Baptism with the Holy Spirit and eternal salvation
- Thread starter wattie
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If you truly believed that you wouldn't cut it up the way you do.
Scripture is only sufficient if we are versed in its language and are submitting to the Spirit when we read it. This is beyond simply realizing context and audience but also recognizing things in ourselves that are prone to change the reading.
One of the best ways to recognize such things is to look over the history of other readers of Scripture and see if we are in agreement wit them and figuring out why there are discrepancies when we are not.
There's a real danger in allowing modern predispositions and worldviews distort the message of Scripture. The manner in which concepts are understood such as "faith" has changed over the centuries so the original intent of Scriptural doctrine is something we must continually recover against cultural influences that seek to distort the Biblical message.
Failing to recognize these biases in ourselves will only lead to us defining the Bible according to our own desires rather than allowing it to transform our thinking and understanding Scripture on its own terms.
Scripture is only sufficient if we are versed in its language and are submitting to the Spirit when we read it. This is beyond simply realizing context and audience but also recognizing things in ourselves that are prone to change the reading.
One of the best ways to recognize such things is to look over the history of other readers of Scripture and see if we are in agreement wit them and figuring out why there are discrepancies when we are not.
There's a real danger in allowing modern predispositions and worldviews distort the message of Scripture. The manner in which concepts are understood such as "faith" has changed over the centuries so the original intent of Scriptural doctrine is something we must continually recover against cultural influences that seek to distort the Biblical message.
Failing to recognize these biases in ourselves will only lead to us defining the Bible according to our own desires rather than allowing it to transform our thinking and understanding Scripture on its own terms.
I agree we need to constantly check our biases . like I said church history is interesting but I do not assume that they knew more then. As a result of leaning on certain dead theologians and assuming they had the corner on truth is a mistake . Augustine, Calvin , Beza , Jacob Arminius , John wesley , Spurgeon ect said some good things ,but also some really heretical things that we need to let go of these ' isms' and use our own sense making .
Certainly theologians have said wrong things, but the point of looking to history is not to find a theological school to subscribe to. it is to find the common threads, the things that haven't changed over time even if they're being expressed differently. If a doctrine is new and different from what the church has historically held, that's a red flag. That's a sign that it is something in the culture sneaking into the church. Is this always the case? No, but not knowing and studying the history of doctrine makes us susceptible to strange myths and foreign beliefs and we must be able to discern the difference.
A perfect example of this is two things that originate with Augustine, the authority of the clergy and the formulation of original sin as total depravity. Both of these things can be shown to originate with him and not be present in the earlier writings of the church, yet because the Latin church did not have access to these earlier writings due to losing contact with the Greek language these things proliferated to the point they are at today.
Yet without understanding of what the antenicean fathers had to say on such issues Scripture itself has been used to substantiate both positions. Some of these views have even become the "natural" reading of Scripture because their view of the verses goes unchallenged by the historic positions since so few read any theology older than 500 years.
It's really not a matter of them necessarily "knowing more" as it is being closer to the original audience. Western readers have gone through at least 4 major worldview position overhauls from philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Locke, and Descartes that have had tremendous impact on how things are viewed and only a proper appreciation for historical doctrine protects us from novelties and human inventions.
A perfect example of this is two things that originate with Augustine, the authority of the clergy and the formulation of original sin as total depravity. Both of these things can be shown to originate with him and not be present in the earlier writings of the church, yet because the Latin church did not have access to these earlier writings due to losing contact with the Greek language these things proliferated to the point they are at today.
Yet without understanding of what the antenicean fathers had to say on such issues Scripture itself has been used to substantiate both positions. Some of these views have even become the "natural" reading of Scripture because their view of the verses goes unchallenged by the historic positions since so few read any theology older than 500 years.
It's really not a matter of them necessarily "knowing more" as it is being closer to the original audience. Western readers have gone through at least 4 major worldview position overhauls from philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Locke, and Descartes that have had tremendous impact on how things are viewed and only a proper appreciation for historical doctrine protects us from novelties and human inventions.
-
1
- Show all
We all ' cut the bible up ' to a certain degree . If we don't recognise the distinctions such as the changes from the old to the new testament then we won't understand anything about the bible properly .
Hebrews 9:16-17
King James Version
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth
Hebrews 9:16-17
King James Version
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth
The same applies no matter when it happens. They didn't teach that the Church would teach error anyway. Why would Truth enter time and history to be lost? Then we would be back where things were before Truth dwelled among us.
Also Jesus, Truth, is an eternal reality and wouldn't be subjected by the temporal.
Also Jesus, Truth, is an eternal reality and wouldn't be subjected by the temporal.
As the Protestant movement proves the Scriptures as Holy as they are, isn't itself a teacher of Truth. Without a foundation that is uncotaminated, the guidance to All Truth is obstructed. Error in Faith or morals casts it's distortion over the whole.
There is a reason the Truth entered time and human history and it wasn't to become corrupt.
Like you said about faith in God's power to preserve?
There is a reason the Truth entered time and human history and it wasn't to become corrupt.
Like you said about faith in God's power to preserve?
If they had changed what Paul taught we wouldn't be believing what Paul taught. The first teaching spoken ex cathedra
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
It wasn't from flesh but the Spirit. That was Truth. Not all truth but truth without error.
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
It wasn't from flesh but the Spirit. That was Truth. Not all truth but truth without error.