Uncommon Ground

Dan managed to get a word in edgewise recently because he didn't come in as "Dan" or identify himself as Dan. So I allowed the comment, responded, and realized, in his response, who it was. Rather than delete the discussion, I left it and moved on. The question Dan was addressing was whether or not it is possible for people of good faith to disagree. The "disagree" in view here, was, of course, Scripture. His position is that he disagrees with my interpretation. My position is that he disagrees with my position. Oh, not my position on the Scripture at hand; my position on Scripture itself.

I take the outrageous view that all Scripture is breathed out by God. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and always right, I would then hold that Scripture is always right, even up to this day. I take the stupendous leap of concluding that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. You can quote me on that. Okay, you can quote Scripture on that (2 Tim 3:16-17). So I make this huge jump to conclude that Scripture is useful for telling us what is true, telling us where we are wrong, telling us how to correct that, and telling us how to continue in the right way. Further, I conclude that Scripture is adequate, complete, enough; it is good enough to equip those who wish to follow God for every good work.

Now, clearly, I'm making this stuff out of thin air. Okay, no, that's silly. My mistake isn't fantasy. My mistake is taking it as it is written. My mistake isn't in my understanding of what it says. My mistake is in believing it. Because, you see, the enlightened person (and that isn't a jab at Dan -- that's a jab at all who are the sons of the so-called "Enlightenment" when they tossed Scripture out on its ear and substituted Man's thinking as God) will tell you that Scripture is sort of God's Word. "Sort of" at best. Maybe it contains God's Word. It certainly is not God's Word in a definitive or authoritative sense. It is absolutely not possible that it is God's Word without error. Oh, no. You can't read, for instance, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and conclude that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's just sheer nonsense. Science tells us otherwise. Men like Darwin made it clear. All of history was wrong -- from Moses to Christ to today -- because the universe made the universe and that "God created" stuff was mere myth, a story to illustrate the truth without actually being true. Clear as day. (I wonder why all those people prior to the 19th century didn't see it? Clearly a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).)

Dan objects to my interpretation of Scripture not simply because I get the meaning wrong. He objects because of this fundamental premise that the Bible is Scripture and all Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, truth (John 17:17). Scripture says it. Jesus said it. Paul said it. The church has held it as true for its entire history. The text of Scripture and the context of Scripture, both internally and externally, holds this to be true. And those who cannot allow God to speak for Himself in the pages of His Word will not tolerate those who do.

Is it possible for people of good faith to disagree? Sure ... as long as we are starting on the same page, beginning with the same basis. Because "good faith" means you're operating with honest intent, but debating the meaning of Scripture without a common agreement of what Scripture is does not allow honest intent. I'm seeking to explain God's Word, and those with a different basic position on Scripture as not God's Word do not have an honest intention. They intend to take down that notion of God's Word as true, authoritative, and sufficient. The notion that we can read and understand and hear God in the pages of the Bible. It is not a "good faith" argument when we come from uncommon ground.
________
In case it is not clear, this post is NOT about Dan Trabue. Dan was the trigger, but not the point. I mean no ill will toward the person and am only talking about the idea that we cannot wholly trust the Bible as God's Word. In this entry, Dan's name was simply a face to give to an entire set of thinking that denies Scripture as God's Word while claiming to believe the Bible. Don't come away thinking Dan is a bad guy. Practice 1 Timothy 2:1.