Will the true Christians please stand up?

[MrsRoseTreasure]

This is likely to be my last post on this forum. It was prompted by another thread asking " what is the hardest question about Christianity" but I did not want to hijack that thread, and this topic deserves its own.

The hardest question for me, is also the reason I came to this forum - and I have asked it a dozen different times, in a dozen different ways.


If There was any merit to Protestant or reformation theology, why can Protestants not agree on a single piece of material doctrine? Why are there many different theologies of salvation, Eucharist, baptism, clergy or not, liturgy or not, predestination, and a myriad of other issues like prolife or pro choice, contraception or not... The list is endless and there are as many combinations of those, seemingly as those expounding the views, resulting in denominations numbering at least 5 digits, tens of thousands. You seemingly cannot even agree what action it is that defines when you are saved.

Since most of these doctrines are mutually exclusive statistically very few if any are preaching the truth , the rest all false teachers.

Can you all really choose what you believe, and still have any credibility left as holding true doctrine?How can a house so divided stand? Indeed is it actually standing?

The only thing you seem all to agree on is anti RCC, and I suspect that is more to give a joint identity, because of differences on everything else, but like any identity built on a negative it is phony agreement, and cannot last

That is what I felt as a Protestant, also what I felt later as an evangelical, and the bickering is done with such very bad grace
I came here hoping to find credible alternatives to the verses that define Catholicism. I leave none the wiser, not even feeling the warmth of evangelical Christianity and that is sad.

My thought is you should get together and decide what you stand for, because at present I see no agreement on anything except the the things RCC stands for as well, as seen in the nicene creed.

So are all of you false teachers, or just most of you? Will the real Christians please stand up?

I don't pay any attention to man's doctrine. Why is man's doctrine so important to you? I haven't gone to church in years, and this is one of the reasons why. I am not a pharisee or a catholic or a protestant. I'm just a believer. I read the bible. I pray. I let the spirit instruct me. I don't need an official doctrine or someone else to tell me what the Bible means. The truth is all around you. The earnest seeker will find the truth.

 

[Nick01]

Thanks for the reply.

I really don't want this to become a discussion of catholicism, since it gets no further on the subject of the thread which is the massive variation in expressed doctrine of denominations and added to that a lot of non denominationals who cannot agree even with any of those!

As regards what you can only call "non expressed" doctrine - that is opinions of dissenters. You may not accept the answer, but those who do not believe in "expressed doctrine" of real presence are no longer catholics. Period. End of story. As a catholic you accept the teachings of the magisterium as a whole. The door is not locked for those who do not agree!
RCC expresses the doctrine in the catechism, so I find it disturbing that others attack it on things it it clearly does not believe. It cannot make it clearer for example, that we are "saved by grace" through faith, but most who attack it do not seem to have read it!

I think perhaps you picked an unfortunate example with Presbyterian , some times called the "split P" because of all the divisions, and fractures, indeed the essential authority on doctrine as I understand it is through a "teaching elder" which gives scope for variation. In any event take an example -abortion is either premeditated murder or it is not. And yet as far as I am aware that is left as a matter of private conscience - it should be a matter of faith.

I accept that size does not determine truth, but in a way that makes the problem worse! - If very few have the right teaching it increases the percentage that do not, and makes it harder to know who to listen to!

My points are simple
-That so many divided doctrines, some of them crucial, no fence sitting possible, is a very bad thing!

-The very existence of those competing doctrines, proves that evangelical mantra of simply reading bible and asking the Spirit to guide you is not enough to find the truth, because the founders of all of those doctrines say the same.

Reality is I could not get credible alternative interpretations to some of the verses that define catholicism (and I do not want to reawaken some of those arguments, so will not represent them here) - but by way of example take john 21:23 - what is the power and who is given the power to retain sins? and how do others use that verse in contemporary setting? For us the basis of sacramental confession? The replies to that question were in the main abusive and anti RCC.

It seems to me If catholicism is so wrong, there should be far better answers, and people should know what they are. Worse, a lot of the interpretations proposed seem simply intended to disagree with catholicism rather than point at a viable alternative. Take the distinction of Petros and Petra is wholly artificial in Greek translation. In the conversation which took place in aramaic, Peter was the Rock. No doubt about it. "bar jonah" proves the original language! Luther and Calvin accepted that. They argued succession and scope, not that Peter was the Rock.

So I had hoped you guys had some good alternatives to Catholic interpretations I had not heard before, that would set me thinking. Alas not. I actually think a lot of the unthinking anti RCC posting is more to unite around something todisguise the lack of unity in home denominations!

But sadly I am leaving little the wiser, having learned very little, other than on every subject there are massive divisions, and I do not like the tone of much of that discussion!

I really must go.

Well, it seems you're not interested that much in discussing the issues in depth. If you are, feel free to PM. But I'll leave this thread with these points.

1. Your description of the evangelical mantra as "simply read the Bible and let the Spirit guide you" is painfully reductionist. You can't read the reformers and come away with that idea. The point of the Reformation, in terms of the use of the Scriptures, was that Scripture should be the final port of call, and was (and is) the only infallible rule of doctrine the church has in its possession. That does not mean that one simply reads the Bible and spouts whatever they like. You will not get that idea from the Reformers, least of all Luther or Calvin, who made extensive use of prior commentaries in their own work. This seems to be a common idea Catholics have of Protestants (and some Protestants have done a fantastic job of actually acting this way, fanning the flames), but it does not come from the Reformation, and most Protestants are sensible enough not to take such a hideously individualist and isolationist approach to Scripture.

2. The number of divided doctrines is, sure, a bad thing. Jesus told us this kind of thing would happen. But why do you think that makes your position correct, or the RCC position correct? Sure, it might make us feel bad that size does not determine truth, but if we're really interested in truth rather than comfort in numbers, then that's the reality we live in. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant.

But I think you exaggerate the problem - the way forward is obviously not to decide who to listen as the basis for what you believe, but to listen to everyone, read the Scriptures and think on the issue, decide what the important issues are and which are the issues of taste or are secondary, and attempt to discern the arguments on their own merits, not on who says them, in preparedness that we could actually need to change our stances on issues.

3. You seem to be confusing the worst arguments you have encountered as somehow indicitave of Protestant thought. Your argument re Peter is quite correct - the most likely reading is Jesus is referring to Peter, and in fact the use of both petra and petros in the same verse is indicative of hat. However, as you also point out, both Calvin and Luther acknowledge that, not to mention almost all of current evangelical scholarship. The point is, obviously, whether or not Jesus was establishing a permanent see through Peter, which is an entirely different point, and has almost nothing to do with the words of the text themselves.

Don't make the mistake of taking the worst arguments you have read on CC (and there are many people on here I would dress down if I knew them in RL as somehow the fruit of Protestantism. I've met trashy Catholics who couldn't argue there way out of a plastic bag, and who were downright nasty to boot, but that says little about the most thoughtful of Catholic thought. Neither is it logical nor sensible to take the worst of Protestant thought and use that against Protestant interpretations of Scripture - at that point, you're arguing against individuals, not viable interpretations.

Again, PM if you want to continue this in some form. Blessings.

 

[Utah]

Did the catholics make you into a potty mouth?

My motto in life is simple:

Better to be a Truth telling potty mouth than part of a graceless institution of fear mongering heresy.

 

[jamie26301]

So are all of you false teachers, or just most of you? Will the real Christians please stand up?

Well, that's the issue - the "real" ones, the "faithful" ones... and it is often judged by doctrine. Those of us who say "You're missing the point by arguing over whether abortion is right or wrong, gay marriage, premarital sex, and all this. By predestination, free will, bondage of the will, and all this. The point is to honor God the best your conscious knows how, and to be open to what other people have to say because God communicates that way too - I mean, He spoke through a donkey for Pete's sake!"... well, we're compromising for advocating less argument and more love.

Because as soon as you say this, then the interpretation of Scripture and authority comes into play, and with that, lots of proof texting. Sola Scriptura, and arguing over what that term alone means. You simply can't win, in fighting one verse against another, because when it comes down to it, it's relative. Some ideas are closer to the original intent than others, but there's really no way to know for certain what the writers meant to convey clearly and fully (because we didn't live in that time and culture and spoke that language and it's ancient nonetheless)... but, so few are willing to accept that. Modern languages are complicated in many cases, in translation.

You point to someone - Christian or not - for a bit of clarification on what you mean, and "I listen to no man but God!" (that is, no man that confronts anything I already believe) instead of addressing the quote, and then it's like "Well, in your choice of Scripture you're listening to SOME men from long ago as they chose the cannon." You can't win, because when it comes to authority and what books to use, it is a FAITH-BASED belief. Now, let me clarify that my point is that because neither side wins (threads that go on and on and on), then maybe it's a pointless thing to attack each other on. I saw a thread that posted a Scripture about loving your brother, Jesus' words, and it was just a little thing to boost everyone - only a handful of replies. What we agree on is not interesting...

It's fun to discuss from time to time - I used to be quite the theology junkie. But when you point out the Reformation... from my understanding, one point was to break away from having a middle man to God... but many Protestants practice the same way. A preacher presides over a congregation, and if a member doesn't agree, they are shamed or shunned. If a believer is "compromising" in what they believe, are they left to go to God themselves in the matter? To inquire God of the matter? No, they need to be rebuked so that they can walk with God in purity, because it "so plainly says" aka "let me speak for God as a priest would, let me interpret this for you."

The more "liberal" churches I've been in, were also the more free in Bible study discussion, because they didn't think everybody had to think the exact same way. NOT ALL churches reflect this, but there's more of a "Pope" complex in this body of Christians than they would like to admit... and THAT is what burns me about the Catholic shaming.

Again, as I say, the term "real" Christian is highly subjective. And honestly, I don't even believe Jesus clearly defined a Christian AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE OUTSIDE, because only God can look on the heart. Prooftexting is the biggest culprit of doctrine division, mind you. And the "you need seminary" vs "the Spirit can tell you all and you don't need any education" mindsets that are often set against one another.

It's quite an animal, and so far as the US, the "melting pot" aspect of our society prompts different viewpoints also.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

a True Christian is one who is Christ-like.

This use to be well known, but not so much today. You see people realized that being Christ-like was to not be living in sins, ONCE they realized that, the Christian meaning Christ-like was soon put to death. NOW Christian does not mean Christ-like. Even though a True Christian IS INDEED CHRIST-LIKE.

It never meant "Christlike." It did, and still does, mean "follower of Christ." The Greek word Paul used in Acts 26:28 is cristianoß (Christianos, Strong's #G5546), and is a word believers didn't even choose for themselves. It was appellation given them by others in Europe, and was much more an epithet than a complimentary descriptive noun.

Why is that important? Because your effort that depends on a wrong definition to preach a works-based salvation is, as always, a failure. Followers of Christ are still in the flesh, still prone to live in that flesh rather than in the Spirit, and when we do, we sin. We then confess that sin, not to have it forgive, because it was forgiven at the Cross. But we confess it to clear any obstacles out of the way that would hinder our relationship to, and our walk with Christ. We cannot lose our salvation. But we can screw up our relationship with Him. If we carry sin, we carry guilt, guilt inhibits openness, and openness is necessary to maintain a relationship, even one with Him who knows everything.

 

[endtimes]

If There was any merit to Protestant or reformation theology, why can Protestants not agree on a single piece of material doctrine? Why are there many different theologies of salvation, Eucharist, baptism, clergy or not, liturgy or not, predestination, and a myriad of other issues like prolife or pro choice, contraception or not... The list is endless and there are as many combinations of those, seemingly as those expounding the views, resulting in denominations numbering at least 5 digits, tens of thousands. You seemingly cannot even agree what action it is that defines when you are saved.

Since most of these doctrines are mutually exclusive statistically very few if any are preaching the truth , the rest all false teachers.

Can you all really choose what you believe, and still have any credibility left as holding true doctrine?How can a house so divided stand? Indeed is it actually standing?

The only thing you seem all to agree on is anti RCC, and I suspect that is more to give a joint identity, because of differences on everything else, but like any identity built on a negative it is phony agreement, and cannot last

That is what I felt as a Protestant, also what I felt later as an evangelical, and the bickering is done with such very bad grace
I came here hoping to find credible alternatives to the verses that define Catholicism. I leave none the wiser, not even feeling the warmth of evangelical Christianity and that is sad.

My thought is you should get together and decide what you stand for, because at present I see no agreement on anything except the the things RCC stands for as well, as seen in the nicene creed.

So are all of you false teachers, or just most of you? Will the real Christians please stand up?

The irony is the church today, as we know it with many denominations (divisions), came from the first denomination (division) from what was the original, which is apostolic (meaning to teach what the apostles taught).

We know there was never to be any divisions in the church. In fact, Paul wrote this to the Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 1:12-16 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


Paul was concerned about division among them and was addressing that issue. He was glad he did not baptize lest any should become more divided and say they are of the denomination of Paul.

It seems that divisions crept in anyway, saying I am a Lutheran (of Martin Luther, a 16th century German monk), or I am a Calvinist (of John Calvin).

There is a need to get back the the lifeboat (being that which Jesus and the Apostles taught), getting back to the Bible and not what our denomination says we are to believe.

And, since Apostolic is the original, any division can only be a denomination that came away from the original, any and all of those divisions should NOT make the "claim" of being an extension of the Book of Acts "Church of the living God" if they are not going to preach what the "foot print followers" and "original" (First Century) New Testament Church Leaders embraced, preached, practiced and taught. Those who fail in that area may as well put a sign in front depicting them selves to be a house of spiritualists ("religious spirits"), which offers a huge buffet table with something for everybody, and NOT just one way to Heaven.

They need to get out of all them "other" books, commentaries and "Later Writings", and get back into the Word of God and re-kindle that first love they had before they got all complicated, cross-threaded and comfortable.


God bless!

 

[endtimes]

The irony is the church today, as we know it with many denominations (divisions), came from the first denomination (division) from what was the original, which is apostolic (meaning to teach what the apostles taught).

For clarification, this should have read: The irony is the church today, as we know it with many denominations (divisions), came from the original church, which is apostolic (meaning to teach what the apostles taught).

The first "denominational church", came a couple hundred years later, created by the first Pope. And, from that came the "protest" which is called Protestant. It is needless to mention the thousands of divisions we have today. They cant all be correct, even though they all use the same scriptures to solidify their own interpretations. They are not of one accord and they are not of the same Spirit (they are influenced by religious spirits, which is of the enemy), hence the turmoil and divisions.


God bless!

 

[Jeff_56]

we all live in a world (the whole world) that imitates nazi gestapo secret police germany.

the authorities there(in hitler's germany) during wwII exterminated everyone they wanted to as they could, even family. (and were many roman icks and Jewish also took part)....

that is exactly what the rcc roman abomination authorities have always done. always. they exterminate

everyone they can anywhere in the world, whenever they can, even if they become catholic!!! that is the

nature of the beast.

and just like in germany, there were hundreds or thousands of 'groups' not identified with the other groups,

all with their own identities and rules of memberships/ by birth or by other means --- just like there are

lots and lots of other churches not admitting other churches, all opposed to the rdd(sic)(rome hierarchy)...

most of the churches, hopefully, thankfully, do not seek harm or extermination of the others, as the rome group always has...

but that doesn't mean they get along real well either, at times..... but they can sometimes/often talk with each other but

not with the rome group.... remember the difference - the rome group is heresy. completely dark.

 

[jamie26301]

There is a need to get back the the lifeboat (being that which Jesus and the Apostles taught), getting back to the Bible and not what our denomination says we are to believe.

This is not meant to be contentious, but isn't the issue of the cannon itself a denominational differentiation? Some accept these books, reject these, these others are good for guidance but not authority, etc.

How do you judge what the word of God is, that is truly His word? Beyond feelings and personal confirmation of beliefs, how can the cannon be secured historically? Some Christians in that day didn't even like Paul, as he lived and preached, and taught against what he did. If they lived at the same time, how can we say definitively that Paul is the one who is absolutely right? Even as we have him stating these issues in these letters, they are only from his perspective. His letters being chosen is from the perspective of the ones who choose them, as well.

And, since Apostolic is the original, any division can only be a denomination that came away from the original, any and all of those divisions should NOT make the "claim" of being an extension of the Book of Acts "Church of the living God" if they are not going to preach what the "foot print followers" and "original" (First Century) New Testament Church Leaders embraced, preached, practiced and taught. Those who fail in that area may as well put a sign in front depicting them selves to be a house of spiritualists ("religious spirits"), which offers a huge buffet table with something for everybody, and NOT just one way to Heaven.

I agree, only I don't think ANY can claim to be purely Apostolic in doctrine, because even as you have the text itself, we don't have the full context at our disposal.

They need to get out of all them "other" books, commentaries and "Later Writings", and get back into the Word of God and re-kindle that first love they had before they got all complicated, cross-threaded and comfortable.

Again, what is the Word?

 

[jamie26301]

This is my biggest struggle with the authority of Scripture:

If truth is absolute and completely objective, then you should be able to prove its authority objectively, as well... right? Think about it. If the stories for example (and I speak of the more literal views) actually happened, should you be able to show evidence that they did? And if you can't, then isn't the absoluteness called into question? That's the controversy, and really at the heart of all debates concerning the authenticity of Christianity.

I think people are gearing more towards a more loose view, because they are realizing more and more that judging something as absolute - esp in spiritually - is futile, as science has proved wrong our common sense observations many times in the past (by questioning observations already made and established). Archeology has proven wrong our beliefs of ancient society, and many scholars have adjusted accordingly, both traditional and liberal.

When something is absolute, you would think it fixed, can not be changed or altered. If one thing in reality is absolute, then nothing else in reality should contradict it. Does that make sense? (I'm excluding miracles here.) If worms appear on the sidewalk after it rains, and since I don't see them get there, I think the spontaneously appear (that's my conventional observation). So I should be there on a rainy morning before it rains and afterwards see them magically appear - otherwise my reality is contradicted.

I use the sidewalk example to show that there are many things we don't see, and much time we draw absolutes based on what we do see, which is limited. And before you say "well, duh!" think about the fact that at the time, no one questioned it. It just was. We just know that. Until someone was like "how did they get there?"

We learn by asking questions, not by swallowing dogma/teaching without thought or deep thought. The whole Doubting Thomas thing pushed on Christians who question certain interpretations of Scripture, or Scripture itself, is just another example of how something can be viewed more than one way. I don't think Jesus shamed/rebuked him. I think He answered his challenge. "You demanded evidence, here it is. But those who believe without evidence are blessed." I don't dispute that, because Jesus wasn't talking about homosexuals or abortion, or even Scripture so far as I could see. He was talking of the reality of Himself. (Yes, I'm aware of the logos. I am speaking of the little specifics that divide us)

I am a Christian, but I ask God questions, I ask other people questions. And not so much "what do I do about x or y" but "what's the next layer of truth? what do I not understand, now? not just about Your word, but the world in general and how it works, so I can be a light to it." I'm backslidden, by the definition of some. But the questioning is not what's important, but the intention. A fool questions so to trick God into contradicting Himself. A believer asks questions because she/he honestly believes there's more to learn, beyond the Scriptures - because Christ has filled ALL things.

 

[phil112]

This is likely to be my last post on this forum. It was prompted by another thread asking " what is the hardest question about Christianity" but I did not want to hijack that thread, and this topic deserves its own.

The hardest question for me, is also the reason I came to this forum - and I have asked it a dozen different times, in a dozen different ways.


If There was any merit to Protestant or reformation theology, why can Protestants not agree on a single piece of material doctrine? ........................................

My friend, you underestimate satan.
He live's here...and everywhere else believers do. He walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.....there are folks here that don't realize they are about to work their way into the lower intestine. They have been devoured and now, the judgement. What does the word say? Is the bible the inspired word of God? Why do people pick at it to make it accommodate their pet sin? satan is that answer.

Do you like life? Enough to set aside your lusts and desires to achieve the ultimate life? Sadly, few do.

 

[phil112]

This is my biggest struggle with the authority of Scripture:

If truth is absolute and completely objective, then you should be able to prove its authority objectively, as well... right? ................

Friend, you are talking about something your elders have pondered for years, actually, centuries. Do you and them a favor and listen to them. Take up the search from where it is, not starting all over. They have done earnest and laborious study to find what you seek. Truth is immutable. If someone is wrong, they don't have truth. Pretty simple.

 

[jamie26301]

Friend, you are talking about something your elders have pondered for years, actually, centuries. Do you and them a favor and listen to them. Take up the search from where it is, not starting all over. They have done earnest and laborious study to find what you seek. Truth is immutable. If someone is wrong, they don't have truth. Pretty simple.

But that's my point... which elders? They did not all agree, either.
And why should I just trust everything they write? Why can't I study what they studied for myself? Because their own notes are colored by their own experiences, surroundings, time, etc. aka limited viewpoint

 

[kennethcadwell]

[h=1]Jude 1 [/h][h=3]Greeting to the Called[/h]1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
To those who are called, sanctified[a] by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
[h=3]Contend for the Faith[/h]3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[b] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
[h=3]Old and New Apostates[/h]5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.


(Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.)


6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
[h=3]Apostates Depraved and Doomed[/h]12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about[c] by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots;13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
[h=3]Apostates Predicted[/h]16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. 17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: 18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. 19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
[h=3]Maintain Your Life with God[/h]20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;[d] 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,[e] hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
[h=3]Glory to God[/h]24 Now to Him who is able to keep you[f] from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,[g]
Who alone is wise,[h]
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,[i]
Both now and forever.
Amen.

 

[phil112]

But that's my point... which elders? They did not all agree, either.
And why should I just trust everything they write? Why can't I study what they studied for myself? Because their own notes are colored by their own experiences, surroundings, time, etc. aka limited viewpoint

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Your choice. The bible or man? Your choice.

 

[jamie26301]

Your choice. The bible or man? Your choice.

But a man wrote this... again that's my point. My issue with the absolute authority of Scripture is that it comes down to men telling other men what to believe about God, instead of them going within and discovering it for themselves ("the Kingdom of Heaven is inside you"), making up their own minds. And even so, how do you explain people who studied AND because so rejected such inerrancy beliefs that they previously held correct? (Bart Ehrman would be one such person)

And besides, the context supports my point. The verse before:

14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before Godnot to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

It does not edify, to try and "evangelize", so to speak, people who already believe. He speaks of those disputing the Resurrection, so it's been theorized this is referring to Gnostic thought. Given the beginning of the chapter, it seems the point is to obey and believe what you do for God, not to please man.

But the word of God is not bound!

Around this verse 9, I don't see him pointing out any specifics, esp of the kind that many are divided over.

And even so, scholars are now even debating as to whether St. Paul actually wrote the letter or not. Because we have learned that penning a document and signing a popular name was common in the ancient world, and this letter contrasts with letters they are fairly certain he wrote, in grammatical/language style.


BUT HERE IS THE CRUX of what I'm saying: Yes, I just used the piece as though I think it authoritative - and in believing there is value in Scripture and rich insight between the lines, I just disputed with the very passage you used for the claim you wish to make - which is the Bible is the word of God (and go to a bunch of men for confirmation of this ).

I do not mean to tell you that you are wrong - you're welcome to rebuttal, respectfully. I do mean to tell you that there is no reason I should be called a heretic because of this interpretation. The nice thing about theological debate is that we sharpen each other, in how keen we are in listening to Scripture, or any other way we believe God speaks.

It cannot be absolute, insofar as dictating other people, insofar as everyone agreeing on it. (I could bare, as anyone else, to remember this as well.) Because it's impossible, EVEN IN PAUL'S DAY, to all feel and be in sync on every little thing. Here we are, some 2,000 years later, and have we come to a universal mutual understanding yet? After all the literature, art and commentary? Maybe that means it's futile to KEEP going this way? - in the past five hundred years, we have had the "priesthood of all believers" mindset, and with that our inner evil coming out as desiring control/popularity - so, with all these new ways of looking at it, and trying to convince others as well. We readily question the motives of Christian leaders today, but dare not those in the third century? I do not mean that Roman Catholicism is much better. I just think that it's best to embrace what we have in common - Jesus, His atonement, the love of God for all mankind. Talk of theology is fun - when it becomes a matter of proving oneself in the sight of those around, it's not worth it.

I try to remain open, on just about everything. Not because it might change my mind about Christ, but because it shows the other person I care about them. Sharing beliefs is a two-way street. And since I've let go of needing the "definitive answer" on everything, I ironically feel much more at peace. That's me, though. Your walk with God is probably different, and it's best for you.

Blessings.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Seeing how so many people on this forum worship a false Christ, why are you so surprised to find so many false Christians? I'll tell you plainly that I don't count quite a number of people on this forum to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, I'm beyond certain that many people have a totally different spiritual "father" than I do...and their own stated beliefs (and their corresponding actions) are the basis for what I've just said.

 

[jamie26301]

If someone came here to find salvation.........that was their first mistake. Trusting in man for one's salvation will never work. They should be going to Jesus, not man......there's a reason Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the light."

But they don't know that unless a man tells them, you see.

The feet that carry the Gospel (not exclusively doctrine) are indeed beautiful.

 

[jamie26301]

One day Jesus is walking down the street and a group of people bring a blind man to Him seeking healing. Jesus spits on the ground, makes a little mud, puts some in the blind man’s eyes, and tells his friends to take him down to the river and wash it out. They and the crowd do just that, and when the man washes he is healed and can see. So off this group goes, preaching that one must received ‘spit in the eye and wash at the river’.

Another day, Jesus comes across another blind man seeking healing. Jesus tells the man to go to the temple and pay his alms. The man and the crowd around him do so, and he is healed and can see. So off this group goes, preaching that one must ‘give their alms’.

On still another occasion, a blind man is brought to Jesus wanting to be healed. Jesus asks the man if he believes He can do it, the man says yes, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching one must have ‘faith and belief’.

So now we have these three groups going at each other, insisting that you can only be healed by ‘spit and washing’, or only by ‘alms and giving’, or only by ‘faith and belief’ - each ‘denomination’ insisting that only it is right and exclusive of all the others. But in debating about the how, they totally lose sight that there are many ways Jesus restores us, and that they are not exclusive of each other.

None of us has the whole picture... but we all have a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. So while we're trying to force-feed our piece of the puzzle into the big picture, we should pay attention to the picture formed by the puzzle pieces around us. Because even with as much as we think we know, today is not the day to stop learning.

Brilliant! I would actually paste this to my blog, with your permission.

 

[JaumeJ]

In direct response to the thread title, this is like asking the Pharisees in the time Jesus walke His earth, will the true sons of Abraham stand up? You know they all will.​