Is there any other group or are there any other individuals besides the elect who believe in Jesus that are proven to ultimately be saved?

[GWH]

I appreciate your thoughts, and your conclusion fits well with your understanding and inclinations. But when I write poetry, my purpose isn't to have a happy ending. I'm writing either to share some insight or challenge people to action. The purpose of the poem isn't to see where one might be exercising love, but where they neglect to do so and are ignorant of their shortcoming. What often appears loving superficially may not hold up under scrutiny. Many are convinced they are very loving in their own mind when their actions fall short of actually loving another. If you read the poem and are not moved to consider that you can be more loving, I have failed in my goal.

I got that, and the suggestions regarding the last stanza are meant as following:

Re "Love is not Love just because you show care.": Realize that love is caring, but the "caree" must be receptive to be effective.
Re "Love becomes love when you're succinctly aware": Why is "succinctly" preferred to "acutely"?
Re "That you cannot love according to generic creeds.": Why is "not simply rote memory of" preferred to "according to generic creeds"?
Re "Love becomes love when it actually meets others needs.": Why is omitting "actually" to improve the meter not preferred?

 

[GWH]

When you reply to Mag ask her to provide quotes with post #s to substantiate her claims,
because I remember apologizing a couple of times for misunderstanding her, but she was
not receptive to that expression of caring and thus it was ineffective.

 

[Cameron143]

I got that, and the suggestions regarding the last stanza are meant as following:

Re "Love is not Love just because you show care.": Realize that love is caring, but the "caree" must be receptive to be effective.
Re "Love becomes love when you're succinctly aware": Why is "succinctly" preferred to "acutely"?
Re "That you cannot love according to generic creeds.": Why is "not simply rote memory of" preferred to "according to generic creeds"?
Re "Love becomes love when it actually meets others needs.": Why is omitting "actually" to improve the meter not preferred?

I appreciate the suggestions for the improvement of the poem, but, again, my interest wasn't the technical. While you have clearly demonstrated that you are well acquainted with the topic of poetry, you are seemingly unaware of my intention in sharing the poem: we often consider ourselves to be quite loving when, in reality, we are anything but.

 

[Magenta]

When you reply to Mag ask her to provide quotes with post #s to substantiate her claims,
because I remember apologizing a couple of times for misunderstanding her, but she was
not receptive to that expression of caring and thus it was ineffective.

I have you on ignore because of how dishonest you are. For instance telling me I should
be seeking peace with you while you continued to falsely accuse me. Are you now
pretending you did not do that? Like I said, you are dishonest.

 

[Cameron143]

Do you believe I blaspheme God and attribute hatred of humanity to Him?

GWH has falsely accused me of that more than once. That makes him a liar.

Then he claimed I should be seeking peace with him while he continued to slander me.

While he goes around telling other people they should be more loving and accepting.

Apparently he sees nothing wrong with the way he relates to others.

I didn't answer immediately because I didn't want to answer hastily. And no, I don't believe you blaspheme God or attribute a hatred of mankind to God.

One of the reasons I like to ask questions is to try to understand why people believe as they do. While I often disagree with people's reasoning, I still am able to understand their thought processes and how they reach their conclusions.

There are those on the site that believe the attribute of love is the primary dictate by which God operates, and they cobble together verses that seem to say as much. In my understanding, they aren't balanced in their approach and give little place to the sovereignty and justice of God, and so their understanding of scripture reflects this. In an effort to reconcile other scripture to their current understanding, they weight their arguments in that direction. When you couple this with their understanding of free will, the logical conclusion is that because God loves, and is just...by which they generally mean fair, and allows mankind the freedom to choose, the ultimate decision of salvation rests with man.

For someone holding such a view, it would be a betrayal of God not to give every single individual an opportunity to be saved. The thought that God moves independently of man to reconcile the world to Himself, though easily shown from scripture, doesn't fit at all with their understanding. So, naturally, they think God moving sovereignly in the lives of individuals is tantamount to God forcing Himself on them. They don't understand the deep and intimate relationship forged by Christ for us in Him before time began. Neither do they understand the intimacy that has been made available to us as He ever lives to make intercession for us. Neither do they understand the depth of our depravity and the lengths that Christ has gone to to have us as a possession for Himself, being made a little lower than the angels...Hebrews 2:9...only later to be made higher than the heavens...Hebrews 7:26...that He might present us to the Father as holy and unblameable and unreprovable...Colossians 1:22. None of which we could ever consider necessary or possible apart from His mighty working in us.

All that to say, given what Christ has done on our behalf, continues to do on our behalf, and will forever do on our behalf, a more reasonable response to discussions that become personal is to look beyond the individual, and to Christ. Better to become all things to all people that by any means you may win some.

 

[GWH]

I appreciate the suggestions for the improvement of the poem, but, again, my interest wasn't the technical. While you have clearly demonstrated that you are well acquainted with the topic of poetry, you are seemingly unaware of my intention in sharing the poem: we often consider ourselves to be quite loving when, in reality, we are anything but.

Again, I got that, and I thought my suggestions for technical improvements preserved that meaning.
Was the poem based on a real life situation?

 

[GWH]

I didn't answer immediately because I didn't want to answer hastily. And no, I don't believe you blaspheme God or attribute a hatred of mankind to God.

One of the reasons I like to ask questions is to try to understand why people believe as they do. While I often disagree with people's reasoning, I still am able to understand their thought processes and how they reach their conclusions.

There are those on the site that believe the attribute of love is the primary dictate by which God operates, and they cobble together verses that seem to say as much. In my understanding, they aren't balanced in their approach and give little place to the sovereignty and justice of God, and so their understanding of scripture reflects this. In an effort to reconcile other scripture to their current understanding, they weight their arguments in that direction. When you couple this with their understanding of free will, the logical conclusion is that because God loves, and is just...by which they generally mean fair, and allows mankind the freedom to choose, the ultimate decision of salvation rests with man.

For someone holding such a view, it would be a betrayal of God not to give every single individual an opportunity to be saved. The thought that God moves independently of man to reconcile the world to Himself, though easily shown from scripture, doesn't fit at all with their understanding. So, naturally, they think God moving sovereignly in the lives of individuals is tantamount to God forcing Himself on them. They don't understand the deep and intimate relationship forged by Christ for us in Him before time began. Neither do they understand the intimacy that has been made available to us as He ever lives to make intercession for us. Neither do they understand the depth of our depravity and the lengths that Christ has gone to to have us as a possession for Himself, being made a little lower than the angels...Hebrews 2:9...only later to be made higher than the heavens...Hebrews 7:26...that He might present us to the Father as holy and unblameable and unreprovable...Colossians 1:22. None of which we could ever consider necessary or possible apart from His mighty working in us.

All that to say, given what Christ has done on our behalf, continues to do on our behalf, and will forever do on our behalf, a more reasonable response to discussions that become personal is to look beyond the individual, and to Christ. Better to become all things to all people that by any means you may win some.

I like your concluding advice to Mag, but I am the only one on CC that I have seen share a balanced harmonization of God's love, sovereignty and justice as follows (from our website):

7. The Bible also teaches that God is justness or righteousness (RM 3:25-26, 9:14, 2THS 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (JSH 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so. Another synonym for justness is goodness (IS 5:16).

Atheists have a negative or evil conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (RM 2:24, 2PT 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!

What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. A Scripture-based hermeneutic is explained in Lesson 2 entitled “The Christian Creed”, but it begins by believing that a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, ACTS 17:26-28); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).

Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (PS 145:17) The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16).

Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love. Hebrews 12:4-11 offers the clue for harmonizing these two themes. This passage indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline: to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19) before they die, after which divine wrath will be experienced justly without the opportunity for repentance.

If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what occurred rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of how people should behave. Of course, because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or volition (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (JM 1:13-17, TIT 3:11, IS 45:19).

This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.

 

[GWH]

I have you on ignore because of how dishonest you are. For instance telling me I should
be seeking peace with you while you continued to falsely accuse me. Are you now
pretending you did not do that? Like I said, you are dishonest.

No, I am truthfully saying that I apologized--and continue to apologize--for misunderstanding you, but you refuse to forgive me.
It is Jesus and Paul who tell you to seek peace and spiritual unity.
Furthermore, if you have quotes of me saying otherwise, please give me the post # so I can check it out and apologize for that too.
Hopefully you won't need to forgive me 70x7 times!

 

[Cameron143]

Again, I got that, and I thought my suggestions for technical improvements preserved that meaning.
Was the poem based on a real life situation?

The poem is based on revelation both personal and shared. I write about things God puts on my heart. And while I admire you tenacity and willingness to help, I would rather the message, and not the form, to make the lasting impression.

 

[Cameron143]

I like your concluding advice to Mag, but I am the only one on CC that I have seen share a balanced harmonization of God's love, sovereignty and justice as follows (from our website):

7. The Bible also teaches that God is justness or righteousness (RM 3:25-26, 9:14, 2THS 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (JSH 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so. Another synonym for justness is goodness (IS 5:16).

Atheists have a negative or evil conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (RM 2:24, 2PT 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!

What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. A Scripture-based hermeneutic is explained in Lesson 2 entitled “The Christian Creed”, but it begins by believing that a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, ACTS 17:26-28); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).

Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (PS 145:17) The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16).

Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love. Hebrews 12:4-11 offers the clue for harmonizing these two themes. This passage indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline: to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19) before they die, after which divine wrath will be experienced justly without the opportunity for repentance.

If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what occurred rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of how people should behave. Of course, because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or volition (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (JM 1:13-17, TIT 3:11, IS 45:19).

This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.

What you are sharing is only balanced in your mind. While you are quite at ease with it, others are not. You accept a free will that doesn't biblically exist because you conflate the ability to choose with free will.
Further, the idea that the wrath of God being poured out onto an individual is an act of love is preposterous. It is an act of vengeance upon unrepentant sinners. While it is perfectly just, it is not loving. You seem to believe God must always act lovingly towards someone when scripture makes no such claim. The only attribute of God that scripture makes plain must always be present and demonstrable is God's righteousness. Because of this, you are ready to dismiss scripture because it doesn't fit with your idea of who God is. Do you truly not believe God has ordered the killing of men, women, and children as per the book of Joshua? The idea that someone would suggest scripture isn't accurate seems more palatable to you than changing your understanding to fit with scripture?

 

[Inquisitor]

I care that you understand scripture correctly.

I seriously doubt that anyone understands the scripture correctly.

Otherwise, there would not be endless disputes in Christian Forums.

 

[Inquisitor]

I appreciate the suggestions for the improvement of the poem, but, again, my interest wasn't the technical. While you have clearly demonstrated that you are well acquainted with the topic of poetry, you are seemingly unaware of my intention in sharing the poem: we often consider ourselves to be quite loving when, in reality, we are anything but.

Amen to that insight Cameron.

 

[GWH]

What you are sharing is only balanced in your mind. While you are quite at ease with it, others are not. You accept a free will that doesn't biblically exist because you conflate the ability to choose with free will.
Further, the idea that the wrath of God being poured out onto an individual is an act of love is preposterous. It is an act of vengeance upon unrepentant sinners. While it is perfectly just, it is not loving. You seem to believe God must always act lovingly towards someone when scripture makes no such claim. The only attribute of God that scripture makes plain must always be present and demonstrable is God's righteousness. Because of this, you are ready to dismiss scripture because it doesn't fit with your idea of who God is. Do you truly not believe God has ordered the killing of men, women, and children as per the book of Joshua? The idea that someone would suggest scripture isn't accurate seems more palatable to you than changing your understanding to fit with scripture?

Yes, I equate the ability to choose with free will while you view them as antonyms I guess.

I also guess your human father did not discipline you with love as mine did, which makes it easy for me to understand God's wrath is intended to teach sinners to knock it off.

God's righteousness is achieved by hell's punishment being reaping what was sown or eye for eye, after which the souls are destroyed.

Yes, I doubt God ordered the genocide by Joshua, because the Gibeonites served as examples of being allowed to survive. Too bad the other folks did not employ that ruse.

I believe Scripture is accurate, but doctrinal passages that teach love are truer to God's nature than historical passages portraying hatred.

I understand that you believe the opposite, so I make you the same bet I made with Rufus.

 

[Cameron143]

I seriously doubt that anyone understands the scripture correctly.

Otherwise, there would not be endless disputes in Christian Forums.

That doesn't change my sentiment.

 

[Cameron143]

Yes, I equate the ability to choose with free will while you view them as antonyms I guess.

I also guess your human father did not discipline you with love as mine did, which makes it easy for me to understand God's wrath is intended to teach sinners to knock it off.

God's righteousness is achieved by hell's punishment being reaping what was sown or eye for eye, after which the souls are destroyed.

Yes, I doubt God ordered the genocide by Joshua, because the Gibeonites served as examples of being allowed to survive. Too bad the other folks did not employ that ruse.

I believe Scripture is accurate, but doctrinal passages that teach love are truer to God's nature than historical passages portraying hatred.

I understand that you believe the opposite, so I make you the same bet I made with Rufus.

The will is subject to the controlling nature of the individual. Those born of the flesh are flesh. One must be born of the spirit to do spiritual things. So until someone is born from above, they are ruled by their fleshy nature. Being able to make choices doesn't change the controlling nature.

My father did love me though I did experience His wrath at times. Thankfully, his wrath didn't destroy me. I have also known his discipline. My father's wrath was not a commendation of his love to me. His discipline was. I also have known my heavenly Father's discipline. I have never known His wrath as Jesus experienced that on my behalf. You seem to be conflating wrath with discipline.

God's righteousness is achieved through perfect obedience. Those in hell are experiencing the wrath of God because the righteousness of Christ has not been imputed to them and they have no righteousness of their own.

If, indeed, the scripture is accurate, then when it says that God ordered the death of entire races of people, then He must have done so. Otherwise, each individual is the arbiter of scripture. This is contrary to the teaching of scripture that says the word of God is God- breathed, and not subject to private interpretation.

 

[GWH]

The will is subject to the controlling nature of the individual. Those born of the flesh are flesh. One must be born of the spirit to do spiritual things. So until someone is born from above, they are ruled by their fleshy nature. Being able to make choices doesn't change the controlling nature.

My father did love me though I did experience His wrath at times. Thankfully, his wrath didn't destroy me. I have also known his discipline. My father's wrath was not a commendation of his love to me. His discipline was. I also have known my heavenly Father's discipline. I have never known His wrath as Jesus experienced that on my behalf. You seem to be conflating wrath with discipline.

God's righteousness is achieved through perfect obedience. Those in hell are experiencing the wrath of God because the righteousness of Christ has not been imputed to them and they have no righteousness of their own.

If, indeed, the scripture is accurate, then when it says that God ordered the death of entire races of people, then He must have done so. Otherwise, each individual is the arbiter of scripture. This is contrary to the teaching of scripture that says the word of God is God- breathed, and not subject to private interpretation.

Re your paragraphs:

#1. Until someone receives divine seeking grace they are unloved, but I believe the pearls teach that all sinners receive seeking grace.

#2&3. Yes, divine wrath should be viewed as discipline and punishment in hell as self-inflicted karma.

#4. But God did not order the death of the Gibeonites, which may indicate Joshua misunderstood God's will regarding all of the Canaanites, which was for them to repent of idolatry and convert to Judaism. Inspired Scripture is accurate, but our understanding of GW is fallible/not inerrant.

 

[Cameron143]

Re your paragraphs:

#1. Until someone receives divine seeking grace they are unloved, but I believe the pearls teach that all sinners receive seeking grace.

#2&3. Yes, divine wrath should be viewed as discipline and punishment in hell as self-inflicted karma.

#4. But God did not order the death of the Gibeonites, which may indicate Joshua misunderstood God's will regarding all of the Canaanites, which was for them to repent of idolatry and convert to Judaism. Inspired Scripture is accurate, but our understanding of GW is fallible/not inerrant.

If you dismiss parts of God's word, how can you trust any of it?

 

[GWH]

If you dismiss parts of God's word, how can you trust any of it?

Harmonizing is not dismissing, but perhaps this will be helpful:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, but the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted (but none is infallible). The key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as God’s revelation to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant! This may be called the salvation theory.

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought:

1. Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.”
2. Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the word "fornicate". Would that invalidate God’s commandment?
No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.
3. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word.
4. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable or confident belief that the word fumigate should be discounted or dismissed but fornicate included.
5. Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. This is called harmonizing.
6. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

The same hermeneutical method also should be applied to secondary doctrines, such as the one we are discussing now:
Was it God's will for all Canaanites to be killed or to be converted/saved? Which view is most consistent with NT teaching?

 

[Cameron143]

Harmonizing is not dismissing, but perhaps this will be helpful:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, but the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted (but none is infallible). The key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as God’s revelation to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant! This may be called the salvation theory.

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought:

1. Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.”
2. Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the word "fornicate". Would that invalidate God’s commandment?
No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.
3. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word.
4. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable or confident belief that the word fumigate should be discounted or dismissed but fornicate included.
5. Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. This is called harmonizing.
6. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

The same hermeneutical method also should be applied to secondary doctrines, such as the one we are discussing now:
Was it God's will for all Canaanites to be killed or to be converted/saved? Which view is most consistent with NT teaching?

Did God command Saul to destroy the Amalekites?

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Harmonizing is not dismissing, but perhaps this will be helpful:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, but the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted (but none is infallible). The key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as God’s revelation to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant! This may be called the salvation theory.

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought:

1. Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.”
2. Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the word "fornicate". Would that invalidate God’s commandment?
No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.
3. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word.
4. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable or confident belief that the word fumigate should be discounted or dismissed but fornicate included.
5. Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. This is called harmonizing.
6. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

The same hermeneutical method also should be applied to secondary doctrines, such as the one we are discussing now:
Was it God's will for all Canaanites to be killed or to be converted/saved? Which view is most consistent with NT teaching?

I accept the notion that the Bible is inspired and that the originals are without error. Even though we do not have any of the originals, what we do have is so much in agreement that almost nothing of consequence is in question.

To me, the big uncertainty is what we make of it. And to get it right we need to be attentive to the One who inspired the words in the first place. With Him in our hearts as our teacher and guide, we have the ability (trough trusting what He communicates to us) to make of the Scriptures what He wants us to know. Without His input, and without trusting His input, we have no chance of getting it right.

But another thing needs to be said. Getting the Bible right is not the end-in-mind. The Bible points us to God. If we get the Bible right, we go to God. We find forgiveness of sins, new Life in Christ, and a never ending intimate personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. He is our teacher, our guide into all truth, our defense from evil, our giver of wisdom, our sustainer, our correction, and our comforter. The Bible sends us to Him in all things, so if we get it right, we go to Him in all things.