need help on debating infallability

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nonconformist

Puritan Board Freshman
I am debating with a red letter "love em all into the kingdom" dispinsationalist who believes you should not put faith in the bible but into a "higher law of love". He also believes the scriptures are fallible and that Christ will teach you apart from the bible and that we can find goodness and love in everyone! I need help with a quote he threw at me. I have to be wise but also witty in answering this
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the rest of the bible is no different than any other collection of ancient wisdom. The whole of this thing we call "christianity" rests not on some book, but on someone -- the risen Christ
Click to expand...
How would you guys answer this to defend scripture infallibility and at the same time prove that we should put our faith in the word, not in our feelings, peaple, or some kind of a "higher love" nonsence?

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by nonconformist]
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
I'd simply say "How do you know about Jesus and him rising from the dead apart from the written Word?"
Click to expand...

Ditto. I would ask for his infallibility standard and go from there. That might require some work though. I will comment more later.

EDIT: in his case it looks like his own experience is his standard. If that's so, he ought to be easy.

[Edited on 7--2-05 by Draught Horse]
 
Originally posted by nonconformist
"higher law of love".
Click to expand...

What is this higher law of love? Make it say whatever you want it to say.

He also believes the scriptures are fallible and that Christ will teach you apart from the bible
Click to expand...
Just say, "Yeah, well Christ taught me x outside of the Bible and it directly contradicts what you say, so who's right now?"
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Just say, "Yeah, well Christ taught me x outside of the Bible and it directly contradicts what you say, so who's right now?"
Click to expand...

Jacob is dead-on here; Ben, too.

Countering the anti-intellectual, experiential, Gnostic attitudes in discussions like these, is near nigh to impossible. So turn the tables by using the same tactic....hopefully demonstrating the end result of his Postmodern claim.

Here is a meaningful article by one of my apologetics teachers on "Experiential-ism" that may be of use. ???? We get lots of this stuff out here in Southern California. Don't give him the article -- rather, learn its tactics and incorporate it into the relationship. It works much better that way!

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/experiential-ism.html

Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.....

:cool:

r.
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Just say, "Yeah, well Christ taught me x outside of the Bible and it directly contradicts what you say, so who's right now?"
Click to expand...

Jacob is dead-on here; Ben, too.

Countering the anti-intellectual, experiential, Gnostic attitudes in discussions like these, is near nigh to impossible. So turn the tables by using the same tactic....hopefully demonstrating the end result of his Postmodern claim.

Here is a meaningful article by one of my apologetics teachers on "Experiential-ism" that may be of use. ???? We get lots of this stuff out here in Southern California. Don't give him the article -- rather, learn its tactics and incorporate it into the relationship. It works much better that way!

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/experiential-ism.html

Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.....

:cool:

r.
Click to expand...


There is a dirty logical trick you can use. If you can get him to contradict himself on his own terms, then you can make him say anything you want him to say by way of deductive proof. I can't phrase it in my head exactly, but I have seen Paul do it a number of times. I know you have to use both disjunctive syllogism and addition.
 
I spotted a book the other day by Rushdoony, Infallibility: an Inescapable Concept. Might have something useful in it, I don't know.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I spotted a book the other day by Rushdoony, Infallibility: an Inescapable Concept. Might have something useful in it, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I haven't read it but I think I know the idea behind it. Men appeal to an ultimate standard by which to measure their existence (The Triune God, Logic, Science, or Subjectivity). They measure all things by this standard. The problem is, not all of these standards are ultimate. With the exception of the Triune God (revealed in Holy Scripture), these standards cannot provide the preconditions for intelligibility. A rationalist cannot justify the use of reason without engaging in reason, making his argument viciously circular. The scientist (empricist) relies on the *facts* to explain experience. The problem with this is that facts do not speak for themselves. The only make sense within a *network* (read: worldview).

The subjectivist (which is what your friend seems to be) cannot make any absolute claim for his own experiences (or doctrines derived from those experience). The best that he can do is say, "Well, I liked it and I hope you do to."
 
I would say his statement is absolutely correct and flawless. But there is more to his statement....

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead "according to the scriptures" then He is not God... its just that simple (and the book is useless).

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as "eternally decreed" and "according to the scriptures" there would be no New Covenant (and the book is useless).

If there is no New Covenant, there is no provision for supplying the believer with the Holy Spirit. Part of Christ's workings unfold all the provisions supplied by God for the New Covenant (the book tells us about the New Covenant).

If there is no New Covenant, there is no heart transplant for the believer; therefore there is no heart to know God. There is no Spirit to teach you the things pertaining to God (and the book is still useless).

If there are no provisions given to the believer as part of the New Covenant , the individual "œcan not" and "œwill not" believe the things of God, including the book. Therefore, he can not understand that the word of God is written by the Spirit via man and it is the infallible word of God (the book would be useless).

Christianity does not rest on the book, but the person of Jesus Christ (I agree with this statement). Because of Christ, the Spirit has been given to the believer and the Spirit does not contradict the written word of God whatsoever.... especially when teaching the infallibility of His word.
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I would say his statement is absolutely correct and flawless. But there is more to his statement....

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead "according to the scriptures" then He is not God... its just that simple (and the book is useless).

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as "eternally decreed" and "according to the scriptures" there would be no New Covenant (and the book is useless).

If there is no New Covenant, there is no provision for supplying the believer with the Holy Spirit. Part of Christ's workings unfold all the provisions supplied by God for the New Covenant (the book tells us about the New Covenant).

If there is no New Covenant, there is no heart transplant for the believer; therefore there is no heart to know God. There is no Spirit to teach you the things pertaining to God (and the book is still useless).

If there are no provisions given to the believer as part of the New Covenant , the individual "œcan not" and "œwill not" believe the things of God, including the book. Therefore, he can not understand that the word of God is written by the Spirit via man and it is the infallible word of God (the book would be useless).

Christianity does not rest on the book, but the person of Jesus Christ (I agree with this statement). Because of Christ, the Spirit has been given to the believer and the Spirit does not contradict the written word of God whatsoever.... especially when teaching the infallibility of His word.
Click to expand...
This is all true but their wasnt their also old testament saints that went to heaven apart from Christ? I am sure they held the scripture in a high regard
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Just say, "Yeah, well Christ taught me x outside of the Bible and it directly contradicts what you say, so who's right now?"
Click to expand...

Jacob is dead-on here; Ben, too.

Countering the anti-intellectual, experiential, Gnostic attitudes in discussions like these, is near nigh to impossible. So turn the tables by using the same tactic....hopefully demonstrating the end result of his Postmodern claim.
Nice:up:
Here is a meaningful article by one of my apologetics teachers on "Experiential-ism" that may be of use. ???? We get lots of this stuff out here in Southern California. Don't give him the article -- rather, learn its tactics and incorporate it into the relationship. It works much better that way!

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/experiential-ism.html

Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.....

:cool:

r.
Click to expand...
Nice:up:

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by nonconformist]
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Just say, "Yeah, well Christ taught me x outside of the Bible and it directly contradicts what you say, so who's right now?"
Click to expand...

Jacob is dead-on here; Ben, too.

Countering the anti-intellectual, experiential, Gnostic attitudes in discussions like these, is near nigh to impossible. So turn the tables by using the same tactic....hopefully demonstrating the end result of his Postmodern claim.

Here is a meaningful article by one of my apologetics teachers on "Experiential-ism" that may be of use. ???? We get lots of this stuff out here in Southern California. Don't give him the article -- rather, learn its tactics and incorporate it into the relationship. It works much better that way!

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/experiential-ism.html

Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.....

:cool:

r.
Click to expand...


There is a dirty logical trick you can use. If you can get him to contradict himself on his own terms, then you can make him say anything you want him to say by way of deductive proof. I can't phrase it in my head exactly, but I have seen Paul do it a number of times. I know you have to use both disjunctive syllogism and addition.
Click to expand...
I think I have done this kind of thing to him in the past. You were right these guys with a little practice are easy to refute They are becoming very useful for practice and a stepping stone:bigsmile:
 
Sure, there were Old Testament saints apart from Christ. Although I do believe they were "in" Christ from before the foundation of the world, thus making them not necessarily apart from Christ (but that´s a whole new subject).

The Jews do hold the torah in high regard, but they want nothing of the New Covenant (hence the scripture is useless to them). They can regard the torah all day long, just as the Muslims regard the Koran (both books are in high regard, but useless without Christ).

I'm just making the argument from a New Covenant perspective.... since Christ is the only way. The Old Covenant does nothing for us other than show us physically what is spiritual (...and there is much more for yet another subject).

For the elect (the believer), we can not understand the Old Covenant, the New Covenant or anything, for that matter, pertaining to God unless we have been made "partakers" of the New Covenant. This is something only God can do, we can not.
 
I agree with Paul. The WORD is truth. This is huge! If you do not believe His word is the truth, you need to throw out all the other "truths."

You can also ask your friend what else "truth" is. Pilate had the same question. "What is truth?"

Jesus is truth (John 14:6)
The Spirit is truth (John 16:13)
The scripture is truth (Daniel 10:21)
God is truth (Isaiah 65:16)
His works are truth (Psalm 33:4)
His law is truth (Psalm 119:142)
His commandments are truth (Psalm 119:151)
His word is truth (Psalm 119:143)
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I agree with Paul. The WORD is truth. This is huge! If you do not believe His word is the truth, you need to throw out all the other "truths."

You can also ask your friend what else "truth" is. Pilate had the same question. "What is truth?"

Jesus is truth (John 14:6)
The Spirit is truth (John 16:13)
The scripture is truth (Daniel 10:21)
God is truth (Isaiah 65:16)
His works are truth (Psalm 33:4)
His law is truth (Psalm 119:142)
His commandments are truth (Psalm 119:151)
His word is truth (Psalm 119:143)
Click to expand...
Wow I like this
 
Chet: Another thing you can tell your friend is that Jesus IS the Word. See John 1 generally. Also, your friend should understand that Jesus is the wisdom of God and had eternal pre-existence. Proverbs 8. The Bible reflects God's thinking - His Word and wisdom - and consequently reflects Jesus.
 
As things divine are connected, I would do as the others are mentioning and connect all the dots for him. If he throws out the Word, then He throws out Christ. Christ claimed divinity, and so they sought to kill him, the Word claims divinity for its self and so the same try to ignore or disprove of it. You just cannot have the Spirit separate from The Word, separate from Christ. It's all one package.

:2cents:
 
There are so many respnses and arguments that can be used - but which one is the most effective for that individual personally? That requires the leading of the Spirit.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Joe Keysor]
 
Not that I'd only use this....but reflect for a moment....

To those who say God is love (only) they are engaging in a first century heresy...reducing the attributes to "only love"...which begs the question: what is "love"? WHAT?

Plus, a more simplistic question is, is God Love or is Love god? I suspect the latter is idolatry; the former being a problematic reduction omitting the whole of God's attributes. In the book of Jude, read about Jesus "destroying the unbelievers" in the OT desert sojourn. Hmmm, I wonder if Jesus was being loving then?

:detective:

r.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I spotted a book the other day by Rushdoony, Infallibility: an Inescapable Concept. Might have something useful in it, I don't know.
Click to expand...
This is what got me into the debate in the fist place!;)
 
Originally posted by Scott
Chet: Another thing you can tell your friend is that Jesus IS the Word. See John 1 generally. Also, your friend should understand that Jesus is the wisdom of God and had eternal pre-existence. Proverbs 8. The Bible reflects God's thinking - His Word and wisdom - and consequently reflects Jesus.
Click to expand...
This is what I first thought of, but for some reason I didnt use it, I probably should have!:um:
 
Originally posted by JKLeoPCA
As things divine are connected, I would do as the others are mentioning and connect all the dots for him. If he throws out the Word, then He throws out Christ. Christ claimed divinity, and so they sought to kill him, the Word claims divinity for its self and so the same try to ignore or disprove of it. You just cannot have the Spirit separate from The Word, separate from Christ. It's all one package.

:2cents:
Click to expand...
Good point:D
 
Originally posted by Robin
Not that I'd only use this....but reflect for a moment....

To those who say God is love (only) they are engaging in a first century heresy...reducing the attributes to "only love"...which begs the question: what is "love"? WHAT?

Plus, a more simplistic question is, is God Love or is Love god? I suspect the latter is idolatry; the former being a problematic reduction omitting the whole of God's attributes. In the book of Jude, read about Jesus "destroying the unbelievers" in the OT desert sojourn. Hmmm, I wonder if Jesus was being loving then?

:detective:

r.
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic argument, I tried using an argument similiar to this but, it went right over his head:um: , their is so many bad churches teaching this stuff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Debating Universalism
Replies
7
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Irishcat922
  • Locked
Debating Muslims
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Irishcat922
Irishcat922
RamistThomist
  • Locked
Debating liberals online
Replies
8
Views
3K
caddy
caddy
I
  • Locked
Tips on debating an inconsistent thinker
Replies
8
Views
3K
Gregg
G
C
  • Locked
Debating Atheist Double Major...
Replies
8
Views
3K
Craig
C
Back
Top