A Christian

Originally posted by dj2becker
The verse in John comes to mind.

John 7:38 - He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

For any Christian that wishes to have the living water, I believe it is a neccesity.

Excellent verse. It is implicit throughout Scripture that to believe in Christ meant to believe in the words (the logos) of Christ. You can not believe in Christ without believing the Bible.

If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
(Joh 5:46-47 ESV)

Originally posted by dj2becker
Literally they could all make sense since they all mean "literally".

Sorry, bud. The only way def 2 will work is if a comma were added before the word literally. Next, KneverKnight would also need to tear the Bible into sections and only bring portions of it with him.

Literally!

ES

Originally posted by Coletti
Excellent verse. It is implicit throughout Scripture that to believe in Christ meant to believe in the words (the logos) of Christ. You can not believe in Christ without believing the Bible.

If you believed Moses, you would believ ...[text shortened]... will you believe my words?"
(Joh 5:46-47 ESV)

“Words” here is rhemasin, from rhema, not logos. Rhema can mean word, saying, sentence, phrase, speech. Logos is sometimes used in this “mundane” way. However, logos can also mean such things as principle, reason, reflection, deliberation, meaning, value, cause, proportion. When the opening of the Gospel of John is translated into Chinese, the word “Tao” is used to translate logos: “In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God.” The logos here points to the third person of the Trinity, and the “logos became flesh and dwelt among us” is synonymous with (the) Christ (ho Christos).

It appears that, while logos is sometimes used in the same sense as rhema, rhema is never used in the same (larger) sense as logos.

Originally posted by vistesd
“Words” here is rhemasin, from rhema, not logos. Rhema can mean word, saying, sentence, phrase, speech. Logos is sometimes used in this “mundane” way. However, logos can also mean such things as principle, reason, reflection, deliberation, meaning, value, cause, proportion. When the opening of the Gospel of John is translated into Ch ...[text shortened]... imes used in the same sense as rhema, rhema is never used in the same (larger) sense as logos.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"Logos" is used as "Word". He that does not believe the word does not believe in God.

Originally posted by dj2becker
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"Logos" is used as "Word". He that does not believe the word does not believe in God.

Logos is translated as word here, and I think it is meant in the “larger” sense that I indicated above. I don’t think that you mean that logos here can be taken to mean the Bible, or the words of the Bible. One could say that the written text of the Bible points to, or reveals (in many ways) the logos and the logos as Christos (the logos “become flesh” ); to say that the Bible is inspired does not elevate it to the stature of being one of the persons of the triune God.

Originally posted by vistesd
“Words” here is rhemasin, from rhema, not logos. Rhema can mean word, saying, sentence, phrase, speech. Logos is sometimes used in this “mundane” way. However, logos can also mean such things as principle, reason, reflection, deliberation, meaning, value, cause, proportion. When the opening of the Gospel of John is translated into Ch ...[text shortened]... imes used in the same sense as rhema, rhema is never used in the same (larger) sense as logos.

I agree, logos usually has a deeper meaning - it can mean thoughts or mind or logic, or ideas, or teachings. It is translated most often as "Word" or "words." Rhema has a more limited and specific meaning, speech or words.

In this case the "logos" was doing the talking. The implication of his words is that to believe in someone means to believe what he says (or what was said about him). Believing the words is equivalent to believing the person. And the Bible is the Word. And in a very real sense, believing Christ means believing the Bible.

Originally posted by vistesd
Logos is translated as word here, and I think it is meant in the “larger” sense that I indicated above. I don’t think that you mean that logos here can be taken to mean the Bible, or the words of the Bible. One could say that the written text of the Bible points to, or reveals (in many ways) the logos and the logos as Christos (the log ...[text shortened]... e is inspired does not elevate it to the stature of being one of the persons of the triune God.

That's correct. As you said, the Bible reveals the Logos. It is the truth of God revealed and by it we can believe in Christ and have faith.

One can not fully believe in Christ without believing the Bible which communicates the knowledge about Christ that one needs to believe.

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree, logos usually has a deeper meaning - it can mean thoughts or mind or logic, or ideas, or teachings. It is translated most often as "Word" or "words." Rhema has a more limited and specific meaning, speech or words.

In this ...[text shortened]... in a very real sense, believing Christ means believing the Bible.

In this case the "logos" was doing the talking.

Nicely stated. 🙂 I am going to let that “percolate” for awhile.

And the Bible is the Word. And in a very real sense, believing Christ means believing the Bible.

Here is where I become hesitant. And I’ll be frank: my real fear is pushing it to the limit of idolatry—a turning of the “engraved words” into “graven images,” so to speak. The famous Protestant theologian Karl Barth (hardly a “liberal&rdquo😉 once said something to the effect that, although the words of the scriptures are not the Word of God, if he read them carefully, the Word of God (through the grace of the Holy Spirit) might be revealed through them. (That’s really rough, from very fallible memory.) That’s about as far as I’m willing to go.

Admittedly, if one does not choose to place some confidence what the Biblical texts have to say about Christ (however one understands them: historical fact, “true myth,” whatever), one has little to go on (outside a “mystical” revelation of the living Christ). Nevertheless, it seems impossible to me to read the texts without interpretation (hermeneutics)—e.g., you Calvinists got “double predestination” (if I understand correctly), while we Lutherans never did (I’m not even sure that Luther kept Augustine’s idea of predestination).

Addenda:

1) I never credit anyone (myself included) with the ability to read and understand infallibly (with or without the aid of the Spirit);

2) The words of the texts are multi-layered in terms of meanings, and amenable to more than one understanding, and I do not think this is a question of error;

3) What one finds revealed in the texts is often very personal, and not necessarily universal.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can you call yourself a Christian if you do not even believe that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?

I believe my Bible from cover to cover. I even belive my cover: It has my name written on it.

There is no way that you can call yourself Christian, if you donot believe the entire, THE WORD OF GOD from GENESIS to REVELATIONS.

Originally posted by Coletti
Still - liberals confuse literal and literally. Most Evangelicals and Reformed Christians believe the Bible literally God's Word. Which means we believe the Bible (in it's original autographs) is God's infallible truth revealed to man.

But while liberals deny the Bible is literally true - they tend to confuse this with saying Evangelicals and Refor ...[text shortened]... which are literal - but none that I know of claim that all the Bible is the be read as literal.

Very interresting, what part of the Words that CHRIST spoke, do they not believe? JOHN 1:1-5

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well. I believe the Bible was written by man inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

A few errors, inaccuracies and a couple contradictions here and there would be the result of fallible man.

But nowhere does it change the overall meaning and message of the Bible.

But how do you know which part is true and which isn't?
Have you ever heard the riddle of the lying blackfoot and the truthful whitefoot?
The riddle is about two tribes of Indians. The Whitefeet always tell the truth and the Blackfeet always lie. So one day you meet an Indian.
You say: Hey, Indian, what are you: a truthful Whitefoot or a lying Blackfoot?
He says, I'm a truthful Whitefoot.
Which is he?

Originally posted by blindfaith101
There is no way that you can call yourself Christian, if you donot believe the entire, THE WORD OF GOD from GENESIS to REVELATIONS.

Where in the Bible does it say that? Who made that rule up?

Don't you ever get tired of saying, "Na, na... I'm Christian, you are not. 😛"?

ES

Originally posted by blindfaith101
There is no way that you can call yourself Christian, if you donot believe the entire, THE WORD OF GOD from GENESIS to REVELATIONS.

Put the CRACK-PIPE down, blindfaith.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yea, sorry for that. I should rather have asked: How can you be a Christian but only believe part of the Bible?

The Christian parts, other wise you're a Bibleian

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Very interresting, what part of the Words that CHRIST spoke, do they not believe? JOHN 1:1-5

ummm how about the words He didn't speak like JOHN 1:1-5 ??