Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Hannah Rebekah]

Hannah, I’m really familiar with the song where the phrase, “The bible tells me so” has as the refrain (we sang it all the time at Sunday school when I was growing up. I believed it then as I still do today):

This I do believe and know as a Biblical proclamation of Truth!

In regards to the thread op concerning Evangelicals and the idea of “Sola Scriptura” as our “final authority” (to be understood in its proper historical Biblical context) is our understanding that we have come to based on Biblical teaching in context (not derived of our own self-authority).

Unfortunately, Mormons and others are always misunderstanding/misrepresenting what it actually means. The “Solas” of the Reformation are not an imposed understanding but are understood from specific verses.

Sola Scriptura is the underlying principle for the Protestant Reformation in defense of the truth of Scripture, not mans false teaching. Here is Luther’s view of his own writings as contrasted with Scripture:

It is the primary reason for Biblically refuting the selling of indulgences in which Luther correctly disputed that it was not a biblical teaching in his 95 theses (mirrored from the following):

The first of the Solas (Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone go together). “Sola Scriptura” (Biblical doctrine comes from the “it is written”, the source of doctrinal understanding), followed by “Sola Gratia/Fide” (by grace through faith is the how of salvation through believing and is inclusive of acting on the word of God) demonstrated right here in Ephesians, itself Scripture:

Note the following quote of Luther in a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet (his reference is to the pope):

The problem is with the Mormon false gospel not the loss of truth (it wasn’t lost as it was still in Scripture) or Luther and the Reformation in which he was calling people back to Scripture:

Contrasted with the true Biblical Gospel and a warning concerning that Gospel:

The editorial comment of John concerning this statement of Jesus gets right to the underlying theme of the Reformation which is the salvation of the soul in the receiving of the gift of eternal life through believing in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel:

Being Evangelical is primarily focusing on the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus dying on the cross for the payment of sin by the shedding of His blood which cleanses us from all sin:

It’s not just “mere belief” on our part but valid belief based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead which is what the Bible teaches:

The above is where Mormonism’s opposition to true Biblical teaching is seen when it comes to Biblical salvation, not the Mormon teaching of “exaltation to godhood” Mormonism’s false gospel.

The things we do as good works, post our Justification and in our Sanctification, are the all the work of Jesus which does make us clean in the shedding of His blood.

Our good works are a fruit of having a faith that enables one to be saved, by grace through faith not of works, not the result of trying to obey commandments which we cannot keep perfectly but nevertheless are commanded to obey, which is what Christians do:

Mormonism has its own version of “Sola Scriptura” (which has included that which actually usurps the Biblical “written authority” based on supposed “living oracles” which are not inspired by the Biblical Holy Spirit based on what is taught):

And your point?????

[Vance]

And your point?????

No point, just anti-Mormon drivel.

Unfortunately, he isn't the only one spewing it.

[Zakuska]

I liked this:

The Belgic Confession (1561).

We receive these books, and these only, as holy and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves.

WOW! Who'd a thunk that scripture and truth could be confirned by the Holy Ghost in someones heart?!

Definatley not Evangelical Christains!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Hannah Rebekah]

No point, just anti-Mormon drivel.

Unfortunately, he isn't the only one spewing it.

Sorry Vance, my first post I directed my comment to you as I was going to emphatically agree with you on what a bunch of drivel. But I changed it and forgot to change who I was commenting to. I went back and fixed that post.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I liked this:

The Belgic Confession (1561).

WOW! Who'd a thunk that scripture and truth could be confirned by the Holy Ghost in someones heart?!

Definatley not Evangelical Christains!

That one is a keeper...

I'm just a little confused....didn't Luther drop about seven books from the Bible that had been there for over a thousand years and he would have thrown out more had the other reformers not stopped him. So much for Sola Scriptura.

[zerinus]

You may notice that I have responded to another post from you on a different thread, so you don't need to feel neglected. There is only so much of me to go around.

Ton't try to be funny. I waited for a week for you to reply to my post (while you were actively participating on other threads), just so you wouldn't bring that excuse. The rest of your post seem to have been well answered by others.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I liked this:

The Belgic Confession (1561).

We receive these books, and these only, as holy and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves.

WOW! Who'd a thunk that scripture and truth could be confirned by the Holy Ghost in someones heart?!

Definatley not Evangelical Christains!

You're definitely mistaken. Most evangelical Christians do believe just that. But you are confusing the issue if you think this is equivalent to the Moroni test. The Belgic Confession does not instruct Christians to pray in order to know that the Bible is the word of God. It certainly doesn't instruct Christians to seek a spiritual testimony that the Reformed Church is the true church. The point of the statement you quoted is that the authority of Scripture does not rest on the dogmatic claims of church officials, councils, etc., but on the fact that Scripture is inspired by the same Holy Spirit who dwells in the hearts of true Christians. Scripture is self-authenticating, according to the Confession ("they carry the evidence in themselves"), because it is God the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.

All statements need to be read in context. Let's put this particular statement in context. According to the Confession, there are two "means" by which we know God: nature, which like a book tells us about God's work of creation, and God's word, which tells us about God's work of salvation (Art. 2). This word of God has been preserved for us in Scripture (Art. 3), which consists of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (Art. 4). Then comes Article 5, which you did not quote completely:

"We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and conformation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesses in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling."

Notice that the Confession does not pit the Spirit's testimony to Scripture against factual evidence that proves Scripture to be true; both are affirmed side by side. It mentions fulfilled prophecy in particular as objective evidence of the truth and inspiration of Scripture. By omitting the last sentence of Article 5, you missed something crucial to the Reformed view of Scripture.

The Confession goes on to reject noncanonical books as Scripture (Art. 6) and then makes the following statement in Article 7:

"We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it does thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you; and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

Notice that here in Article 7, the Belgic Confession affirms that the Bible, as Holy Scripture, "fully contain" God's will for us and teach sufficiently all we need to know for our salvation. These Scriptures, it affirms, are both complete and perfect in every way. That is a classic statement of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible as Scripture. It also instructs Christians to reject any teaching, even if from someone claiming to be an apostle or an angel from heaven, that disagrees with the teaching of the Bible or "with this infallible rule" of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible. We are to apply this rule and "try" (test) the spirits, and reject any such spirits that claim to bring new or different revelations from God. Notice, please, that we are to test the spirits by applying this doctrinal test of fidelity to the Bible as the all-sufficient written word of God, the full and complete Scriptures, and not by praying to know if some alleged additional revelation that denies that rule might be from God.

Being myself essentially Reformed theologically, I am in happy agreement with the view of Scripture articulated here in the Belgic Confession. Of course, as the framers of that Confession were emphasizing, the Confession is not our authority; only Scripture, as the full and sufficient written word of God, is the authoritative rule of faith.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

Most evangelical Christians do believe just that.

So you say.

Yet I have seen several of them mock the witness of the Holy Spirit.

But you are confusing the issue if you think this is equivalent to the Moroni test.

Nah, it is you trying to confuse the issue by your clumsy attempt to separate the witness of the Holy Ghost from Moroni's promise.

[Deborah]

I'm continually astounded at the limits some put on God that even he, through his prophets and apostles, can't add to his own scripture.

[ERayR]

I'm continually astounded at the limits some put on God that even he, through his prophets and apostles, can't add to his own scripture.

Its a control issue. They are usurping the power in order to make themselves arbiters of what is acceptable. Does the phrase "false Christs" take on any familiarity here?

[Zakuska]

I'm continually astounded at the limits some put on God that even he, through his prophets and apostles, can't add to his own scripture.

Tell me about it. The Lord said... "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".

The God of Christianity had a big peace of duct tape slapped on his mouth 1500 years ago.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[maklelan]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

You're definitely mistaken. Most evangelical Christians do believe just that. But you are confusing the issue if you think this is equivalent to the Moroni test. The Belgic Confession does not instruct Christians to pray in order to know that the Bible is the word of God. It certainly doesn't instruct Christians to seek a spiritual testimony that the Reformed Church is the true church. The point of the statement you quoted is that the authority of Scripture does not rest on the dogmatic claims of church officials, councils, etc., but on the fact that Scripture is inspired by the same Holy Spirit who dwells in the hearts of true Christians. Scripture is self-authenticating, according to the Confession ("they carry the evidence in themselves"), because it is God the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.

I appreciate the discussion of scriptural authority here, Rob, but I do take issue with some of the claims you and this confession make. For starters, you make declarations about the authentication of scripture that appear to rest on the authority of the Confession ("according to the Confession"), but also say that the authority of scripture "does not rest on the dogmatic claims of church officials, councils, etc." If the Confession is no basis for the scripture's authority, then what is? If you state the scriptures bear the authority themselves then you get into a circular argument, as you must then point to the authority of the scriptures themselves as the basis for the notion that the scriptures are authoritative. Why are the scriptures authoritative and true? Evidently, because they say so. How can we know for sure? I see nothing in your response that indicates there is any logical or empirical way to know. The Confession seems to me to be saying that we just have to decide to believe it, and it uses rather manipulative logic and exegesis to go about it.

All statements need to be read in context. Let's put this particular statement in context. According to the Confession, there are two "means" by which we know God: nature, which like a book tells us about God's work of creation,

I don't see that nature leads us to the biblical God. It states, "All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse." No one to my knowledge has ever observed nature independent of any theological influence and arrived at the conclusion that the God of that nature is most closely approximated by the God of the Bible. Millions of people have observed nature alone only to abandon the God of the Bible. The confession seems to be making an assertion that has no basis whatsoever in reality. That nature is enough to convict man regarding the existence and nature of God is simply derivative of the need of Christians to provide for the just salvation or damnation of those who never directly hear the word of God. The rationalization was that nature testifies of God, and thus anyone who observes nature in some way (conveniently, that's everybody!) has enough knowledge to be justly condemned. Now we don't have to feel so bad that people who never heard of Christ will spend eternity in Hell. Of course, can anyone point to more than one or two instances in all of history of a person describing a God they derived exclusively from their observations of nature that happens to align with the biblical God? I can point to numerous examples of cultures arriving at completely different ideas about God simply from observing nature.

and God's word, which tells us about God's work of salvation (Art. 2).

But you have to accept it as God's word first.

This word of God has been preserved for us in Scripture (Art. 3),

Regarding Art. 3, where were God's each of apostles and prophets commanded to commit their revelations to writing?

which consists of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (Art. 4). Then comes Article 5, which you did not quote completely:

"We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and conformation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesses in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling."

Notice that the Confession does not pit the Spirit's testimony to Scripture against factual evidence that proves Scripture to be true; both are affirmed side by side.

Please indicate the factual evidence that proves Scripture to be true. I see none whatsoever. Please consider this a formal CFR.

It mentions fulfilled prophecy in particular as objective evidence of the truth and inspiration of Scripture. By omitting the last sentence of Article 5, you missed something crucial to the Reformed view of Scripture.

What fulfilled prophecy?

The Confession goes on to reject noncanonical books as Scripture (Art. 6) and then makes the following statement in Article 7:

"We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says.

I find it interesting that it is constantly asserted that the written word has more authority than one of God's own messengers. When Paul said what he said he was doing so on his own authority as one of God's "sent," and he was speaking directly to people he and other authorized messengers had personally taught. He was basically pitting his authority as God's messenger against the authority of any putative messenger from God. This Confession now imputes to an ancient text of unknown condition the authority that Paul asserted for himself. This is directly the result of the interiorization of literacy, which took place in the Near East during the Greco-Roman period. I find it fascinating that a psychological and cultural development has become the basis of an assertion of authority about God's dealings with humanity.

For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God,

No such thing is forbidden anywhere. The authors of Deuteronomy and Revelation forbid people to manipulate their own particular compositions, but the notion that this extends to cover the entire canon is pure and utter eisegesis. This also precludes the possibility that God himself could contribute more to the Bible. Now a text has more authority than God himself, and not just because the text says so (although ultimately it is because the text says so), but because human interpreters have misunderstood it to say so.

it does thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.

But this notion must follow the acceptance of the preceding notions. It's only evident, then, if the other assertions are considered authoritative.

Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God.

By what means are they to be tried? The author of 1 John says that every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. That leaves a lot of spirits open to being "of God." Basically, it means only docetists are not of God. Hardly a universal rule.

Likewise, if there come any unto you; and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

Notice that here in Article 7, the Belgic Confession affirms that the Bible, as Holy Scripture, "fully contain" God's will for us and teach sufficiently all we need to know for our salvation. These Scriptures, it affirms, are both complete and perfect in every way. That is a classic statement of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible as Scripture.

But it rests on demonstrably fallacious grounds. Do you have a statement of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible that does not?

It also instructs Christians to reject any teaching, even if from someone claiming to be an apostle or an angel from heaven,

No, it doesn't say "from someone claiming to be an apostle or an angel from heaven," it says "though an apostle," and "though it were an angel from heaven." It explicitly asserts the Bible is simply more authoritative than both.

that disagrees with the teaching of the Bible or "with this infallible rule" of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible. We are to apply this rule and "try" (test) the spirits, and reject any such spirits that claim to bring new or different revelations from God.

But this isn't what the Bible says. This is a patchwork of proof texts ripped from their contexts.

Notice, please, that we are to test the spirits by applying this doctrinal test of fidelity to the Bible as the all-sufficient written word of God, the full and complete Scriptures, and not by praying to know if some alleged additional revelation that denies that rule might be from God.

Again, this takes portions of texts originally directed at completely different concepts, rips them from those contexts, and then pieces them together to make them refer to concepts they simply never referred to. How is this biblical?

Being myself essentially Reformed theologically, I am in happy agreement with the view of Scripture articulated here in the Belgic Confession. Of course, as the framers of that Confession were emphasizing, the Confession is not our authority; only Scripture, as the full and sufficient written word of God, is the authoritative rule of faith.

Which is circular. It is these things only because it claims to be these things and you've decided to believe it (unless, of course, you can show by independent empirical or logical means that the Bible is the full and sufficient word of God, and I don't believe you can).

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

I'm continually astounded at the limits some put on God that even he, through his prophets and apostles, can't add to his own scripture.

No one is putting limits on God. The orthodox view of Scripture simply declares that God in fact chose to conclude the production of inspired Scripture with the close of the apostolic era at the end of the first century. If we were living in 1811 instead of 2011, you'd be forced to agree. For seventeen centuries the only alleged scriptures produced were writings that you and I would both agree were not really inspired by God (most notoriously, the Qur'an). It would not have been putting limits on God in 1811 to say that God had evidently concluded the inspiration of Scripture seventeen centuries earlier.

Now, of course, you claim that new scriptures have been revealed in the past two centuries. As an orthodox Christian, my argument is not that God cannot inspire new scripture but that the evidence shows that he has not in fact done so.

[Deborah]

No one is putting limits on God. The orthodox view of Scripture simply declares that God in fact chose to conclude the production of inspired Scripture with the close of the apostolic era at the end of the first century.

And I would argue that God did not choose to conclude the production of inspired scripture but that man shut himself off from receiving such.

[Zakuska]

And I would argue that God did not choose to conclude the production of inspired scripture but that man shut himself off from receiving such.

Well God did predict that would happen when he would cover the Prophets eyes during the Apostasy (ie dark ages)

Isaiah 60:2

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

It also instructs Christians to reject any teaching, even if from someone claiming to be an apostle or an angel from heaven, that disagrees with the teaching of the Bible or "with this infallible rule" of the sufficiency and trustworthiness of the Bible.

WOW!!!

Talk about adding to scripture!

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This passage doesn't support the supremacy of "the Bible" over the voice of the authorized servant.

[Zakuska]

WOW!!!

Talk about adding to scripture!

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This passage doesn't support the supremacy of "the Bible" over the voice of the authorized servant.

Ontop of that...

Luke 16:16

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

The OT was until John now Authorized personnel PREACH it.

[diglot]

That one is a keeper...

I'm just a little confused....didn't Luther drop about seven books from the Bible that had been there for over a thousand years and he would have thrown out more had the other reformers not stopped him. So much for Sola Scriptura.

No he didn't. There were a few NT books he didnt' like (e.g. James). But he didn't throw them out.

If you are talking about the deuterocanonical books, then thats a bit more complicated.

Edited October 25, 2011 by diglot

[Zakuska]

No he didn't. There were a few NT books he didnt' like (e.g. James). But he didn't throw them out.

If you are talking about the deuterocanonical books, then thats a bit more complicated.

You can say that again...

http://st-takla.org/...a__0-index.html

Look how many quotes from the deuterocanonical books in the NT alone!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I appreciate the discussion of scriptural authority here, Rob, but I do take issue with some of the claims you and this confession make.

Naturally. Your consistent pattern in everything I have read from you since our first encounter is that you "take issue" with the evangelical view of Scripture but say little or nothing about your own view. "I know what you are against; what are you for?" (Emile DeBecque, in South Pacific)

You wrote:

For starters, you make declarations about the authentication of scripture that appear to rest on the authority of the Confession ("according to the Confession"), but also say that the authority of scripture "does not rest on the dogmatic claims of church officials, councils, etc." If the Confession is no basis for the scripture's authority, then what is?

Um...it's a confession. You know full well the Confession is not the basis for the authority of Scripture.

You wrote:

If you state the scriptures bear the authority themselves then you get into a circular argument, as you must then point to the authority of the scriptures themselves as the basis for the notion that the scriptures are authoritative. Why are the scriptures authoritative and true? Evidently, because they say so.

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

We must distinguish the question of why Scripture is true and authoritative from the question of how we come to recognize it as true and authoritative. These are two different questions. We must also distinguish these two questions from the question of how one who believes in the Scriptures might go about showing someone who doesn't that the belief in the Scriptures is reasonable. So those are three distinct questions.

How can we know for sure? I see nothing in your response that indicates there is any logical or empirical way to know. The Confession seems to me to be saying that we just have to decide to believe it, and it uses rather manipulative logic and exegesis to go about it.

You're reading the Confession ahistorically. The Confession is a text that originated in a specific historical context. Catholics and Protestants agreed that the Scriptures were the sole written word of God. The differences between them were over the Catholic Church's claim that it was the custodian of the authority and interpretation of the Scriptures because supposedly it was the Church that created the Scriptures. Against this false claim the Protestants argued, correctly, that Scripture's authority does not derive from any ecclesiastical institution. The Confession was not written to address liberal or modernist criticisms of the Bible.

You wrote:

I don't see that nature leads us to the biblical God. It states, "All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse." No one to my knowledge has ever observed nature independent of any theological influence and arrived at the conclusion that the God of that nature is most closely approximated by the God of the Bible. Millions of people have observed nature alone only to abandon the God of the Bible. The confession seems to be making an assertion that has no basis whatsoever in reality. That nature is enough to convict man regarding the existence and nature of God is simply derivative of the need of Christians to provide for the just salvation or damnation of those who never directly hear the word of God. The rationalization was that nature testifies of God, and thus anyone who observes nature in some way (conveniently, that's everybody!) has enough knowledge to be justly condemned. Now we don't have to feel so bad that people who never heard of Christ will spend eternity in Hell. Of course, can anyone point to more than one or two instances in all of history of a person describing a God they derived exclusively from their observations of nature that happens to align with the biblical God? I can point to numerous examples of cultures arriving at completely different ideas about God simply from observing nature.

The Confession is not claiming that people without the Bible commonly arrive through natural theology at a conception of deity consonant with the Bible's teaching. You are attacking a straw man. As for the Confession's affirmation that the evidence of the natural world is sufficient to hold people accountable to God, your argument is not merely with the Reformed framers of the Confession but with the apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-25).

You asked:

Regarding Art. 3, where were God's each of apostles and prophets commanded to commit their revelations to writing?

"God's each of apostles and prophets"? I don't understand what that means.

To save time, let me refer you to a website that provides the Belgic Confession with Scripture references. The citations provided there do not exhaust the subject but provide some indication of the types of biblical support for the statements made in the Confession.

You wrote:

Please indicate the factual evidence that proves Scripture to be true. I see none whatsoever. Please consider this a formal CFR.

I have observed that CFRs typically count for nothing when I as a non-Mormon issue them to Mormons -- and even when Mormons issue them to other Mormons regarding false accusations made against me. Furthermore, I consider this CFR to be less than serious. You already are familiar enough with evangelical literature to know the kinds of evidence I would adduce. You also know that the Belgic Confession specifically mentions the fulfillment of biblical prophecy as one such type of evidence. And you know that I know that you don't accept any such evidence. So I feel that I would be well within my rights to ignore your CFR.

Here are some examples of the types of evidence that confirm the truth of the Bible:

• The evidence from astronomy showing that the universe had a beginning, confirming Gen. 1:1, etc.
  
• The evidence from astronomy, physics, etc., showing that the universe is fine-tuned to provide a stable environment in which life can exist, confirming the Bible's teaching that an intelligent Being created the world (Gen. 1-2, etc.)
  
• The evidence from anthropology, psychology, etc., showing that human beings are qualitatively different from all other biological creatures on earth, confirming the Bible's teaching that human beings are unique in their relationship to God (Gen. 1:26-27, etc.)
  
• The evidence from human behavior, good and bad, showing that human beings are not just animals doing what comes naturally but are creatures with an awareness of moral absolute values and yet in whom something has gone terribly wrong, confirming the biblical teaching of the Fall
  
• The evidence from the Ipuwer papyrus, for example, confirming portions of the Exodus account
  
• The evidence from archaeology that Jericho was destroyed in a manner closely matching the account in Joshua (though most archaeologists dispute the chronological match)
  
• The evidence from archaeology and extrabiblical texts confirming the existence of many of the biblical kings and other historical figures, and even specific events, such as the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, the rule and character of Herod the Great and of his sons, etc., etc.
  
• The evidence from extrabiblical texts confirming the existence and some of the events involving such NT figures as John the Baptist, Jesus, and James, the famine in Judea mentioned in Acts, etc., etc.
  
• The evidence of fulfilled prophecy that at least those portions of the Bible were supernaturally inspired, e.g., the prophecy in Genesis 12:1-3 that peoples all over the earth would view Abraham as their spiritual father (not fulfilled until centuries after the Bible was completed), the prophecy in Isaiah 11:11 that a second restoration of Jews to their Promised Land would take place (not fulfilled until 1948), the prophecy in Daniel 9:26 that a second temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed along with the city (fulfilled in AD 70, long after even a second-century BC date for the book of Daniel), etc.
  
• The evidence from the past two millennia of Jewish and Christian history of the salutary wisdom and values of the Bible in stimulating the development of education, science, music, technology, the abolition of slavery, the elevation of women and children, etc., etc., etc.
  
• The evidence from NT criticism that confirms, despite the often anti-supernaturalistic bias of many practitioners, the basic biographical facts of the life of Jesus (his childhood in Nazareth, his baptism by John in the Jordan, his gathering disciples around him, his reputation as a healer and teacher, the opposition of Sanhedrin leadership to Jesus' claims, his arrest in Gethsemane, his condemnation to crucifixion by Pilate).
  
• The evidence from historical study of the NT that confirms the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection
  

And here are just a few of the books that I would recommend you read that support the points made above:

Apologetics Study Bible. Nashville: B&H, 2007. Excellent articles and study notes supporting and defending the factual accuracy of the Bible.

Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. What the title indicates.

Archer, Gleason L. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. The best of several very good "Bible difficulties" reference works.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Excellent defense of the reliability of the Gospel that modern scholars most often denigrate as history.

Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists: Discover Why Believing in God Makes So Much Sense. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2005. The points listed above constitute a quick (and incomplete) list of the evidences discussed in this book.

Brisco, Thomas V. Holman Bible Atlas. Nashville: B&H, 1997. One of several excellent Bible atlases that document the rich factual basis of the Bible in its geography and history.

Collins, C. John. Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton: Crossway, 2003. One of the best surveys of the coherence of the Bible with modern science.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Discusses many of the objections people have to the Old Testament's portrayal of God.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. I don't agree with Kitchen's date for the Exodus, but in general this book provides a wealth of information supporting the historical value and factual basis of much of the OT.

Licona, Michael. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Rigorous historical case for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Mangalwadi, Vishal. The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011. An absolute must-read for so many reasons.

I could go on and on....

[Zakuska]

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

Bingo. So then in like manner what ever God does not say is not authoritative, and carries as much weight as anything any other man says. So when Paul gives his opinions without "express command" of God then they are just as non-authoritative as anything any other man said.

What happens if God says something now that goes against what he said in the past?

Protestants will look at the scripture and say... nope... na na na I can't hear you God.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Bingo. So then in like manner what ever God does not say is not authoritative, and carries as much weight as anything any other man says. So when Paul gives his opinions without "express command" of God then they are just as non-authoritative as anything any other man said.

I'm guessing you are referring to 1 Corinthians 7:25, is that right? If so, you are not understanding Paul correctly. You need to read the rest of the verse, and also the last verse of the chapter. Paul is saying that although he did not have a specific command from the Lord Jesus addressing the issue in the Corinthian church, as the Lord's apostle he was inspired by the Spirit of God and his counsel was therefore to be considered trustworthy.

You wrote:

What happens if God says something now that goes against what he said in the past?

Protestants will look at the scripture and say... nope... na na na I can't hear you God.

God never says something that goes against what he said in the past. He may change external things like whether his people need to be circumcised or offer sacrifices on an altar, but he does not contradict statements of fact or truth that he previously made. This is just a corollary of the principle that God is the God of truth and cannot lie. So, for example, God will not say in one year that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and fifteen years later contradict himself and say that they are not one God but three Gods.

So when Protestants hear someone claim that God is contradicting what he previously revealed as truth, their response is simply to deny that God could ever do such a thing.

[Zakuska]

I'm guessing you are referring to 1 Corinthians 7:25, is that right? If so, you are not understanding Paul correctly. You need to read the rest of the verse, and also the last verse of the chapter. Paul is saying that although he did not have a specific command from the Lord Jesus addressing the issue in the Corinthian church, as the Lord's apostle he was inspired by the Spirit of God and his counsel was therefore to be considered trustworthy.

"Thinking" one has the spirit is very different then knowing one has the spirit:

1 cor 7

40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

1 Timothy 4:1

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Would you not agree?

God never says something that goes against what he said in the past. He may change external things like whether his people need to be circumcised or offer sacrifices on an altar, but he does not contradict statements of fact or truth that he previously made. This is just a corollary of the principle that God is the God of truth and cannot lie. So, for example, God will not say in one year that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and fifteen years later contradict himself and say that they are not one God but three Gods.

So when God states the fact that he gets over his anger quickly...

Jeremiah 3:12

I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Yet in the same book he says just the opposite...

Jeremiah 17:4

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

What are we to make of that?

So when Protestants hear someone claim that God is contradicting what he previously revealed as truth, their response is simply to deny that God could ever do such a thing.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

"Thinking" one has the spirit is very different then knowing one has the spirit.... Would you not agree?

Paul was speaking ironically in 1 Corinthians 7:40. He didn't mean that he was unsure of whether he had the Spirit.

You wrote:

So when God states the fact that he gets over his anger quickly...

Jeremiah 3:12

I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Yet in the same book he says just the opposite...

Jeremiah 17:4

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

What are we to make of that?

What do you make of it?

[Vance]

God never says something that goes against what he said in the past.

Who are you to tell God what He has or Hasn't done?