Now can I bring up a current open Thread Question (or two)?

Only if the question has to do with narcotic induced raps, the relationship between human beings and gumballs, or robots.

I’d be very much open to discussing gumballs since we sell them at my store. We have a lot of flavors and they only cost .25 per/ball. They are bright and colorful and all the kids love them!!

I’d say anything else you could possibly (Charles Spurgeon was a heretic) ask has been answered numerous times and there is nothing new we could possibly add to conversation.

I say no. I say this thread is going along nicely without you stinking it up with lies, etc. But if you would like to start an open thread on your own blog, I’m sure several of us would be happy to come over and have the conversation with you there.

I say we have covered universalism enough…so I say no to that one.

I haven’t read Jay Bakker’s new book (have you?) so I don’t care one way or another about it.

Why are you blowing off my idea of talking about gumballs? Too risky for you? Hit too close to home?

#7–Ouch!

” There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”

C.S. Lewis

#11 – Brendt, it is statements like these that have always made C.S. Lewis doctrinally off base. But this is a phenpmenon not unique to him. When a person of stature becomes a believer sometimes people believe they are somehow Biblically authoritative. I believe Lewis was a believer, but he was in no way a valid source for Biblical doctrine.

It’s kind of sad to see DeYoung raise such things as if those make Lewis a heretic. Actually, those things probably put Lewis closer the thoughts of some ancient Christian writers than DeYoung imagines… But I forgot, there were no true Christians before 500 or so years ago.

So the “ancient” Christian writers carry more weight based upon their being alive in years closer to the resurrection?

Well, in some sense they do. It only makes sense that people closer to the time and place of the original happenings would have a better understanding of what they meant. Some of the earliest Christian writers were only a few generations removed from the apostles.

I’m not saying that we need to count them as canon. But I do think they deserve some amount of respect.

Also, there’s a big difference between the type of inclusivist view that Lewis talks about and universalism. Lewis was no universalist. He was quite vocal against it, actually.

Revelation by the Spirit is not increased or decreased based upon its place in history. Peter spent years with Christ and preached the first sermon, however even he admitted Paul’s greater revelation.

The only and exclusive source for revelation are the written Scriptures.

“That’s quite a claim given the fact that a huge number of Christians throughout history have never even scene the written Scriptures.”

But the truths shared orally are based upon the Scriptures. People just cannot make stuff up. I understand the workings of the Spirit before the Scriptures were penned. Today we have the canon.

That does not exclude spiritual experience which I fully endorse, but it does provide parameters.

What saith the Scriptures.

I think, ultimately, this is the basis. Where there are diversions from this, we must find our allegiance in the Bible.

For example: Christ is exclusive. Painfully so, to many. But exclusive nonetheless. There should not be debate around that fact, or an attempt to reinterpret it.

A preoccupation with falsehood can lead you far, far from Christ, but we must confidently stand for the truth in His power.

It only makes sense that people closer to the time and place of the original happenings would have a better understanding of what they meant.

Not necessarily so, though possible. Again, where there is divergence from the foundation, it must be rejected or put in proper context.

We filter any other accounts through the original eye-witness accounts.

Peter spent years with Christ and preached the first sermon, however even he admitted Paul’s greater revelation.

Rick, curious where you get this from.

i like scot mcknight’s use of the golf bag metaphor. in the bible we see a whole host of metaphors that describe atonement, they are like golf clubs in a bag. different situations call for different clubs.

#25: that says nothing of “greater revelation”.

As one who believes in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures I don’t see how one can legitimately say that one writer had greater revelation than another. Nor can I entertain the notion that Paul’s doctrine is somehow contrary to Jesus’ teachings as was discussed in another thread.

Paul is our apostle (the Gentiles,) and has full authority from God to speak on His behalf in certain matters as eventually revealed to us in his epistles. You either believe that or not. I do believe it. That being said, Paul’s writings are no more (or less) authoritive than any other writer of the Scriptures, nor do they conflict, but rather, supplement or enrich.

I also find it interesting that the “red letters” in Scripture were recorded by men. Jesus left NO personal writings so if you can’t trust Paul (not that anyone here has indicated they do not), how can you trust that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John recorded Jesus’ words faithfully? It could be argued they could have colluded in their deception or simply borrowed from each other and perpetuated the error.

1 Thes 1:13 – For this reason we also constantly (thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

So again, we either believe that or we don’t.

Then there is the command to not go beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6), so I would have to say that oral tradition is a poor substitute at best. God has gone to great extremes, first with the Jews and then with the Church, to ensure both the availability and the veracity of the written word down through time.

Rick – what John is saying, and what I agree with, is that nowhere can we conclude he had a “greater revelation.”

Greater in comparison to whom? He never made that comparison and neither did Peter.

I am confused as to why this claim would even be made.

Because of Paul’s abundant revelations and superior authority he was given a thorn.

Again, why the word “superior”? He never claimed to be superior or that his revelations were superior to anyone. Only that they were abundant (not more abundant). Because of this, to keep him humble, a thorn was given.

John also received a revelation (book of Revelation), Peter had visions, etc.

Paul was called “as one born out of due time” thus necessitating a personal visitation from Christ.

Pitting one against another in some sort of hierarchy is not represented in the scriptures. In Revelation 21, we see that the 12 foundations of the Bride of Christ/New Jerusalem are the 12 apostles…

As Moses was to Israel, so was Paul to the church. He recieved the gospel truth in its fulness from the Risen Christ directly.

Were the revelations of Nahum as inspired as those of Isaiah? Yes.

Were they the same in scope and depth? No.

Were the revelations of Jude as inspired as those of Paul? Yes.

Were they the same in scope and depth? No.

In the ultimate sense you are correct except the NT makes the case that Jesus was not like Moses but His creator.

Jesus is greater than Moses. (Hebrews) I do not consider exchanges arguing necessarily.

technically, luke was the author who wrote the largest portion of the new testament anyway.

Luke’s contribution was historical.

#42, as was Matthew’s, Paul’s, John’s, Peter’s, Mark’s…