Jesus"
 						Philippians 1:6

No telling in what order He's working on things there, though...

						God bless
							Andrew

>    Him. The world changes. We no longer offer animal sacrifices to God,
>    stay outside the camp (or city) if we are "ritually unclean", wear
>    head-coverings to Church (ladies only), carry out the 1001 instructions
>    on what to do if we have mould in the house. We DO eat pork, many women
>    speak in Church (although I know that many of you believe this to be
>    wrong).
    
    If you fully understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you would realize
    that He superseded the sacrificial system and the Law.

    Please keep this topic towards salvation and inerrancy...  The
    question of inerrancy can be discussed in its own topic #53.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

    Mike,
    
    Was there something "ungracious" about His Law?
    
    Salvation has always been by grace (i.e., unmerited favor) through
    faith (trusting Him), never legalism (i.e., 'earning' points with G-d
    by works/obedience).  The Law was never a method of Salvation; but was
    given by G-d to the Jewish people for a number of reasons, all based in
    G-d's lovingkindness (i.e., "chesed", i.e., "grace").
    
    Without rat-holing this topic, let me just suggest Stern's "Restoring
    the Jewishness of the Gospel", or, if you're into meaty commentary, his
    "The Jewish New Testament" and "The Jewish New Testament Commentary".
    
    
    Steve

The point about the inerrancy of the Bible is that it is 'way above the 
wisdom of man.  Where people try to bend it to their 

�     Daniel 12 says in the last days, knowledge will increase.
 God also tells Daniel in verse 9, of the prophecies of Daniel :
 "the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end." 

In 1 Peter 1:10...12
 "Concerning this salvation, the prophets .... searched intently and with
  the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which
  the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when He predicted the sufferings
  of Christ and the glories that would follow.  It was revealed to them that
  they were not serving themselves, but you, when they sopke of the things
  which have now been told you.....  Even angels long to look into these
  things." 

2 Peter 1:20
 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about 
  by the prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in 
  the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried aling by the 
  Holy Spirit."

1 Corinthians 2:14
 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the 
  Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand 
  them, because they are spiritually discerned...."

ie - 
	� The Bible is inspired by God, without room for error.
	� The Bible is a book with compound wisdom and complexity, which is 
	  not revealed on the face of it to all, without faith.

As we learn to take the Bible as God's Word, by faith, it comes alive to 
us, and lives in our hearts.


Daryl, I would go further than
� All biblical scholars do not agree on what [the Bible] says

I would say that all *Christians* do not agree on what the Bible says.
This is a much more significant issue.  Scholars are not necesarily 
Christians, so do not necesarily have the Holy Spirit to throw light on teh 
Word.  But Christians should, at a simplistic level.  The reason we don't 
all see it as the same is because God is teaching us each individually, and 
there are different things He is using us for and teaching each of us.

We are so often concerned about temporal details, which are insignificant
compared to the eternal reality.  However, our different stances give us a
unique opportunity to show each other patience, love, compassion etc, which
*are* of eternal significance.   See that one, Daryl?  God is so skilful 
He's given us an inerrant Word which we can take in different ways in 
places where it won't harm us, yet moves us in the areas of significant 
development.

Remember 1 Corinthians 13:9

 "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, 
  the imperfect disappears ... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a 
  mirror, then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall 
  know fully, even as I am fully known."

Don't blame man's mistakes or fallen logic on God....  

						God bless
								Andrew

re.20 Steve

> Was there something "ungracious" about His Law?

	God's law is holy, righteous, and good.  However, it is not the New
Testament grace. 

	"... for you are not under law but under grace" Rom 6:14


ace

    re: 18
    
>    If you fully understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you would realize
>    that He superseded the sacrificial system and the Law.             
    
    I don't want to rathole, but that was the point I was trying to make.

re Note 461.0 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     I have a BIG BARRIER in believing salvation through errancy.  What
>     other evidence do we have of Christ by which one could be saved?

        I likewise have a BIG BARRIER in believing salvation through
        doctrine.

        I must point out that "evidence" and that of which the
        evidence tells are two VERY different things:  an event
        doesn't cease to be real merely because some party lacks
        evidence for it.

        (Of course it is better to know than not to know, but you
        seem to be claiming something much more than mere knowledge! 
        Also, I must point out that in a personal relationship the
        relationship itself is always superior in quality to mere
        facts about the person.  Yes, facts may lead to a
        relationship but where a relationship exists one cannot deny
        it by simply claiming that certain facts are unknown to one
        party.)

        Jesus saves.  Not Jesus and something else, not even Jesus
        and the Bible.

        Bob

    (more rathole....)
    
    Salvation is not a question of law *VS.* grace..... law was never
    given as a method of salvation (nor was it given to or required of
    Gentiles).  Pitting one against the other is like pitting elevators
    against oak trees - they're not here for the same purpose...
    
    Rather than repeat myself repeatedly over and over again ;-), I'll
    simply refer back to the references I've made earlier and if you can't
    find the books by Stern (and Juster who I've referred to before as
    well), let me know, I can get them for you.
    
    Steve

re.25 Steve

	Actually I'm not interested in what Stern has to say, I'm interested in
what Steve has to say. 8*)

> law was never given as a method of salvation (nor was it given to or required
> of Gentiles).

	Correct on both counts. The law was given to show people who tried to
keep it that they couldn't. Not then, not now, not ever. However, we have One
inside of us who did fulfill the law. The law is no longer required because the
One who fulfilled it has already come. We are in the One who fulfilled it and He
is in us. Chapter on law is now closed. 

	However, your statement includes an incorrect assumption (at least I'm
inferring that it does). The incorrect assumption that I think you are making is
that in the church there are two catagories of people. There are not. All who
believe, whether Jew or Gentile are members of the church. Gal 3:28.  Therefore,
in the New Testament times there are really three catagories of peoples: (1) Jew
(God's chosen people), (2) Gentiles (the unbelieving Gentiles), and (3) the
church (a composition of the believers in Christ). 1 Cor 10:32 

	Catagorizing christians into Jews and Gentiles distinctions is against
the New Testament teaching that all believers whether Jew or Gentile are one in
Him. Rom 10:12.  Bringing Jewishness (i.e. the Law) or Gentileness (i.e idol
worship, etc.) into the church will cause a stumbling to both. 	

	"Do not become a stumbling block, both to Jews and to Greeks and to the
church of God" 1Cor 10:32

	"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is
Lord of all and rich to all who call upon Him". Rom 10:12

	"There cannot be Jew nor Greek,.. for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
Gal 3:28

	"Where there cannot be Greek and Jew.. but Christ is all and in all".
Col 3:11

Ace

re: .26

>	Actually I'm not interested in what Stern has to say, I'm interested in
>what Steve has to say. 8*)

Aren't you kind!  :-)

But frankly, if you're interested in what I have to say, you should be 
interested in what Stern has already written - for two reasons:

	1) I am incapable of reducing the thousands of pages I've absorbed 
on these subjects into bite-size pieces that can fully communicate the point.

Case in point - you know the "Footprints" poem?

I can say "Footprints", and probably a large number of the readers here 
would know exactly what I'm talking about.  Why?  Because they've read the 
poem and know what it's trying to convey.  When two people read the same 
books or watch the same movies, they're able to communicate in short 
phrases what would be VAST amounts of text if starting from scratch.  So 
please, if you're really interested in what I'm saying; read the books.

	2) If you're interested in what I have to say, I have already
said, "read his books".  :-)

That said, I'll try to communicate a few points:

>The law is no longer required because the One who fulfilled it has already 
>come. 

Where are Jewish believers told that since the Messiah has come, observance 
of Torah is no longer required?  Outside of the notion in Hebrews which 
speaks of the "old passing away" (in reference to the slaughter of animals 
since both practically [i.e., no Temple] and more importantly, spiritually 
[i.e., the Lamb had come], it was passing away), where is Torah 'no longer 
required' of the Jew?  And when you find that, please square it with 
Matt. 5:17 and Rom. 3:31 as well as the MYRIAD of examples in the Torah 
itself when G-d says "...this is to be a lasting ordinance for the 
generations to come wherever you live...".

Since observing the Law was never G-d's method (requirement) for salvation, 
it makes no sense to say it's no longer required (for that purpose).
Saying it's no longer required is therefore nonsensical (you're not 
nonsensical, but what you've said is).  Secondly, the Law is entirely not 
*your* requirement to worry about anyway.  Before you say it's "no longer 
required", you need to define for what purpose it *is* required and what 
time frames G-d Himself has placed around the Torah.  

>We are in the One who fulfilled it and He is in us. Chapter on law is now 
>closed. 

The chapter on the law wasn't open to you in the first place; so relax ;-)

Now, while you're relaxing ;-), consider this:  Did Abraham believe G-d 
(where G-d credited it to him as righteousness, see Gen. 15:6) before or 
after circumcision?  Moreover, was Abraham circumcised before or after the 
giving of the Torah?   Does Torah have *anything* to do with Salvation 
(Rom. 4)?

Let's move on...

>	However, your statement includes an incorrect assumption (at least I'm
>inferring that it does). The incorrect assumption that I think you are making 
>is that in the church there are two catagories of people. 

No - your inference to an incorrect assumption on my part is erroneous on 
your part!  :-)

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female, or slave (worker) or 
master (employer) in the Messiah.  

The same man who was inspired to write that there were no longer Jew or
Greek in the Messiah is the very same man who circumsised Timothy (a Jewish
believer).  This is also the same man who, while asking for the freedom
Onesimus, sent him back to Philemon *AS PHILEMON'S SLAVE*.  This is also
the same man who writes frequently of the different roles of men and women
in the body of Messiah. Moreover, he's the same man who argued face to face
with Peter *AGAINST* the notion that Gentiles had to become Jews in order
to believe in the Jewish Messiah. 

How can the man who said that all believers were one in the Messiah make 
such distinctions?

Let's forget Jew and Gentile for a moment, and focus on men and women.

In the Ephesians passage that says, "husbands, love your wives..." and 
later "wives, submit to your husbands....", what part of that concerns you?
Does G-d give you the luxury of "lording it over" Bobbi and checking up on 
the quality of her submission to you?  No.  You, Ace, are commanded to love 
her as Messiah loves you and gave his life for you.  

But wait - there's no more men and women!

So I guess you can throw out the Ephesians passage, Ace; it's not relevant 
anymore.  You two just hang out with eachother and don't you worry about a 
thing ;-)

Certainly, you and Bobbi haven't lost your distinct sexual identities!
And in Him, is one of you considered "better" or to be esteemed more highly 
because of your gender?  Is one of you lowly because of your different 
roles?   No!  You both are "echad" - one, unity.  Distinct *roles*, but 
*one* in Him.

I have a different role than my boss does, but our whole group functions 
together as a unit (who as a unit, are one part that functions within a 
larger unit, etc.).  If we were all bosses (some say that's our problem!), 
or all worker bees, what kind of "unit" would we be?

If this is true for husbands and wives and bosses and workers, why not Jew 
and Gentile?

G-d separated light from darkness (two distinct things) and called them 
*one* thing, a day.  He didn't say "light is better than dark" or "dark is 
better than light" - He looked at it completely and said the whole thing 
was very good.  Also, G-d separated the sabbath from the working week and 
called it *one* thing, a week.  G-d has chosen a people for Himself from 
among all nations and yet, through the Messiah, has welcomed *ALL* nations 
to be called *one* thing; His people.

Light means nothing without darkness, rest means nothing without work, and 
frankly, Gentiles is a useless definition without Jews (and vice versa in 
all cases).  The word "husband" is empty without the word "wife".  A boss 
would be pretty lonely without workers.  But each complements the other 
and makes up a unity.

No role (Jew, Gentile, Male, Female, Slave, Free) is better or worse than 
any other; simply different, and all (with all our differences) are members 
of one body and Messiah is our head.  Just as each member of our physical 
bodies has a different role to play, so too do men, women, jews, gentiles - 
etc.  But all are one in Him; none are exalted or put down.

A hand doesn't cease to be a hand because it's part of a body, nor is the 
hand to be exalted above any other part of the body because it can do 
things that other parts can't.

Now if Paul (Sha'ul) argued this way and yet did and said all these things, 
he's either schitzophrenic or saying something other than what's been 
attributed to him by interpretation for some time.  I perfer the latter ;-)

>Therefore, in the New Testament times there are really three catagories of 
>peoples: (1) Jew (God's chosen people), (2) Gentiles (the unbelieving 
>Gentiles), and (3) the church (a composition of the believers in Christ). 
>1 Cor 10:32 

Fair enough.  Now consider - Gentiles were specifically told they need not 
convert to Judaism to believe in Yeshua (see Acts 15).  In other words, 
Gentiles are welcomed into faith in the Jewish Messiah simply by faith; 
with no need to change who they were.  Why is that supposed to be any 
different for Jews?  From what nation did the Messiah come anyway?  In what 
context did He come?

All believers, Jew, Gentile, male, female - ALL believers are the "called 
out ones" (a.k.a., the Church), and ALL are grafted into G-d's one olive 
tree (whether natural branches that were once broken off, or wild branches 
grafted in....ALL are grafted in by His graciousness).

Paul didn't fight the Torah (if he did, his actions, as shown above; see 
also Acts 21, Philemon, etc., and words, e.g., Rom 3:31 make him a liar).
What he faught was legalism; i.e., "righteousness" by works (and, FWIW, the 
prophets faught against the same thing...).

Who gave the Torah anyway?  Did G-d suddenly become embarassed by some crappy 
idea He came up with a long time ago and then change His mind and exchange it 
for something else?   Is Yeshua not the fulfillment, and very embodiment of 
G-d's instruction - the Torah - the Word made flesh?

Lastly, let me ask you if G-d is a man that He should lie?  Or is G-d such 
that He should break His promises?  If G-d gave specific commandments to 
the Jewish people and told them they were to observe these commandments for 
all time, why would anyone say otherwise?  If He said, "You shall observe 
these commandments until the Messiah comes, and then never think of them 
again", you'd have a point to ponder there, Ace.  And think about this; if 
G-d is done with His chosen people and/or renegged on His promises and 
covenants with them; what *possible* hope do wild, grafted in branches 
have (see Rom. chps. 9-11)?

The great news is that Gentiles, who at one time had NO hope and were 
completely cut-off from G-d, now have hope through the Messiah and are 
brought near; not as aliens, but as fellow-citizens ("sumpolites" in the 
Greek - the only time that word is used in the entire Bible, Eph. 2:19).
*Fellow*citizens.  *One* body with one Head.  An eye can't say to the mouth, 
"I have no need of you!"  Nor can the foot say, "because I'm not a hand, 
I'm not a part of the body".  A Gentile believer can't say to a Jewish 
believer, "I have no need of you!"  Nor can a Jewish believer say, "because 
I observe Torah, I'm not a part of the body."   As for you, Acts 15 tells 
you that you don't have to worry about the Torah - so don't.

That's what I have to say.   

Still interested, Ace?  If so - please pick up the books I mentioned.  If 
not, I don't know that there's much more to add.


Shalom 8-)

Steve

   Hi Nancy,

   Salvation is of the Lord...

   He dosnt need anything but Himself to save someone...

   Though God usually uses His Word to regenerate someone, I dont think
   its necessary.

   What about John the Baptist who was "filled with the Holy Ghost from
   his mother's womb"? 

   Unborn babies who die... ?

   And if I dont know or care about the Word when I hear it, I dont think
   that matters either.

   If I consume poison not knowing what it is, I still die or get sick.
   If I hear the Word of God, it dosnt matter what I believe about it,
   it will still accomplish its purpose.

   Unless salvation is of man and not the Lord...

          
             Hank

The Word is, essentially, a spiritual gardening supplies kit. :-)

The Lord plants the seed of salvation in our hearts.  The sun of the Holy
Spirit shines upon that seed, and hopefully it germinates and begins to grow.
That much could potentially happen without the Word, simply by word-of-mouth,
tradition, and experience.

But a tomato seed dropped into a field won't produce much fruit, if any. 
Once it germinates the plant itself will probably survive until the harvest,
but the only thing that could be harvested at that point is the plant.  It
will have to compete and struggle against weeds, struggle to draw nutrients
from the soil, struggle for its share of sunlight.  It will not be supported
by anything, so it will just sprawl on the ground, subject to the wind which
may knock it down.  It may not even survive the season, particularly if
insects or other pests come and eat it.

So too, without the Word, our salvation bears little fruit, and is danger of
being lost altogether.  Our salvation may only be able to wrest a few
nutrients from the stony soil of our life experiences.  It must compete
against the weeds of other thoughts, desires, and worldly concerns, which
crowd it out.  It is subject to the winds of doctrine that may knock it flat
on the ground.  It is vulnerable to the pests of Satan who will seek to
consume it.  Our salvation may in fact survive until the harvest, but the
chances of it bearing any fruit are slim indeed.

This is where the Word comes in.  Like a gardening kit, it's value is not in
itself, but in what it produces.   You don't eat your gardening supplies,
their only function is to help your plants grow.  So too the function of the
Word is to nurture and protect the seed of salvation, and prepare it for the
harvest.  This all-purpose salvation gardening kit contains:

 - Fertilizer.  There are nutrients in the kit to sustain a growing faith.
   It is well-balanced fertilizer, providing all the elements our salvation
   needs to grow strong, vibrant, and healthy.

 - Herbicide.  Specially formulated weed-killer that when properly applied,
   will weaken and destroy the weeds that seek to choke our salvation.

 - Support stakes.  These are used to help shore us up and allow us to
   withstand the winds of doctrine without being knocked down.

 - Insecticide.  Destroys the pests of Satan that seek to destroy our
   Salvation.

When all of these are used together, the health and strength of our salvation
is assured, and a bountiful harvest can be joyfully anticipated.

Paul

    .29
    
    It's funny I just taught a lesson to my children on the parable of the
    sower... :-)
    
    Thanks for that reminder.

	But I think where one of the problems is with inerrancy is fertalizer

> I likewise have a BIG BARRIER in believing salvation through
> doctrine.

1 Tim 4:15f: "Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so
that everyone may see your progress.  Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your
hearers."

    re: .31
    
    Perhaps if one could parse that string of words, it wouldn't appear as
    non-edifying as it does; or was that your intent?
    
    C'mon, Glen - you can do better than this....
    
    
    Steve

re.27

	Steve,

	Thanks for the pointer back to this note 8*). Nancy, thank you too.

	Now where wuz we...

	Oh yes. You know Steve, I'd like to change the usual discussion process
in this file (which usually boils down to bantering the Word about like a tennis
ball). I'm willing to accept that we both could back-up our beliefs from the
Bible and in the end we would agree to disagree aboput the interpretation. So
let's try something radical, like a conversation between two brothers... 8*).
Advise me from the Word whenever it is appropriate.

> Secondly, the Law is entirely not  *your* requirement to worry about anyway.
> The chapter on the law wasn't open to you in the first place; so relax ;-)

	I have traced my lineage back a long way. According to the researchers,
I am Jewish on my father's side of the family. 

	What should I be doing, thinking, believing differently than I do now?
(.26). I also fellowship with some christian brothers who are Jews by birth
also. What would you advise for us to do now that we recognize we are different
in heritage from our Gentile brothers.

	"Read Stern" is not a practical alternative. Besides you did a fine job
of conveying the essence of your beliefs. 8*)

Thanks,
Ace

	

re: Note 461.34                  

Good morning, Ace,

I don't think we're "bantering the Word about like a tennis ball" (not that 
this is a bad thing to do when discussing what you believe, BTW).  You asked 
me to tell you what I think - there it is; including a handful of the 
Scriptures that come to mind on the topic.  What would *truly* be a radical 
departure in this file would be for us to say we don't agree, and leave it 
at that ;-)

>	I have traced my lineage back a long way. According to the researchers,
>I am Jewish on my father's side of the family. 
>
>	What should I be doing, thinking, believing differently than I do now?

First - mazel tov ;-)

Second, you're asking the wrong person.  I'm not qualified to answer that 
question:  ask the One who is.

[Aside - most Jews would tell you that distant paternal Jewish ancestry 
would not make you a Jew today.  I don't share the opinion that Jewishness is 
an issue of maternal ancestry alone; consider that Ruth was a Gentile who 
joined herself to Israel and she is a maternal ancestor of King David who 
is a paternal ancestor of the Messiah, but that's a long argument; as well 
as a beautiful picture, which I don't want to get into just now...]

>I also fellowship with some christian brothers who are Jews by birth
>also. What would you advise for us to do now that we recognize we are different
>in heritage from our Gentile brothers.

My thinking (which is not at all to be interpreted as the "final word" on the 
subject) is there for you to see.  It is how I understand the Word.   I 
*could* be wrong (shock, horror! ;-), but that's how I understand the Word.

>	"Read Stern" is not a practical alternative. 

Why not?  Frankly, I don't think it's practical for you to keep shunning 
it.  I'm neither a scholar nor an expert; Stern is both - as well as an 
exciting and somewhat challenging read.

>Besides you did a fine job of conveying the essence of your beliefs. 8*)

Why thank you! :-)  Now for more than essence..... (all together now...)
    
    		Read Stern [please ;-)]

Steve                                  

    Pressed for time (what else is new lately?):
    
    About the Bible being just a book:  
    
    Isaiah 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: 
    it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which 
    I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
    
    If the Bible is just a book, then these word are a dull thud to the
    ears.  If the Bible is not just a book, then this claim about itself
    quickens the soul.  On this account, I am happily in the camp of the 
    Calvinist/Predestinationalist (and you know I'm a Wesleyan Arminian by
    doctrine - free will, etc.).  In the extreme, God's Word will
    accomplish salvation for by hearing the Word of God are you saved,
    and those "who have ears, let them hear."  In other words, in the
    extreme, God will appoint to salvation those whom He will cause to
    hear.  In the other extreme, we will choose salvation because of what
    we hear and accept as truth.
    
    As others have said in here, claiming Christianity yet living according
    to other-than-Christlike standards is a contradiction, hypocrisy, and 
    blasphemy of the name of God.  "Thou shalt not take the name of the
    Lord thy God in vain" includes those who are "called by His name."  
    But of course, these quotations have no effect (so they fool
    themselves) on those who do not accept these words because after all,
    they're just words in a book; just a book.  And these people are not
    unlike the child who closes there eyes and thinks that no one can see
    them.  All they have to do is deny the veracity of the word and that in
    itself nullifies it so that they can claim on Judgment Day that they
    sincerely believed in Jesus and called Him Lord. 
    
    The just-a-book says of that day that many who claimed to call Him
    Lord, but did not live it, will be turned away.  "Did we not prophesy
    and [do things] in Your name?"  "Not every one who says, 'Lord, Lord'
    shall enter the kingdom of heaven."
    
    Lastly, Collis and others are also right.  The inerrancy of the Word
    comes with the quickening of the Spirit and the spiritually immature
    and spiritually dead will have difficulty or impossibility with it.
    For the spiritually immature, pray that God will grant you wisdom and
    yield yourself to His (spoken) Word (which you will find affirms his
    written word) and be ready to change according to His leadning.  For
    the spiritually dead, look for the Spirit and read Hebrews 11:6...
    or not.
    
    Mark 

If you want the scripture references for .37, here they are.  If the Bible
is just a book, continue to ignore the words (at your peril).

Isaiah 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall
not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it
shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

2Chronicles 7:14  If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble
themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; the n
will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Exodus 20:7  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for
the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!

Matthew 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name
done many wonderful works?
 23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.
 24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
 25  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
 26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
 27  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
 28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were
astonished at his doctrine:
 29  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

	It never ceases to amaze me how people will use the very thing in
question as their proof.......

 1 Corinthians 2:14






 Jim

      Hi,
    
        I happen to believe that the word of creation is a sufficient
        revelation of God's love such that one can respond to it by 
        'the faith that saves.'  So, the following isn't about salvation
        per se.
    
        BUT, I came accross a little tract that really hammered several
        translations.  It talked a fair amount about the Sinaiticus and
        Vaticanus documents in contrast to the textus receptus.  
    
        Some guy named Dr. Frank Logsdam (according to this tract)
        denounced his work in the translation of the NASB.  It was based
        on what he considered to be many shortcomings with the Catholic
        texts used in modern translations.
    
        It really hammered the NIV.  According to this, it (the NIV)
        follows the critical Westcott and Hort text and it got into the
        lives of these guys.  It also looked at these texts; the Sinaiticus
        and Vaticanus.
    
        This could be pretty significant.  I mean this could be a devilish
        conspiracy.  Sort of like, get people as far away from the Received
        Text so much as possible and feed them with inferior ones.
    
        Anyway, I don't think the KJV is 100% inspired.  I think Hebrews 4
        affirms that (with its use of Jesus rather than Joshua in vs. 8),
        but I tend to believe it is the most _honest_ translation around.
        I use an NKJV these days, but I sometimes wonder if I should go 
        back to the KJV.  The NKJV DOES use the received text (amen!).
    
        BTW, with my belief that there is much light yet unrevealed, I do
        believe that unrevealed light will be defensible from the modern
        translations as well because people will not have been able to
        try to remove support for certain truths should the truths still
        be veiled.  How does one renmove something they don't know about?
    
        Anyway, as some like Nancy might agree (Hi Nance!), I think this 
        is VERY serious and worthy of much contemplation (and prayer).
    
                                                      Tony
    
       

    .39 "It never ceases to amaze me how people will use the very thing in 
    question as their proof......"
    
    It never ceases to amaze me how beligerant and callous you have become.
    But I shouldn't be amazed, because that is what happens when ones heart 
    becomes harder, refusing to believe the Truth.  
    
    "Gabriel's lips are on the horn."  Time is very short.
    
    Mark

| <<< Note 461.43 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| .39 "It never ceases to amaze me how people will use the very thing in 
| question as their proof......"

| It never ceases to amaze me how belligerent and callous you have become.

	Mark, how does the above statement that you extracted from my note work 
into your statement about me? 

| But I shouldn't be amazed, because that is what happens when ones heart
| becomes harder, refusing to believe the Truth.

	Harder? Hardly.



Glen
	

    Re: Note 461.42 by YIELD::BARBIERI
    
�        It really hammered the NIV.  According to this, it (the NIV)
�        follows the critical Westcott and Hort text and it got into the
�        lives of these guys.  It also looked at these texts; the Sinaiticus
�        and Vaticanus.
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I have some slight reservations about the NIV too, but not nearly any
    that would make me contemplate a "devilish conspiracy". My biggest
    concern about the NIV isn't so much the manuscript set it used but its
    translation philosophy (dynamic equivalence versus formal equivalence).
    
    Both the NIV and the NAS draw heavily from the W&H stuff, but I believe
    (after having done quite a bit of study along these lines) that their
    translation team comprised truly godly people who were quite
    conservative with the Word. These two translations essentially come
    from the Greek New Testament as published by the United Bible Society.
    There is a lot of merit to this translation. The big difference is how
    the textual critics weight certain assumptions. Since we don't have the
    original manuscripts you do have to make certain assumptions.
    
    The good thing is that despite the minor differences between the two
    major families (i.e. W&H versus "Received Text"), no doctrinal issues
    are in jeopardy regardless of which Bible you use. Personally, I prefer
    to read & study using the NKJV, but I also love to read the NIV and
    study from the NAS.
    
�        I use an NKJV these days, but I sometimes wonder if I should go 
�        back to the KJV.  The NKJV DOES use the received text (amen!).
    
    The NKJV still uses the same manuscript base as the KJV did, but it has
    the added advantage of using a lot more (there have been thousands of
    manuscripts translated since 1611), and the NKJV is nice enough to show
    the major differences in translations between the TR and the W&H base.
    The only reason I keep the KJV around is because so many of my
    reference works still use KJV - plus most of the verses that I have
    memorized are from that translation; makes things easy for me to find
    by looking in Strongs.
    
    	BD�

  The source texts from which the KJV were translated were burned in a
  fire in 1617 (or somewhere thereabouts). A signifigant portion of these
  texts came from a folk called the Waldensians. Their texts historically
  go back to the second century and were used to create the Old Itala Bible.

  The Wescott and Hort primary texts (Aleph and B) were Alexandrian who
  were infamous for there wild and crazy heresies (imo).

  The most signifigant differences between these two families of texts are
  concerning the Deity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity.

  I John 5:7 exists in all the Waldensian texts and their translations
  while the Alexandrian texts (4th century) do not.

  Enter Mark S. ?  Is he still with us??

  Hank

James 1

 21  Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and
receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

  What is able to save your souls?  The engrafted word.

 22  But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own
selves.
 .....
 25  But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth
therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man
shall be blessed in his deed.

  Hearing the word and even acknowledging it is not enough to save your
  souls.  Being a doer of the word, the engrafted word make it completed
  faith (which is borne out in action).  James 2:22 says "Seest thou how 
  faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

 26  If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue,
but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
 27  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted
from the world.

  When actions (religion) and word (the tongue) do not match up, it is
  an indicator of a vain religion.  When they do match up, that is, what
  we say and what we do are consistent with each other, then we will be
  pure in religion.  While the fact exists today that many of our personal
  religious expressions are not "pure" because of failures and progression
  towards completeness (that is, to be perfected), the fact also remains that
  this is not to be used as an excuse not to be perfect, and to continually
  strive to be perfect according to the Word which we have received which
  is able to save our souls.

  The Word is able to do it.

  Isaiah 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall
  not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it
  shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

  If the Word is in error, then salvation is not of the word and the word is
  a lie, in which case it would be pointless to make any claim to Christianity.
  Some anti-Christians would agree.  Salvation is dependent on the Bible 
  being true to itself and true to us.  Otherwise, every man sets the terms
  for their salvation in a vacuum of speculation as to "Who God is?" and "What
  is God like?"

  You can't just say that you're saved.  You have to demonstrate it, too.
  You can't just claim Christianity and make it so.  The word must confirm
  it, and it must match the prototypical Christian life in Jesus.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    I need to clarify something with you... are you referring the Word =
    Jesus or written words in the Bible?

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.

Isaiah 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall
not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it
shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Here we see two forms of the same thing: Word and word.

Jesus is the Word.  And Jesus is the Truth.

John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The words of the Bible are God-breathed and are also truth as a subset of
The Truth in Jesus the Son of God, and as God Himself.

Words are expressions of ideas, yet God's word does more than this.
God spoke and things came into existence.  "Let there be light and there
was light."  The Word of God created and the word of God created.  
The words of God are a subset of the Word of God, yet they are in 
complete agreement.

Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only applies equally as if it
said, be ye doers of Christ Jesus' [attributes/holiness] and do not
merely pay lip-service (which is empty words).  Whatever is of God
is NOT empty as the words of men are often found to be.  God's word(s)
will not return void (they are not impotent; they are creative and
powerful).  

The expression of idea (in words or the Word) is to communicate the 
will of God.  And Jesus is also this communication, for salvation and
for love.  God did not come to earth as a man to understand us as we
are (because he already knows, being our creator).  God came to earth
as a man to show us that He understands us, because we, being imperfect
and finite, needed to know that He understands our plight.

To answer you question directly: I refer to both Jesus the Word, and the
words of the Bible and neither are exclusive from one another, even though
they are separate (that is, my words are separate from me, though they
come from me).

Mark

>  ...and to continually
>  strive to be perfect according to the Word which we have received which
>  is able to save our souls.

Again, Salvation is a three-stage process of initial, sanctified, and 
glorified salvation.  At every moment of each stage, a person is "saved"
by faith and faith alone.  But each stage also brings with it certain 
signatures of growth, just as in the physical, a newborn shows signs
of maturity through pubuerty and onto adulthood.  We know that the Bible
talks about spiritual milk of babes in Christ and how we are to press on 
toward the mark.  Salvation doesn't just happen any more than physical
birth means living.  Birth means life and life nurtured means living.
Life starved means eventual death.  So, too, does one who is initially
saved need to continue in the faith and grow in grace, learning to 
live the holy life until God has completed the good work He has begun 
in us (Phil. 1:6) when we are ultimately saved through glorification of
our bodies and taken home to be with our Father in heaven.

Mark