Thanks Dave Maybe I haven't noticed what detail(s) Rory is saying could be incorrect. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln:
You say the New Testament was written early, and Rory says it might be later. It is date, then; the earlier, having the greater claim to inerrancy than the later? Take care. By this rule, you are questioning inerrancy yourself to the first man you meet, whom believes in an even earlier date than you.
Response to Rich L No, there is nothing wrong with examining its reliability. My point is that Rory is not setting out to question inerrancy, but his thesis that the details of Scripture don't have to be exactly right is a commentary on inerrancy. I never said that he denied inerrancy, and I don't think he would ever say he was throwing out inerrancy, but I believe his position does exactly that, especially when it subscribes to the liberal party line of a post-70 AD dating of the synoptic gospels. Like I said, I think he is extremely well-intentioned and apologetically-minded in the article, and I have no doubt that he fully believes the Bible. However, if my position is that the gospels were written late and they don't need to have every detail correct, then am I not at the very least casting doubt upon inerrancy?
Nothing Wrong with Examining its Reliability You're questioning inerrancy by saying evidence for post A.D. 70 authorship is questioning inerrancy.¬† Rory didn't call into question inspiration and inerrancy.¬† You should ask him if he denied inerrancy and record an update for us. You may owe him an apology. I hope you reconsidered your non-negotiable after you questioned the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture by saying a late date for the New Testament questions inerrancy and inspiration.
Great Sermon! My question to those who say that Jesus returns for his church post trib raises so many problems. What about the judgement seat of Christ? What about His 1000 year rein? What about the marriage supper of the Lamb? What about God pouring out 7 years of wrath on his own Body? What about the fact that Paul never once warned us to NOT take the mark of the beast - why did the new testaments most prolific writer never mention it once? It is never mentioned until Revelation 14. Pre and post trib rapture has become a major doctrinal issue and a stone of stumbling for believers in these last days. I for one cannot accept that God will put his church through it, and not because I cannot bear the thought of the persecution and slaughter of those days, or that I somehow deserve to escape it. Post trib simply does not line up with scripture, and those who keep pointing to Matthew 24 are confusing a teaching meant for Jews and Jews alone, not Christians.
Great Sermon! Glad to hear you didn't like it. One question though; since the biblical people of Egypt, Hebrew, & Israel were black, does it bother you that the characters in these movies are portrayed incorrectly over and over?
Great Sermon! It really is heart wrenching to see the absolute decline of intelligence and moral decision ability of the general public. It is totally reflected in our political process. It is just a total lack of desire to educate oneself on politics and other issues. The fault has to be laid on parents, educators and pastors. I think in that order. Not sure. However the breakdown of the family kind of deflates the desire to do just about anything let alone educate oneself. So this election as the last should come as no surprise.
Great Sermon! Thank you again Pastor Bill for reminding others as well as myself this important principle in regarding " respectful behaviour " especially when we are to be bright lights in the darkness of this world, for Christ name sake....it's definitely our responsibility to keep in check how we conduct ourselves in ALL we do and speak. You always have a reminder for my weaknesses and with all of the weak, watered down, "so-called" christianity, no matter where we are in our walk with the Lord, it's the boldness of Pastors like you that tell what we need to hear!!!! Some may be offended...Well as a sister in Christ, The Bible does offend, because the Truth isn't what we want in the flesh, but needed for conviction of the Holy Spirit. Thanks again for this reminder.
Refreshing Nice to know I'm not the only one who is fed up with this trend. I was raised by a blind mother. Her whole life, everywhere she went she was automatically expected to disappoint for some reason as if she had less to offer because of her "disability". This led her to adopt the philosophy now lost on most: early is on time, on time is late, and late is fired. She instilled this in is from an early age to the extent that if I am not early, it bothers me even if others aren't remotely concerned... of course the Army also " gently" reinforces punctuality, though many seem to lose this perishable skill once they get too comfortable in their job.
You're wrong Pastor Harris The biggest problem this country is facing right now is broken borders and national security. The refugee situation and emigration is completely out of control. Donald Trump is no saint, but I really believe he is the best choice to keep America safe.
Great Sermon! I often feel I want to come home and wanting to be ministered to, knowing that I'm only a sensitive question away from a complete mental breakdown, but luckily it never happens as most churches are filled with congregations of broken people, doubting people, prayerless people, hurting people, that you never feel like you left your ministry abroad.
Response to Matt B. Thanks for the feedback, Matt! I think we are on the same page in that the movie certainly did not give a clear gospel message. Specifically, I would have liked to see the development of what led Clavius to leave his tribune ring on that table. What an opportunity to include the gospel! I guess I wasn't as hard on the film because as historical fiction, I don't know that they are obligated to present any major theological truths, but I think many in the audience would have welcomed it. Thanks again for the comment, and have a blessed day!
Candidates I would go for Ted Cruz but I am turned off by the circle of influence he keeps-big supporters like:New Ager Mormon Glenn Beck and New Apostolic Reformation /Dominion Theology supporters (including his father Rafael Cruz)
Dig deeper Rubio is still a practising Catholic. He does go on Saturday to the southern baptist mega church with wife but attends mass every Sunday. In fact he said he craves the Holy Sacrament -communion. Here is the link http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/01/rubio-religion-catholic-evangelical/
Great Sermon! All the above., If I had to choose one I would choose Secularization Read the article I sent Pastor Sturm from the American Thinker, Evangelicals Are Politically Irrelevant. I am a Cruz supporter, can I vote for Trump, I don't know. I will make my decision over the coming months. But, I believe the Republican Convention might have some surprises.
Great Sermon! Thanks David for your careful and thoughtful analysis as always. I saw the movie yesterday; I am a history nerd as well and agree with your analysis. However, for me there is another level to being bothered in that these same historical details are also not accurate to Scripture, such as the ascension of Jesus being in Galilee and not in Bethany, the portrayal of the comfortability between the disciples and the Gentile Clavius, which seems to contradict the account of Peter in Acts 10 and specifically in Acts 10:34 in the house of Cornelius, were he now (at that point) realizes that God did not show favoritism among the nations. I have no problem with historical fiction as long as it does not contradict the Bible, which can undermine its perceived authority among new converts and seekers. For me that is a big deal. I also thought their portrayal of Jesus lacked the force of his authority and lordship and watered down the Gospel message when he was talking to Clavius. Bottom line, if they had gotten the Bible accurate, I would have liked this movie a lot better.