The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 154

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[the808bass]

So perhaps they had no authority over the church at this point, but they certainly had some authority.

But we all know that bureacratic authority is the really important kind of authority :) Not some silly authority that deals with miracles and the like

[the808bass]

Try a little homework yourself. You live near a large city? Pick up the Yellow Pages, look under "Church," and see what you find.

I've done a little homework on the area. I was inviting y'all to do the same. (And in the STL area we have about 68 separate "denominations" listed in the yellow pages. I didn't count Buddhism or Latter Day Saints but I did count all the variations of Lutherans and Baptists and Church of God)

[the808bass]

That's Sola Scriptura.

I am learning so much about what I believe.

[vmatt]

"That's right, Jesus doesn't want us to understand. It's all a big mystery and let's keep our fingers crossed and hope we don't go to hell. Oh, wait, is someone coming with the secret decoder ring? Call me and ask for Blue Boy."

I can see by the replies that not only do you not know but worse, you don't care. One is more likely to be criticized and insulted as a reward for inquiries than to be answered. I thank you for proving once again that Christianity is leaderless and adrift in blindness just as the Jews, fulfilling prophecy by crucifying the Lord. Lest I be found fighting against God, I retire.

[Havoc]

As I tried to point out yesterday, attacking an idea about the Bible, about how it should be interpreted is not the same as attacking the Bible itself.

Of course it is an attack on the Bible. If I say my shoes are blue and I know they are blue, then you appear and say my shoes are black, you've called me a liar by inferrance. If I put in writing that my shoes are blue and you say they are black, you are still calling me a liar. When it comes to the Bible, you are affecting more than that, you attack the writer and God - calling both of them liars. Misconstruing scripture is flat out blasphemy. Period. End of statement.

Attacking Sola Scriptura is not the same as attacking the Bible. But attacking clear Biblical support no matter what excuse you have for so doing is an accusation against God. People who twist scripture will have much to answer for. Just as those who add to scripture have much to answer for. And all of heaven will cheer and Praise the Living God for his judgement upon them.

[SoothingDave]

At what point in your life did you stop being taught about Christ and the Word and become the ultimate judge of the teachings of others? No doubt that we are fully equipped with the scripture, that without it we would not be complete. But that is not an argument for sufficiency.

I'm sorry; I don't claim to be the ultimate judge of the teachings of others. God's Word, I believe, should be the judge. We ought to compare all traditions taught to us with God's Word to see if they measure up---whether they are true or false; whether they are based on God's Word or based on some man's imagination or opinion.

But you do. God's Word can be interpreted in many ways --- or there wouldn't be all of us here talking about what we think it means. Your conceit is that when you read the Word that you are interpreting it correctly 100 % all of the time. (Don't worry, it's a common conceit) The Bible is a book. It does not make meaning out of itself, you must read it and then form meaning from it. This is where interpretation comes in.

And if you use "God's Word" to judge the teachings and traditions of others, then you are placing your ideas about what you think the Bible says as the ultimate arbiter.

Concerning the word, "equipped" in 2 Tim 3:17: If one is "equipped," it means that he has all that is necessary. We need no further revelation and no other authority---teaching, yes, but teaching based on Scripture and not on man or anything coming from man.

I'll try again. The Scripture says that the Word of God will equip a man, making him perfect. This does not say that only the Bible is necessary to equip the man, only that it is essential.

Contemplate my parallel sentences. Essential is not sufficient. Cuba Libre

SD

[Havoc]

. Churchmen scrutinized these writings afterwards and decided that they were inspired.

..and consistent. Don't forget that consistency thing.

[the808bass]

I can see by the replies that not only do you not know but worse, you don't care.

You made no inquiry. Don't get all self-righteous on me now. You made the statement that implied that no one on this forum knew what they were talking about and that there was (and I quote) "no true church, no leaders and very little knowledge of what God has said in his word." Does that sound like an inquiry to you?

If you would care to make an inquiry, I am sure that there are many on this forum who would be willing to answer.

[al_c]

Can't do it can you!

NYA NYA NYA NYA NYAAA!

geeze, people ... we've been discussing all of these points for months now. Must we revert all the way back to the attitudes we had in the beginning? I thought we had at least developed a respect for each others positions.

[the808bass]

Aha! An extra-scriptural doctrine.

I'll break into your moment of pleasure to point out that I did not make the post to which you are replying. :^) And I'll also point out that Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine that Scripture is all, only primary.

[the808bass]

In most cases, even the human author himself seems to be unaware that he was inspired.

Are you serious? That is an interesting preamble to what would no doubt be an interesting view of inspiration.

Churchmen scrutinized these writings afterwards and decided that they were inspired.

Or God decided when He inspired them and the Church decided to actually recognize what God had done. Either way.

[SoothingDave]

I am learning so much about what I believe.

That's what I'm here for. :-)

Note that this does not eliminate other sources for theology - tradition, general revelation, philosophy, etc. But they must be viewed through the lens of the glasses God has given us to see Him.

So, ultimately, you will view and judge anything else, tradition, the dreaded "philosophy," etc., by your own personal reading of Scripture. Anything, and I mean anything, that does not jibe with your own personal reading of Scripture must be discarded.

Now how is that different, except in tone, from what I said above?

SD

[al_c]

Good morning, everyone. Are we still playing "20 Questions?"
Take a break and enjoy some scripture ...

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Nehemiah 2:1-8 Psalm 137:1-6 Luke 9:57-62 For the Lord is gracious and merciful and prefers the conversion of a sinner rather than his death. Patient and generous in his mercy, he does not give in to human impatience but is willing to wait a long time for our repentance.  -- St. Jerome

How 'bout a little meditation while we're at it ... ? (as usual, from here)

When Jesus says, "Follow me," you can just hear him saying even more: "Leave behind all who won't follow. Leave behind all that hinders following. And don't look back." It sounds hard, but Jesus didn't come to make our lives easy; he came to make them right. He came to release us from bondage to sin, to remove the guilt of our past, and to give us a vision for the future. He came to show us how to follow him in a way that confers dignity on our lives and gives God glory.

All the promises of the gospel become effective in our lives as we decide to follow Jesus. By that one decision--confirmed over and over again--we become open to all the grace, joy, and hope of heaven. A simple, sincere, "Yes, Lord," opens us to a life of freedom, in which God lifts away the burden of guilt and anxiety and gives us an indestructible assurance of his love.

Decide today. Openly tell Jesus, "Yes, Lord. I will follow you." Then, don't expect that things will necessarily get easier; but look for the next step in life to become clear. And then the next. And then the next.

Mother Teresa said "yes" to Jesus. That "yes" took her from her home in Albania to a convent school, then to the streets of Calcutta--hardly a life of ease. Yet she found the burden light because she knew Jesus was with her. Her own plans, preferences, and dreams had to make way for Christ's. As she devoted herself to his intentions, she experienced joy. The enduring image of Mother Teresa is of a smiling woman, eyes bright with God's love.

Following Jesus means choosing the narrow path. While it isn't an easy path, neither is it a path of unmitigated suffering on which the sun never shines. The narrow path may look daunting, but God is with us, and with God all things are possible. As we walk that path, we will always find the grace we need--at just the right time, in just the right measure. Jesus, through his Holy Spirit, will see to that. He wants us to succeed.

"Yes, Lord, I will follow you today. Reveal your ways to me. Teach me your paths so that wherever you go, I may go too."

------------

You may now resume your 20 Questions game. Have a good day!

[the808bass]

So, ultimately, you will view and judge anything else, tradition, the dreaded "philosophy," etc., by your own personal reading of Scripture. Anything, and I mean anything, that does not jibe with your own personal reading of Scripture must be discarded.

First, I don't think that "private interpretation" has the force in Protestantism that you think it does. Secondly, "my own personal" reading of Scripture is influenced by what? My family upbringing, my church experiences, my teachers, mentors, pastors, etc. So I think you are oversimplifying the issue. Our reading is not done in a vacuum. Thus our theology has not been formed in our own personal voids either.

[SoothingDave]

As I tried to point out yesterday, attacking an idea about the Bible, about how it should be interpreted is not the same as attacking the Bible itself.

Of course it is an attack on the Bible.

Sigh. Abstract thinking doesn't appeal to you, I guess. Must be too much like "philosophy."

If I say my shoes are blue and I know they are blue, then you appear and say my shoes are black, you've called me a liar by inferrance.

What if neither of us can actually see your shoes? Like we're looking through a glass, darkly?

If I put in writing that my shoes are blue and you say they are black, you are still calling me a liar.

The problem here is that you are entirely convinced that your shoes are blue. Even though it is far from certain what color they are and people for millennia have debated the color of the shoes. You admit no room for interpretation.

When it comes to the Bible, you are affecting more than that, you attack the writer and God - calling both of them liars. Misconstruing scripture is flat out blasphemy. Period. End of statement.

Good thing I'm not doing that. Now presuming to speak for God and being the world's foremost interpreter of what Scripture means --- now that is flat out blasphemy.

Attacking Sola Scriptura is not the same as attacking the Bible. But attacking clear Biblical support no matter what excuse you have for so doing is an accusation against God.

And what is it when one takes quotes out of context, fails to understand history, and assumes that the ideas in his mind are identical to those of God?

People who twist scripture will have much to answer for. Just as those who add to scripture have much to answer for. And all of heaven will cheer and Praise the Living God for his judgement upon them.

God loves the vengeful.

SD

[the808bass]

the dreaded "philosophy"

pssst - not all Proddies hate philosophy