Body
“…we don’t necessarily need an explicit doctrine of preservation to believe and expect it; there are other theological arguments that support it.” - P&D
- About
- Forum
- Account
Do We Still Have God’s Words? The Preservation of Scripture (Part 1)
Body
“Jeremiah 36…. What’s to be done in response to the wanton and rebellious destruction of the sole existing manuscript of this divine revelation? God simply called for a rewrite.” - Layton Talbert
We Stand or Fall on These Truths
The battle cry of the Protestant Reformation is often summarized in five sola statements: sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria.1 Although you often can find these five sola statements written in a different order, the order is significant, and the first and last are always given pride of place. This is not by accident. Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, was the basis of all the other doctrines that follow. Soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone) is the result of all that precedes.
The Canon Is Closed: The Cessation of Special Revelation
This article (part 2 in the series) posted at Sharper Iron in 2019. It is reposted here with original comments included. Read Part 1.
Explaining Anomalies: Alleged Contradictions in the Bible
Body
“The vast majority of supposed “contradictions” in Scripture are relatively easy to reconcile. However, for the sake of honesty, I must acknowledge that there are a handful of problems in Scripture that are exceedingly difficult.” - R.C. Sproul
4 Reasons You Can Preach the Same Text 2 (or 3 or 4) Times
Body
“You could, hypothetically, have four different pastors preach the same text four Sundays in a row and have a variety of applications and illustrations while still remaining faithful to its original meaning.” - 9 Marks
Hard Evidence for a Supernatural Book, Part 8: On a Scientific Examination of the Data
Read the series.
Since we’ve raised the issue of Messianic prophecies, there are plenty of others worth adding to the pile:
Hard Evidence for a Supernatural Book, Part 7: Trifecta!
Read the series.
So we’ve seen that Daniel’s specific prophecy of the rise and fall of Alexander the Great was at best very unlikely to have been written after Alexander’s death in 323 BC; and if Daniel describes Antiochus IV in chapter 11, then the skeptic’s position is even less likely. Daniel is accurately predicting future events, not faking it.
What say we go ahead and dispense with the skeptic’s position? How about if we demonstrate that it’s just impossible?
OK, at your insistence.
