Giants

GIANTS

SNIPPET

And did they tell you stories 'bout the saints of old

Stories about their faith

They say stories like that make a boy grow bold

Stories like that make a man walk straight

Boy Like Me/ Man Like You Rich Mullins

SCRIPTURE

 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.

 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 1 Samuel 17:44,45

SONG

Walking Like Giants  by Stars Go Dim

https://youtu.be/Glent8xwAL4

Life seems like a uphill battle

Like more than you can handle

But we have a hope that it's real

And there's power that lives inside us

We were made with hearts like lions

We're not given a spirit of fear

His strength inside us, we are fighters

Made to rise, with faith alive

We're standing Ten-Feet high

We're not giving up, when struggles come

There're not big enough

There's no stopping us, we're fearless inside

We're walking like giants

We're not giving up, with every step

He's still here with us

Whatever comes our way

We'll be walking like giants

Walking like giants

It might seem like the biggest mountains

Got you surrounded

But there's a God above it all

No fear, we keep moving forward

Ya, we're marching on like soldiers

No such thing as impossible

We're not giving up, when struggles come

There're not big enough

There's no stopping us, we're fearless inside

We're walking like giants

We're not giving up, with every step

He's still here with us

Whatever comes our way

We'll be walking like giants

Walking like giants

Whatever may come, we're rising above

Through fire or rain, nothings stopping us [x2]

We're not giving up, when struggles come

There're not big enough

There's no stopping us, we're fearless inside

We're walking like giants

We're not giving up, with every step

He's still here with us

Whatever comes our way

We'll be walking like giants

Walking like giants

Whatever may come, we're rising above

Through fire or rain, nothings stopping us [x2]

SENTENCE PRAYER

God of Host’s forgive us, for allowing the uncircumcised, to be a blot on Your glory!

Holy Spirit, may Your zeal consume us, so that we may walk and fight like giants, for your honor!  Jesus, may Your love conquer Your enemies with love,  so they become soldiers of God!  Amen REM Prayer based on I Samuel 17:26 Message

Topical Bible

Devotions for Word Sermon Series. January 14, 2017 

“Part of the problem is the way we use Scripture. We mistakenly treat the Bible as if it were arranged by topic—you know, the world’s best compendium of human problems and divine solutions. So when we’re thinking about marriage, we run to all the marriage passages. But the Bible isn’t an encyclopedia; it is a story, the great origin-to-destiny story of redemption. In fact, it is more than a story. It is a theologically annotated story. It is a story with God’s notes. This means that we cannot understand what the Bible has to say about marriage by looking only at the marriage passages, because there is a vast amount of biblical information about marriage not found in the marriage passages.

In fact, we could argue, to the degree that every portion of the Bible tells us things about God, about ourselves, about life in this present world, and about the nature of the human struggle and the divine solution, to that degree every passage in the Bible is a marriage passage. Every passage imparts to us insight that is vital for a proper understanding of the passages that directly address marriage, and every passage tells “us what we should expect as we deal with the comprehensive relationship of marriage.

One of our problems is that we have not used the Bible biblically, and this has set us up for surprises we shouldn’t have had.”

Excerpt From: Paul David Tripp. “What Did You Expect?.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/gtPSv.l

INERRANCY Part 3

"God's speech to us by His Son is the culmination of His speaking to mankind and is His greatest and final revelation to mankind in this period of redemptive history. The exceptional greatness of the revelation that comes through the Son, far exceeding any revelation in the old covenant, is emphasized again and again throughout chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews. These facts all indicate that there is a finality to the revelation of God in Christ and that once this revelation has been completed, no more is to be expected."

Wayne Grudem

Biblicaltraining.org

INERRANCY Part 3

Devotions for Word Sermon Series. January 12, 2017 INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE.

INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE, PART THREE: EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DENIED

by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 4:03pm

THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE: DOES IT STILL MATTER?

JACK COTTRELL – CINCINNATI CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY – APRIL 2011

PART III. AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THEOLOGY WHEN INERRANCY IS DENIED

I have said that a denial of inerrancy leaves us at the mercy of subjectivism and relativism. I.e., in the end each of us as individuals will ultimately decide, based on our own subjective inclinations and preferences, what aspects of the Bible we will accept and what we will reject. A good example of this is the book by Stephen T. Davis titled The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy Versus Infallibility (Westminster 1977). Here I will give a synopsis of his view.

First, he makes it clear that he denies inerrancy, which he (rightly) defines as claiming that the Bible “contains no errors at all,” e.g., in history, logic, and geography. But that claim “is one that in all humility I cannot affirm,” says Davis (16). “I consider myself an evangelical Christian and yet I do not affirm inerrancy” (18). Instead, he believes the Bible is “infallible,” i.e., “entirely trustworthy on matters of faith and practice” (16).

Later he qualifies this by limiting infallibility only to “matters that are crucially relevant to Christian faith and practice” (118, italics added). But in the end this means nothing, since he says, “I admit that I am unable to stipulate a clear and infallible criterion to distinguish Biblical passages that are crucially relevant to faith and practice from those that are not” (125). But even if he could do so, it would not make any real difference, since he clearly says that his “faith and practice” distinction “does not necessarily mean that I find no theological error in the Bible as opposed, say, to scientific or historical error” (125).

In fact, Davis says, it is always possible that the Bible contains errors in any of its claims; the deal is that he has simply not found any yet in matters (crucially relevant) to faith and practice. “There are historical and scientific errors in the Bible, but I have found none on matters of faith and practice. I do not claim a priori that the Bible is or must be infallible, just that I have found it to be so. Perhaps someday it will be shown that the Bible is not infallible” (115-116). “I am open at any point to the possibility that the Bible is not infallible” (120).

What criteria shall we apply to determine if any given Biblical doctrine is indeed erroneous? His answer seems to be: human reason, i.e., an examination of the available evidence. “The only epistemological credentials a doctrine must have in order to be accepted by evangelicals is that it seem true on the available evidence.” An evangelical accepts “evangelical doctrines . . . simply because they seem true to him.” “I believe B, C, and D because I believe they are taught in the Bible and because I know of no argument or evidence that refutes them.” No Christian can accept a doctrine on the basis of the Bible alone. “He must hold to some other authority or criterion as well. That authority, I am not embarrassed to say, is his own mind, his own ability to reason” (71). A Christian must “accept whatever the Bible says on any subject whatsoever unless there is compelling reason not to accept it. That is, everything in the Bible is authoritative and normative for the Christian until he comes across a passage which for good reasons he cannot accept. . . . One should reject something that the Bible says only where, having thoroughly examined the problem, in all humility one cannot accept what it says” (75). “I believe that the Bible is or ought to be authoritative for every Christian in all that it says on any subject unless and until he encounters a passage which after careful study and for good reasons he cannot accept” (116).

Despite this ultimate appeal to and apparent dependence on the evidential use of reason, Davis acknowledges “that sin has corrupted all aspects of human personality, including reason, and that reason is not therefore an infallible guide to truth.” But this does not change anything: “Corrupted or not, we have no choice but to listen to and follow the dictates of reason” (72).

Where does this leave Davis regarding his use of the Bible for deciding matters of faith and practice? It leaves him in the bottomless and shoreless sea of doctrinal subjectivity and relativity. To change the metaphor, his feet are “firmly planted in mid-air.” He cites a kindred spirit, Daniel P. Fuller (whose father, Charles P. Fuller, founded Fuller Theological Seminary), who says that regarding doctrinal errors in the Bible, “he has discovered none yet and hopes he never will.” Fuller labors on “despite his clear belief that a discovered error on a revelational matter makes the whole Bible questionable” (42). Likewise, Davis says that he too must decide “whether or not there is compelling reason to reject some Biblical claim. For me this does not occur often, but it does occur occasionally. It has never yet occurred on a matter of faith or practice, and, like Fuller, I hope it never will” (76).

In the midst of all this subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, Davis makes his final appeal to the most subjective criterion of all: the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit. “I do affirm the traditional Christian claim that the Holy Spirit guides us into truth, although I do not wish to explore here the question of how this guidance works in relation to Scripture, reason, or any other epistemological authority” (72).

My point here is that Davis is simply accepting the consistent results of denying biblical inerrancy. Of course, many have denied and are still denying inerrancy, but have failed to see the end to which this will logically lead them and their disciples.

Start Sociable

INERRANCY Part 2

INERRANCY Part 2

Devotions for Word Sermon Series. January 10, 2017 INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE.

INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE, PART ONE: HISTORICAL DATA

by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:59pm

In his Journals for July 24, 1776 (vol. 4:82), John Wesley comments on a tract that says the Biblical writers sometimes made mistakes: “Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”

Such quotations could be multiplied for the first 1,800 years of Christian history, until around 1860, when Darwin’s work sparked open attacks on Genesis. From then on a sharp division began between Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberalism developed into a denial of the supernatural in all things, including the nature of the Bible. Around 1920 Neo-orthodoxy arose as a reaction against Liberalism; it restored belief in the supernatural elements of Christianity, except for the nature of the Bible. Conservatism in the early 20th century took shape as Fundamentalism, and was modified as Evangelicalism around 1950.

Evangelicalism at first continued to believe in inerrancy, but this changed in the 1960s. In 1963 Dewey Beegle wrote The Inspiration of Scripture (later edition: Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility). He declared he was an Evangelical but denied Biblical inerrancy. Since then the most serious attacks on inerrancy have come from within Evangelicalism.

This same pattern has occurred within the Restoration Movement. Its founders (early 19th century) accepted the standard inerrancy view, but Liberalism entered and took control of most of its colleges and seminaries. Our Bible colleges, including Cincinnati Christian University (1924), were begun as a response to this Liberal takeover, and were originally committed to Biblical inerrancy. The by-laws of Cincinnati Christian University (Cincinnati Bible Seminary at the time) state that every trustee and faculty member must “believe, without reservation, in the full and final inspiration of the Bible to the extent that for each of them it is the infallible Word of God and, therefore, the all‑sufficient rule of faith and life;* in the deity and supreme authority of Christ; in obedience to the Gospel; in edification of the church; and in the restoration of its unity on the New Testament basis.”

INERRANCY

Devotions for Word Sermon Series. January 9, 2017 INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE.


INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE, PART ONE: HISTORICAL DATA
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:59pm


THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE: DOES IT STILL MATTER?
JACK COTTRELL – CINCINNATI CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY – APRIL 2011


PART I. SOME HISTORICAL DATA


Let’s begin with some history. Inerrancy was the general belief of Christendom from its beginning. In the early second century Clement of Rome (ch. 45) said, “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” In the mid-second century Justin Martyr (“Dialogue with Trypho,” 65:2) tells Trypho, if you think you can get me to “say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”


Augustine (d. A.D. 430) grants that his own writings, and all writings since apostolic times, may contain errors. But “the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments” are different. “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.” “In consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility” (“Reply to Faustus the Manichaean,” 11:5, Works 5:196-197).


In his Journals for July 24, 1776 (vol. 4:82), John Wesley comments on a tract that says the Biblical writers sometimes made mistakes: “Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” http://jackcottrell.com/notes/inerrancy-of-scripture-part-one-historical-data/