Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.
To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!
Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....
(Excerpt) Read more at journeytoorthodoxy.com ...
Depending on the personal interpretations of the authors?
By the way, most "Born Again"s will tell you that it is wrong to ADD ANYTHING to Scripture. That would include Bible Handbooks. Of course, that is just their personal interpretation, which I'm sure they find to be quite logical.
I learned earlier in this thread that the Church was only a temporary fill-in until the Bible became available for logical personal interpretation.
I know the Holy Spirit came after Jesus resurrection. Some people call it our conscious.
At any rate, Pete then gave a great speech about God’s plan for salvation of mankind. He traced the predictions of the ancient prophets and explained how they pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. Peter reminded them of the wonders and signs, which proved Jesus was God. He showed them the crucifixion was necessary for the forgiveness of their sins. The evidence was overwhelming, an about 3000 people made a decision to believe in Jesus.
This ragtag group turned into a major news story and then into a movement. Jesus had told them to go into the world with his message. With the Holy Spirit power it became possible.
The followers of Jesus became “Christians”. Each known group became known as a “Church”.
Hope that helps you out.
Actually, it is your responsibility to use your brain in theological matters. The admonition to love God with all your heart, soul, and MIND, etc. is an important one.
If you don't use your mind, you're no better than a beast. There's no reason that theology should stand outside the circle of what in life should be approached with logic.
Was this before or after the King James Bible was published?
I thought all I had to do was read the Bible and come to my own conclusions?
Before...,
Hebrew was the original language for the Torah (aka Old Testament) and Greek was the language of the New Testament. It was eventually transferred to Latin. Then finally the King James version.
Utter hogwash. LOL. Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? If so you are more naive than I thought.
Most "born agains" frequent bookstores, listen to music, buy teaching tapes. I've never met one Protestant who thinks a Bible Handbook is immoral.
What they do not "ADD" are written resources that carry equal weight to Scripture (of which there are none).
And why on earth would you think that?
Thanks for pointing that out to Mr. Chandler. He's not the most logical of people.
Because that is my logical personal interpretation.
Sure Siena :) We are all on a different journey.
I am indeed fortunate to have two such eminent theologians available for my edification. My gratitude knows no bounds.
******************
Because that is my logical personal interpretation.
Ah...that's better. If it is logical, then OK.
But...I've got news for you...not all your conclusions will be logical. Thus, the need most Protestants will admit to...their need to bounce ideas off each other. The "lone ranger" theory is a myth.
i guess the Trinity was a “papist” invention too?
Oh, snideness too...you continue to destroy any credibility you might have had had you chosen to debate the topic in an upright fashion.
i have read your exchange.....what you fail to understand is Jesus built His Church ( singular ) and gave the Church His authority to teach, if this is true, we have an obligation to listen and learn from the Church, not read and follow our own mind. especially if our mind contradicts what the Church has taught for 2,000 years. we must follow Jesus and His plan, not what seems right to us. The Holy Spirit was promised to lead the Church to all truth. Think and pray about it.
“Which, in an of itself, says that one needs more than Scripture alone in order to understand Scriptural context. Why is your context of greater value than those of the Church Fathers, Saints and Martyrs?”
The handbook is an abbreviated commentary, I have many commentaries. Since they are not approved by the RCC there is no value to them in your view I take it. I read the Bible, the Church Fathers, commentaries.
“A nifty little history you’ve written there, except that Christ said that He founded a Church that even the Gates of Hell would not prevail against, yet you are basically saying that The Gates of Hell DID prevail against the historical Church. Please tell me when that happened? Before 1040AD or after?”
The gates of hell has not prevailed against the true church. It has prevailed, despite the thousand year tyranny of the RCC. The truth marches on.
“Because you seem to completely ignore that the Orthodox Church even existed or exists —only the Roman Catholic Church seems to have historical significance to you. Why?”
This thread is a RCC vs the scripture type of thread, the former, as usual, arguing for the primacy of Rome. I doubt we’ll see many Orthodox arguing for the primacy of Rome over against the scripture.
I’m not a theologian by any means. I’m just telling you what I do know about the Bible.
Please do not misconstrue my comments as some sort of insult. It’s not at all. All I was saying is that we are all on a different page in life. Many times when we learn something we want to share are knowledge with others. However because other people are in a different stage of life.... they will not see it the same way you do. Thus, why I said what I did.
fascinating post, care to tell us where this “church” was for the first 16 centuries??? care to name a member of this “church” in the second century, just to pick one century?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.