Gervin Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Cool. you simply don't like the idea of applying the word "faith" to that trust you have in the Bible, it seems.Yes, I believe the words "trust" and "faith" have different meanings.
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Yes, I believe the words "trust" and "faith" have different meanings. Again, can you please define faith in your terms so that we are on the same page? 2
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Believing that the Bible is the word of God and having faith in the Word of God is a distinction, among others, that you're unable to grasp. So it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God and yet "have faith" in the word of God? So if the Bible is not the word of God how do we get the word of God? Through spiritual experience? Like knowing Jesus is the Christ because it is revealed to us? Why all these cryptic pronouncements? Can't you articulate it in a logical way? Why not? Is reason not involved in faith? Edited December 9, 2014 by mfbukowski
Gervin Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 So it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God and yet "have faith" in the word of God? So if the Bible is not the word of God how do we get the word of God? I'm really not interested in dialogue with someone who consistently puts words in my mouth that are not mine. Where do I say that "it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God"??I think you're aching for an argument and I don't have the time or inclination. Sorry.
Gervin Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Again, can you please define faith in your terms so that we are on the same page?Hebrews 11:1
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 from another web site (my emphasis) ...:if you base your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord on the truth status of the Bible rather than the other way around (basing its truth on its power to transform through relationship with Jesus Christ), you are risking idolatry.So you believe in Jesus Christ as Savior through personal spiritual experience. That is exactly what I am saying. The problem of course was that his name could have been "Fred Jones" instead of Jesus without the name found in the bible.
Calm Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 And now you can say you know of an instance when it didn't occur: theolderthebolder.org/downloads/tracts.viewable/mormonism/moronichallenge.htmlIt doesn't appear to me this guy is claiming to believe the BoM is divine but is also denying that Jesus is the Christ.
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Then every reference in the Bible to faith in God and Christ really means faith in God and the Christ and the Bible? I don't buy it and would again ask, as I did in post 178, to show me where in the Bible that this is so. Why would you ask for the bible referring to itself as proof of it's truth? If it does use itself as its own proof, how can you trust it? It's the same argument you have used against the BOM? 3
Gervin Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 So you believe in Jesus Christ as Savior through personal spiritual experience. That is exactly what I am saying. The problem of course was that his name could have been "Fred Jones" instead of Jesus without the name found in the bible.Where do I say that "it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God"??(Not that you care much for answering questions)
Gervin Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Why would you ask for the bible referring to itself as proof of it's truth? If it does use itself as its own proof, how can you trust it? It's the same argument you have used against the BOM?Where do I say that "it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God"??(Not that you care much for answering questions)
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I'm really not interested in dialogue with someone who consistently puts words in my mouth that are not mine. Where do I say that "it's possible to believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God"??Believing that the Bible is the word of God and having faith in the Word of God is a distinction, among others, that you're unable to grasp.I think you're aching for an argument and I don't have the time or inclination. Sorry. Didn't mean to offend you- please explain the above quotes then, because I am sure they sound contradictory to more people than just me. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Believing that the Bible is the word of God and having faith in the Word of God is a distinction, among others, that you're unable to grasp. I am trying to grasp your distinction. You are saying there is a difference between believing the bible is the word of God and having FAITH in the Word of God. Where does one GET the "Word of God" if one does not believe the Bible? I think most people see the Bible TO BE the "word of God"- so hjow can there be a distinction? What am I missing? Does any one else understand his point? Pogi? Edited December 9, 2014 by mfbukowski
stemelbow Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Yes, I believe the words "trust" and "faith" have different meanings. Good. And many people, use the two words synonymously. For many when someone says they trust the messages of Christ in the Bible, that suggests that this person has faith in the bible. Whether you agree with that usage or not, doesn't matter. But such equivocation and miscommunication is pretty common.
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Does any one else understand his point? Pogi? Don't look at me Gervin, using Hebrews 11:1 as a definition for faith (Faith is an assurance of things hoped for and not seen), I don't understand your hang up. Is your hang up that we can see the Bible? When we say that we have faith in the Bible, we are not saying that we have faith that it exists as a book obviously. We all know the Bible exists. We are saying that we have an assurance of the hope in its (God's) words. Would it help if we said that we have faith that the Bible contains God's word, rather than saying we have faith "in" the Bible? Because that is what we mean, but you are getting caught up in semantics. Edited December 9, 2014 by pogi 3
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Hebrews 11:1 You're really going to have to explain what this verse means in your own words or we are going to talk past each other again. Joseph Smith translated that verse different from the KJV, so we are going to be speaking past each other again. Edited December 9, 2014 by pogi
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I am trying to grasp your distinction. You are saying there is a difference between believing the bible is the word of God and having FAITH in the Word of God. Where does one GET the "Word of God" if one does not believe the Bible? I think most people see the Bible TO BE the "word of God"- so hjow can there be a distinction? What am I missing? Does any one else understand his point? Pogi?He asserted that there is a difference between the 2. What I would like to know is what that difference is. Can Gervin explain it? Probably not, because he also asserted that we cannot grasp the difference. How convenient?
ERayR Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I am trying to grasp your distinction. You are saying there is a difference between believing the bible is the word of God and having FAITH in the Word of God. Where does one GET the "Word of God" if one does not believe the Bible? I think most people see the Bible TO BE the "word of God"- so hjow can there be a distinction? What am I missing? Does any one else understand his point? Pogi? Not Pogi but I am having difficulty in understanding what he means. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 He asserted that there is a difference between the 2. What I would like to know is what that difference is. Can Gervin explain it? Probably not, because he also asserted that we cannot grasp the difference. How convenient?Yep, I found it rather convenient myself.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Yes, I believe the words "trust" and "faith" have different meanings.They may have overlapping semantic ranges, but the same Hebrew word is frequently rendered in English as "faith, trust, belief." The English of the KJV and other traditional translations can lead us to make non-existent distinctions. The same applies to the tendency in the KJV to render the same Greek word as both "love" and "charity." 3
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Your examples only serve that the book is very old, None of this research gives us a better understanding of what is meant by faith, repentance, service, or any of the admonitions of Paul. We can do away with all this scholarship and still have a complete understanding of the gospel message. That's what I meant when I said "though they may not all fit within your narrow spectrum of Gospel principles:"I understood very well what you were saying, but I do not agree that just any old view is adequate, unless of course you opt for the Protestant view of sola scriptura. That is, that the text of the Bible needs no interpretation at all, that it is its own (circular) interpreter, and that anyone can understand it quite easily. If that were the case, why do we have rampant denominationalism? Even today I read the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the Anglican Communion will likely break up even more than it has already. How is this possible if the principles of the Gospel are so easily obvious? Indeed, the fact is that it is not easy, and that only by the Spirit which gave it can Scripture be interpreted. And for this we need a prophetic spokesman who acts as the deputy of God on Earth. For Roman Catholics that is the Pope. For Mormons that is the Prophet. The Gospel is the "good news, glad tidings" of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which was already preached by Isaiah and Nephi centuries before He arrived. The kerygma is the "preaching, proclamation, heralding" of that good news. These NT terms all have Hebrew corrollary terms which they translate, and one must clearly understand how such terms were used in the OT to gain a full appreciation of expiation of sin by the Priests at the Nephite and Jewish temples, as well as by the Lamb of God -- who was the ultimate sacrifice for sin, offered by God the Father Himself. What is so glad about those glad tidings? The Plan of Happiness or Plan of Salvation, which is fully explained and ritually portrayed in the LDS temple endowment, but is also laid out in the Small Plates of Nephi. Even though they have eyes, most do not see this. The Gospel is truly cosmic in nature and has endless ramifications. Edited December 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 3
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) from another web site (my emphasis): if you base your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord on the truth status of the Bible rather than the other way around (basing its truth on its power to transform through relationship with Jesus Christ), you are risking idolatry. Jesus is the “Sache” of Scripture. Luther knew it as did Calvin. But fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists put Scripture over Jesus when they try to make belief in him as Savior and Lord dependent on the inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible, then, becomes the gift in place of Jesus Christ. It should be (and is) the other way around—Jesus is the gift. The Bible is simply the Christmas-wrapped box that delivers him to us. I believe in the Bible’s truth and authority because of Him. But that in no way requires belief in absolute, technical, detailed accuracy of every statement of Scripture. I agree with this very nice quotation, and Mormons generally agree as well. We don't share the infallible or inerrant approach at all. The James passage is written to the brethren - to those who were already believers. Using this as support to pray for truth does not jibe with the actual words in the text. Also, James is instructing about wisdom, not truth - a distinction that seems to be missed on those who want to use this verse to justify praying for truth.Your distinction between wisdom and truth here is lost on me. The intent is the same either way, and Joseph Smith was already a believer in Jesus Christ when he began to pray. We must not strain out gnats and then swallow camels. So, you would say that as an instrument for converting the Jews, the Book of Mormon is a success?I cannot speak to why those Jewish converts adopted the LDS faith. I myself have never prayed to know whether the Book of Mormon be true history or not, and yet I am a Mormon with a testimony of that book and of the prophets of the Restoration. But above all I have a testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.. Testimonies come in all forms and are personal. How we come by them varies, but one should not become fixated on only one issue -- as you have on the Book of Mormon. Edited December 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) I hate to butt in, but I have been reading along. It seems obvious there is plenty of attempts to talk past each other here. I think this can easily be remedied if you answer whether you trust in the message of the Bible?If so, then I think the talking past each other will be more obvious.I think it's a valid question. Yes, I trust the message of the Bible.I can't really differentiate faith, belief, and trust. For me it is all Hebrew 'emuna. However, is the Bible the word of God, and what does Jesus mean when he says (Matt 4:4):" . . . he answered and said, It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'" He is quoting Deut 8:3. Edited December 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 1
Freedom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 That's what I meant when I said "though they may not all fit within your narrow spectrum of Gospel principles:"I understood very well what you were saying, but I do not agree that just any old view is adequate, unless of course you opt for the Protestant view of sola scriptura. That is, that the text of the Bible needs no interpretation at all, that it is its own (circular) interpreter, and that anyone can understand it quite easily. If that were the case, why do we have rampant denominationalism? Even today I read the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the Anglican Communion will likely break up even more than it has already. How is this possible if the principles of the Gospel are so easily obvious? They are not obvious because key doctrines have been removed. This is why we have the restoration. The restoration restored doctrine. If all we needed was more research, God would have put a professor in charge of the restoration, but he did not. Instead he gave us a prophet and revelation. The research certainly has enhanced our understanding of the bible, but it has not make our church any more true and nor has it changed anybody's understanding of love. Despite all this research, we still have rampant denominationalism as you put it. Research has not enhanced our understanding of gospel principles. Of all the scholarly books and articles I have read, none of them have made me a kinder person more inclined to receive revelation. Can you give me an example of how the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon have become more clear through academic research? For example, has King Benjamin's discourse on service become more clear? you have yet to provide any examples to support your argument. The examples you have provided only serve to provide historical context and lend support to the claim that it is a genuine ancient book.
Calm Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Understanding the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple as temple texts can, imo, give new insights to at least some of us who didn't understand it that way in the past: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1095&index=3 Does it help someone be a better person to know this? Perhaps if it lends greater understanding to the scriptures and their temple experience, they will become strengthened in their own covenants and their commitment deepen. Edited December 10, 2014 by calmoriah
Freedom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Understanding the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple as temple texts can, imo, give new insights to at least some of us who didn't understand it that way in the past: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1095&index=3 Does it help someone be a better person to know this? Perhaps if it lends greater understanding to the scriptures and their temple experience, they will become strengthened in their own covenants and their commitment deepen.This is true, and it has certainly lent support to the LDS doctrines of temples; although such an interpretation is not universally accepted by non-lds scholars.
Recommended Posts