-
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.
Because not everybody and or every church that names Jesus actually knows Jesus.........and men who have not trusted Christ in a biblical way are lost, still in their sins and have no spiritual discernment when it comes to the word of God which leads to all of the different interpretations and or (religions) with different doctrines and or practices.....!
V
Excellent question, Brother Enga! Why, indeed? How can it be reasonable to believe that so many different denominations are perfectly acceptable? There's such a variety of doctrines and beliefs and requirements and all the religious hierarchy that governs most so-called churches. It's perplexing! All one need do is enter the Bible Discussion Forum to witness the trouble and contention caused by religious differences.
Enga,
All true believers agree on the essentials of 'What must I do to be saved?'.
When a person accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior they are reborn. Just as a newborn baby doesn't understand sin, accountability, and redemption; A Spiritual baby doesn't understand sound doctrine. If a spiritual babe is fed bad doctrine; he/she will believe bad doctrine until the Holy Spirit leads him/her into the truth.
If a person is truly saved, The Holy Spirit lives within him/her; and in His own time and way will correct doctrinal errors.
The parable of the wheat and tares n(Mat 13:24-30) tells us that the church assembly will contain some unbelievers.
If the leadership of the church is not vigilant or not saved error can lead people astray.
All true believers agree on the essentials of 'What must I do to be saved?'.
When a person accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior they are reborn. Just as a newborn baby doesn't understand sin, accountability, and redemption; A Spiritual baby doesn't understand sound doctrine. If a spiritual babe is fed bad doctrine; he/she will believe bad doctrine until the Holy Spirit leads him/her into the truth.
If a person is truly saved, The Holy Spirit lives within him/her; and in His own time and way will correct doctrinal errors.
The parable of the wheat and tares n(Mat 13:24-30) tells us that the church assembly will contain some unbelievers.
If the leadership of the church is not vigilant or not saved error can lead people astray.
M
You will not like the answer, but it is indisputably true.
Because Sola scriptura "bible alone" itself is the problem.
Bible alone is not biblical!
Where in the bible does it say that something has to be in the bible to be true?
Bible alone is not logical!
And because it is not in the bible, it is therefore false in logic too - if the ultimate truth is "all necessary truth is contained in the bible (people even isagree on the meaning of sola scriptura) - then that ultimate truth should be in the bible, and it is not, so sola scriptura is logically false.
Bible alone is not historic!
When Jesus gave us the new covenant, he said "do this" not "write this". So few of the apostles did write, and what we know as the new testament was a couple of centuries in the making. For the early Christians truth was passed by word of mouth and tradition which is why apostle Paul tells you to stay hold true to the traditions told by "word of mouth and scripture" Scripture for Paul was the OT. The NT did not then exist.
So what do we know?
The bible (as for example Pauls letters) are hard to understand on its own. Even Peter says so in 2 peter 3:16
We are urged against private interpretation proverbs 3-5
Asking the spirit for guidance is not the answer either...
The idea that learned men asking the holy spirit for guidance will come to the same conclusion is proven totally false.
By the fact of tens of thousands of protestant denominations and schisms, and who knows how many "one man" denominations preaching "their version" of the truth. The holy spirit has only one truth, so most who say so are misguided.
So what is the truth?
The bible says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" NOT the bible..1 timothy 3:15
So then you ask which church? and the answer can hardly be any of the recent sects, formed as a fracture from a recent sect, destined to fracture in to more.
See the thread "heartbreaking" to see what happens when man ( a head pastor) is allowed to decide doctrine http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/109003-just-so-heartbreaking.html
Luther abhorred this saying every milkmaid had their own doctrine!
He said towards the end of his life:
“There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow has nothing to do with baptism. Another one denies the sacraments. A third believes there is another world between this one and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude that if he dreams or fancies anything believes it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and that he himself must be a prophet.”
Luther was even more critical of the non denominational one man factions arising from self interpretation.
"In matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church.” “There will be the greatest confusion. Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everyone will be his own rabbi: hence, the greatest scandals.”
Notice the arguments on this forum!
He concludes wryly:
"If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the gospel."
"If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the Catholic councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge."
That lack of authority in the light of disputes and clear ambiguities is why there are so many fractures
So the question is authority? Who speaks on behalf of the church?
The mark of a true denomination is one whose doctrine has lasted essentially unchanged for millenia.
There is only one. The early church was sacramental. Liturgical. Believed in real presence. Authority of bishops and succession. So conclude where logic takes you. You will not like the answer.
I would agree with that. In the Bible, the first church preached, the Christian has a righteousness apart from the law. However, I read in one Catholic catechism, Heaven is dependant on three things, one of which is obedience to the Ten Commandments. Therefore, it is stating in reality, the Christian has right standing before God, of obedience to the law. That is a contradiction of biblical teaching, therefore the doctrine has not remained the same
Ok, so the Word of God will not suffice? The Gospel of Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Apostle Paul will not suffice?
Only the Catholic church has the answers?
.............sigh..............
The Word of God is not Truth? The teachings of Paul are not Truth? Only the teachings of the Catholic church are truth?
...............sigh............
I hope this is NOT what you are saying............
Only the Catholic church has the answers?
.............sigh..............
The Word of God is not Truth? The teachings of Paul are not Truth? Only the teachings of the Catholic church are truth?
...............sigh............
I hope this is NOT what you are saying............
The Holy Spirit does not miraculously tell people what the bible says for all the contradictions people have prove that and the Holy Spirit does not contradict itself as these people do.
Can the bible be understood correctly? Yes, Jesus said "ye shall know the truth" so the bible can be known. It would be senseless and pointless for God to give man a book man cannot understand. Paul said in Eph 5:17 "Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is."
What does one need to know the truth? The bible and nothing more for the bible provides all the instruction the man of God needs to be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. A main reason for all the differences is too many try to bring to the bible their personal opinions, creeds, traditions then try and change, rewrite the bible to fit their own ideas instead of letting the bible speak for itself. Do not approach the bible with preconceived ideas. let the bible speak to you and not you tell the bible what to say. A simple idea that most fail at.
Some general rules in interpreting and understanding the bible;
---Paul once said he did not shun to declare "all the counsel of God". One needs to examine all the bible has to say about a particular topic. Rarely does the bible exhaust a subject with just one verse. Again, as simple as this idea is, many will still cherry-pick one verse out of the bible while disregarding all other verses that deal with that subject and form a theology around just that one cherry picked verse. Just cherry picking John 3:16 out of the bible while ignoring other verses does not make John 3:16 teach "belief only"
---leave verses in context, know what the circumstances are surrounding the text, who is speaking, who is being spoken to and what is being said. Again, simple idea but verses get pulled out of context all too often and then false ideas are then attached to it.
---the bible does not contradict itself so an interpretation placed upon one verse or passage cannot contradict what other verses/passages say on the same subject. Some verses are harder to understand than others so its best to start with the easier verses and work up to the harder passages knowing what interpretation placed upon the harder verses cannot contradict the easier verses.
---one must realize that bible language, like other languages, uses figures of speeches, idioms and must be careful not to interpret these figure of speeches literally. Jesus once called Herod a fox. Obviously a figure of speech. A common figure of speech in the Hebrew language is where an active verb is used to show God actively did something when in realty God simply allowed/permitted the thing to happen. Unfortunately some false theologies that ignore this idiom has God acting in ways that go against His own nature.
---follow principles of hermeneutics:
http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/taylor/hermeneutics.pdf
In the end the bible only means what God meant for it to mean and not what each person/groups tries to make it mean.
Can the bible be understood correctly? Yes, Jesus said "ye shall know the truth" so the bible can be known. It would be senseless and pointless for God to give man a book man cannot understand. Paul said in Eph 5:17 "Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is."
What does one need to know the truth? The bible and nothing more for the bible provides all the instruction the man of God needs to be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. A main reason for all the differences is too many try to bring to the bible their personal opinions, creeds, traditions then try and change, rewrite the bible to fit their own ideas instead of letting the bible speak for itself. Do not approach the bible with preconceived ideas. let the bible speak to you and not you tell the bible what to say. A simple idea that most fail at.
Some general rules in interpreting and understanding the bible;
---Paul once said he did not shun to declare "all the counsel of God". One needs to examine all the bible has to say about a particular topic. Rarely does the bible exhaust a subject with just one verse. Again, as simple as this idea is, many will still cherry-pick one verse out of the bible while disregarding all other verses that deal with that subject and form a theology around just that one cherry picked verse. Just cherry picking John 3:16 out of the bible while ignoring other verses does not make John 3:16 teach "belief only"
---leave verses in context, know what the circumstances are surrounding the text, who is speaking, who is being spoken to and what is being said. Again, simple idea but verses get pulled out of context all too often and then false ideas are then attached to it.
---the bible does not contradict itself so an interpretation placed upon one verse or passage cannot contradict what other verses/passages say on the same subject. Some verses are harder to understand than others so its best to start with the easier verses and work up to the harder passages knowing what interpretation placed upon the harder verses cannot contradict the easier verses.
---one must realize that bible language, like other languages, uses figures of speeches, idioms and must be careful not to interpret these figure of speeches literally. Jesus once called Herod a fox. Obviously a figure of speech. A common figure of speech in the Hebrew language is where an active verb is used to show God actively did something when in realty God simply allowed/permitted the thing to happen. Unfortunately some false theologies that ignore this idiom has God acting in ways that go against His own nature.
---follow principles of hermeneutics:
http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/taylor/hermeneutics.pdf
In the end the bible only means what God meant for it to mean and not what each person/groups tries to make it mean.
I suspect, not really caused so much by religious differences, as by a lot of human traits...... pride, stubbornness, fear, etc.
I happen to think that differences are a good thing. Especially religious differences.
None of us are alike... neither in work, play, sports, entertainment, food, relaxation, attitude, desires, expression, lifestyles, music preferences, ambition, frugality or extravagances, and a hundred other areas. Do you think that if each one of us only had the choice of gathering with people who enjoyed God in one esoteric way, that there would be many people in that one, specific group? Not really.
We are all blind men experiencing an elephant. (You all know the story) And, just like the blind men, none of us really understands the totality of God. We all swear we know the truth, when in reality, the best we can say in pure honesty is that we have experienced a part of the whole truth that we are able to relate to.
And I firmly believe this is precisely what God intended.
I happen to think that differences are a good thing. Especially religious differences.
None of us are alike... neither in work, play, sports, entertainment, food, relaxation, attitude, desires, expression, lifestyles, music preferences, ambition, frugality or extravagances, and a hundred other areas. Do you think that if each one of us only had the choice of gathering with people who enjoyed God in one esoteric way, that there would be many people in that one, specific group? Not really.
We are all blind men experiencing an elephant. (You all know the story) And, just like the blind men, none of us really understands the totality of God. We all swear we know the truth, when in reality, the best we can say in pure honesty is that we have experienced a part of the whole truth that we are able to relate to.
And I firmly believe this is precisely what God intended.
Here is definitely part of the problem. Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in Biblical interpretation. The world uses a hierarchical structure of human intelligence that we call the nine fields of inquiry to compile information about the Biblical text as it attempts to fit the Bible into the framework of these nine fields. All human knowledge is catalogued within these nine fields. This type of textual approach appeals to the respective fields of inquiry to see what each of these have to say about the text of scripture. The world feels that it is somehow important to know what the scientist, the historian, the clergy, the legal apparatus, the politician, and others have to say about the value and place of scripture within the human community. This form of intertextuality regards scripture as only one of many texts and attempts to subordinate it to human analysis based on all other texts. The practice of intertextuality places the Word of God within the dyadic structure of human intelligence. This elevates human intelligence over the inspired intelligence of revelation. The world will never allow the Bible to be regarded as the single hierarchical text that brings all others into subjection. This of course is not a new problem. We see this same human tendency throughout the Bible. The Pharisees regarded the Law only within the context of centuries of rabbinic interpretation. It was because the Jews were so dyadic in their thinking that Jesus constantly had to correct their corrupted understanding of the Law. They had elevated their traditionally imposed interpretation above the language of text and Jesus said that in doing so, they had made the Word of God null and void. When I consider the way we have approached the Bible, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Church has done the very same thing that the Jews of the first century had done.
The world will not allow us to say openly that certain socially accepted values are wrong. We are not allowed to pass judgment on the behavior of the world or to impose Biblical standards of moral conduct upon others. We are told that others have things of to offer, that other religions and their texts should also be given equal or even greater consideration. The world would ask "who are you to say your way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong?" When we refuse to consider other religious or secular points of view that are based in human intelligence we are considered idiosyncratic, arrogant and closed minded. We cannot say that homosexuality is perversion and sinful, after all, one might say, when the Bible was written people were unaware that tendencies toward homosexuality were the result of hormonal deficiencies determined at one's birth, after all, God loves everyone and would not condemn someone who was born this way. These questions make certain assumptions about the origin and authority of scripture. Such thinking will not permit the Bible to be accepted as a uniquely legitimate standard for human behavior. This attempts to render God and scripture as context dependent. The world demands that God must only be defined based on the human frame of reference within the material context. Ideas about the personality of God then become subject to anthropomorphism. Rather than desiring to be like the Creator, we create a god in our own image. This is the very root of idolatry.
.
The world will not allow us to say openly that certain socially accepted values are wrong. We are not allowed to pass judgment on the behavior of the world or to impose Biblical standards of moral conduct upon others. We are told that others have things of to offer, that other religions and their texts should also be given equal or even greater consideration. The world would ask "who are you to say your way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong?" When we refuse to consider other religious or secular points of view that are based in human intelligence we are considered idiosyncratic, arrogant and closed minded. We cannot say that homosexuality is perversion and sinful, after all, one might say, when the Bible was written people were unaware that tendencies toward homosexuality were the result of hormonal deficiencies determined at one's birth, after all, God loves everyone and would not condemn someone who was born this way. These questions make certain assumptions about the origin and authority of scripture. Such thinking will not permit the Bible to be accepted as a uniquely legitimate standard for human behavior. This attempts to render God and scripture as context dependent. The world demands that God must only be defined based on the human frame of reference within the material context. Ideas about the personality of God then become subject to anthropomorphism. Rather than desiring to be like the Creator, we create a god in our own image. This is the very root of idolatry.
.
Last edited:
Yes, the reasoning patterns in my post are as prevalent in the Church as they are in the world. This should cause us to realize that the practice of interpretation is the least desirable method for studying scripture. In fact, we are expressly told that scripture is not to be approaches in this manner.
M
Nice post in as far as it goes!. (Breaking into a few more paragraphs would have helped me read it a little easier)
The problem however is the "we" who are not united as Christians against world perversions, and I often think Christians are their own worst enemies seen visibly divided against each other.
The critical question still remains, that bible alone is provably not enough by itself, nor does it claim to be, nor is claiming to discern the holy spirit sufficient to resolve differences because all sides of every debate claim to have done the same, and for the holy spirit there is but one truth.
We are irreconcilably divided on doctrine, believing mutually exclusive things. Real presence or not, baptism necessary, infant baptism OSAS vs OS can lose it vs Not saved till the end, are internal arguments between christians , nothing to do with world perversions, and material to how the vocation is lived out.
And that goes back to the question of authority, and stability of doctrine.
Luther started the rot, then as the quotations above prove, he was horrified at the monster he created, but was unable to put the genie back in the bottle. Because once you no longer accept an authority, where every pastor is a new pope, endless fracture is inevitable.
So it comes back to deciding a simple issue. When the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" and stability of doctrine relies on succession not schism, which then is the only candidate for a church that has held its doctrine for millenia.
So "bible alone" is the problem. As is deciding on necessary authority.
I also think Americans in particular have a relatively myopic view of this problem because their history is so short.
For them there are many competing denominations, and indeed there always have been.
But for europe particularly other than small fringes there really only was one church till the great schism separating the Eastern Rite. That lasted till the time of the reformation when what in essence happened was their formed "national" churches with more or less state control. Endless fracture came later. So the Anglicans were very much the alternative UK church (blame Henries sexual appetite for that) Presbyterian, scotland and so on, with more or less antic atholic purges (or in the case of france as china now, the attempt to force a catholic church into state control, and the rebellions arising from that).
I actually think the US has lost a sense of historical perspective on it, assuming/believing that for that christianity has always been massively denominational. Which it certainly was not till the reformation. And then it became nationalistic at least for a while.
Then without authority , all became popes (just called head pastor, elders, whatever, plus ca change! ) much like the one they despised in Rome. In fact the only one in history seemingly loathe to become a defacto pope himself was Luther! Hoping to remain just advisor to churches rather than head over one. Even Luther missed the point. That the essential role of the pope is not administrative head of an organisation, it is as head of the doctrinal authority magisterium, And luther certainly believed he had the right to define doctrine, as evidenced in his writings. He just did not think that anyone else should!
Luther regretted the monster he personally created, which survives and breeds new denominations to this day.
The problem however is the "we" who are not united as Christians against world perversions, and I often think Christians are their own worst enemies seen visibly divided against each other.
The critical question still remains, that bible alone is provably not enough by itself, nor does it claim to be, nor is claiming to discern the holy spirit sufficient to resolve differences because all sides of every debate claim to have done the same, and for the holy spirit there is but one truth.
We are irreconcilably divided on doctrine, believing mutually exclusive things. Real presence or not, baptism necessary, infant baptism OSAS vs OS can lose it vs Not saved till the end, are internal arguments between christians , nothing to do with world perversions, and material to how the vocation is lived out.
And that goes back to the question of authority, and stability of doctrine.
Luther started the rot, then as the quotations above prove, he was horrified at the monster he created, but was unable to put the genie back in the bottle. Because once you no longer accept an authority, where every pastor is a new pope, endless fracture is inevitable.
So it comes back to deciding a simple issue. When the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" and stability of doctrine relies on succession not schism, which then is the only candidate for a church that has held its doctrine for millenia.
So "bible alone" is the problem. As is deciding on necessary authority.
I also think Americans in particular have a relatively myopic view of this problem because their history is so short.
For them there are many competing denominations, and indeed there always have been.
But for europe particularly other than small fringes there really only was one church till the great schism separating the Eastern Rite. That lasted till the time of the reformation when what in essence happened was their formed "national" churches with more or less state control. Endless fracture came later. So the Anglicans were very much the alternative UK church (blame Henries sexual appetite for that) Presbyterian, scotland and so on, with more or less antic atholic purges (or in the case of france as china now, the attempt to force a catholic church into state control, and the rebellions arising from that).
I actually think the US has lost a sense of historical perspective on it, assuming/believing that for that christianity has always been massively denominational. Which it certainly was not till the reformation. And then it became nationalistic at least for a while.
Then without authority , all became popes (just called head pastor, elders, whatever, plus ca change! ) much like the one they despised in Rome. In fact the only one in history seemingly loathe to become a defacto pope himself was Luther! Hoping to remain just advisor to churches rather than head over one. Even Luther missed the point. That the essential role of the pope is not administrative head of an organisation, it is as head of the doctrinal authority magisterium, And luther certainly believed he had the right to define doctrine, as evidenced in his writings. He just did not think that anyone else should!
Luther regretted the monster he personally created, which survives and breeds new denominations to this day.
Last edited:
Gee, I thought the reason to multiple interpretations was this:
Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV) Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
[HR][/HR]Judges 17:6 (KJV) In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 16:2 (KJV) All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 21:2 (KJV) Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.[HR][/HR]Proverbs 30:12 (KJV) There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
[HR][/HR]Isaiah 5:21 (KJV) Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
[HR][/HR]
Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV) Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
[HR][/HR]Judges 17:6 (KJV) In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 16:2 (KJV) All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 21:2 (KJV) Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.[HR][/HR]Proverbs 30:12 (KJV) There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
[HR][/HR]Isaiah 5:21 (KJV) Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
[HR][/HR]
Jesus is The Word OF God. the Bible is The Word OF God! The Bible is the visible manifestation of Jesus until His return.
The Bible is the absolute standard of Truth; and ANYTHING that contradicts it ( including you, the RCC, or its pope) is a lie or an error. ANYONE or ANYTHING that puts the teachings of men equal to or above Scripture is heresy!
The Bible is the absolute standard of Truth; and ANYTHING that contradicts it ( including you, the RCC, or its pope) is a lie or an error. ANYONE or ANYTHING that puts the teachings of men equal to or above Scripture is heresy!
V
The Lord's Church is Spiritual - Christ Jesus is the Head and we are the body of the church.
I Corinthians 2:1-16
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But He that is spiritual judges all things, yet He Himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that He may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
I Corinthians 2:1-16
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But He that is spiritual judges all things, yet He Himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that He may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
M
Spare me the anti RCC stuff, I know it is the forum comfort zone because it is pretty much all you agree on. But this thread is not about that.
Why so many interpretations, if the truth were so obvious and easy to discern. Check out the average OSAS thread and see several mutually exclusive, but equally promoted interpretations all of whom claim the same inspiration. And on every other issue people here are massively divided as are their denominations.
If the bible is the absolute standard, why does the bible contradict that, saying the pillar and foundation of truth is the church? We accept the nt as true, but where does it say it is the whole truth? The last verse of john says it is not!
So stop RCC bashing and explain why tens of thousands of denominations have happened all passionately in disagreement, but believing they have taken the " true " meaning?
This is not an RCC problem it is a post reformation problem highlighted by
Luther, a question of authority. Discuss the problem not RCC
The OP has identified the essential problem post reformation, do any of you have an answer -,Luther did and I quoted it.
Why so many interpretations, if the truth were so obvious and easy to discern. Check out the average OSAS thread and see several mutually exclusive, but equally promoted interpretations all of whom claim the same inspiration. And on every other issue people here are massively divided as are their denominations.
If the bible is the absolute standard, why does the bible contradict that, saying the pillar and foundation of truth is the church? We accept the nt as true, but where does it say it is the whole truth? The last verse of john says it is not!
So stop RCC bashing and explain why tens of thousands of denominations have happened all passionately in disagreement, but believing they have taken the " true " meaning?
This is not an RCC problem it is a post reformation problem highlighted by
Luther, a question of authority. Discuss the problem not RCC
The OP has identified the essential problem post reformation, do any of you have an answer -,Luther did and I quoted it.