NationStates Jolt Archive


Theology

Pages : [1] 2
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 05:28
Just wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Most people go on happily without considering it, but I think it is an important issue.

Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/Covenant_theology

New Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology

Dispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism

Hyperdispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-dispensationalism

I'm a firm adherent to covenant theology.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 05:33
New Covenant, but you already new that.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 05:34
New Covenant, but you already new that.

No, actually I thought that you were Dispensationalist. But we never really got into predestination, so....
Ashmoria
08-12-2006, 06:11
theological schools artificially divide christians from each other and distract from the teachings of jesus.

they are vaguely interesting but besides the point. you dont have to be a big thinker to be a good christian.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 06:15
theological schools artificially divide christians from each other and distract from the teachings of jesus.

they are vaguely interesting but besides the point. you dont have to be a big thinker to be a good christian.

I never said that you had to be a great theologian to be a Christian. I said that I think the issue of how God opens salvation to Man is an important one that ought to be discussed.
Ashmoria
08-12-2006, 06:18
I never said that you had to be a great theologian to be a Christian. I said that I think the issue of how God opens salvation to Man is an important one that ought to be discussed.

and im saying that its not important. its just a way to divide one set of believers from another based on a trivial point.
Lacadaemon
08-12-2006, 06:19
I never said that you had to be a great theologian to be a Christian. I said that I think the issue of how God opens salvation to Man is an important one that ought to be discussed.

I'm curious. Why the capital letter for man?
Moosle
08-12-2006, 06:21
The Covenant option is the closest to the concept of Christianity, as I understand it. I had never heard of any of these distinctions before. So, anyway, I prefer it to the other three since it is simpler, easier to understand, and easily obtained from studying the religion "on the outside" as it were. Concise-ness should not be underestimated.
Curious Inquiry
08-12-2006, 06:22
Theology is so much mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with that ;) )
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 06:23
I'm curious. Why the capital letter for man?

Man = humanity It's shorter and also emphasizes that we have sin through one man (Adam) and salvation through one Man (Jesus, in this case it's capitalized for a Deity). I capitalize it to distinguish it from man (a male human).
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 06:24
and im saying that its not important. its just a way to divide one set of believers from another based on a trivial point.

Well, I disagree. We shouldn't just say "It divides us! Don't think about it!"
Moosle
08-12-2006, 06:26
and im saying that its not important. its just a way to divide one set of believers from another based on a trivial point.

It's good to define your beliefs. Especially in religion, which is prone to accusations of 'brainwashing', it's nice to have proof that you are actively deciding what you believe and why.
Ashmoria
08-12-2006, 06:29
Well, I disagree. We shouldn't just say "It divides us! Don't think about it!"

thats exactly what we should say. in the end, there is no correct answer in theology. its all in your perspective and your assumptions. god isnt bound by our best guess.

all we need for salvation, not that that is the point of christianity, is in the gospels. the rest of it, as curious inquiry said, is mental masturbation.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 06:39
thats exactly what we should say. in the end, there is no correct answer in theology. its all in your perspective and your assumptions. god isnt bound by our best guess.

all we need for salvation, not that that is the point of christianity, is in the gospels. the rest of it, as curious inquiry said, is mental masturbation.

I strongly disagree. All we need for salvation can be found in the Gospel, but that's not all we are called to seek to know. And I agree: we shouldn't guess about God. That is why we speak where the Bible speaks and where it is silent we are silent.

But when it speaks, we had better speak. Loudly.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 20:55
No, actually I thought that you were Dispensationalist. But we never really got into predestination, so....

you did? that's interesting to me. why would you think that?
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:00
As a Catholic, I think that they are all bullshit.

That said, I am not even entirely sure what the point is. What question are those "theologies" trying to answer?
Farnhamia
08-12-2006, 21:01
Hyperdispensationalism, definitely. I believe that without Paul of Tarsus, Christianity would have sunk back into Judaism and if remembered at all, would be a single paragraph about yet another person who claimed to be the Messiah.
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:01
Well, I disagree. We shouldn't just say "It divides us! Don't think about it!"

Actually, I'm pretty sure there is New Testament scripture that says almost exactly that.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:03
you did? that's interesting to me. why would you think that?

Well, we disagree on a lot of the finer points of theology.

Most "thinking" Christians (those who stop to say "What do I believe?") today are Dispensationalist (sadly, in my opinon). You're a thinking Christian; I think you think incorrectly on a lot of stuff, but you do think.

I had never heard of New Covenant theology until I started looking for links to explain the other three. So, given the options, my doubt that you supported covenant theology, and the fact that you do believe baptism and communion are lasting sacraments/ordinances, Dispensationalism was the only thing left for you to be.

But, now I know better. :)
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 21:03
Just wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Most people go on happily without considering it, but I think it is an important issue.

Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/Covenant_theology

New Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology

Dispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism

Hyperdispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-dispensationalism

I'm a firm adherent to covenant theology.

Out of those choices, I'm probably closest to New Covenant theology. But none of them really seem to represent my theology particularly well.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:03
Actually, I'm pretty sure there is New Testament scripture that says almost exactly that.

where?

besides, going through seminary (read watching hubby go through seminary) you have to learn all this stuff anyway, it's interesting to attack the theology questions......even if my faith is by and far irrational, it's nice to give it some critical thought.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:05
Well, we disagree on a lot of the finer points of theology.

Most "thinking" Christians (those who stop to say "What do I believe?") today are Dispensationalist (sadly, in my opinon). You're a thinking Christian; I think you think incorrectly on a lot of stuff, but you do think.

I had never heard of New Covenant theology until I started looking for links to explain the other three. So, given the options, my doubt that you supported covenant theology, and the fact that you do believe baptism and communion are lasting sacraments/ordinances, Dispensationalism was the only thing left for you to be.

But, now I know better. :)

I think you have a pretty simplistic view of God......but we won't get into that.

I have issue with the covenant theology because I think it's like frosting a cake that has fallen, you guys just fill the hole with frosting and call it a day. LOL

bad analogy.
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 21:07
Actually, I'm pretty sure there is New Testament scripture that says almost exactly that.

*nod*

In one of the Pauline writings, as I recall. Fostering division within Christ's body through useless arguments seems to have been frowned upon back then.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:11
*nod*

In one of the Pauline writings, as I recall. Fostering division within Christ's body through useless arguments seems to have been frowned upon back then.

oh, that. I don't tend to think discussing theology falls under that, but then again discussing the color of the carpet in the church wouldn't either, until you start to fight over it.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:14
oh, that. I don't tend to think discussing theology falls under that, but then again discussing the color of the carpet in the church wouldn't either, until you start to fight over it.

I know the verse, and y'all are taking it out of context.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; 15 Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.


St. Paul isn't saying that we shouldn't think about dogma. He is saying that our dogma should be uniform.
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:16
where?

besides, going through seminary (read watching hubby go through seminary) you have to learn all this stuff anyway, it's interesting to attack the theology questions......even if my faith is by and far irrational, it's nice to give it some critical thought.

First Corinthians 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought".

Edit: I see I have been beaten to it. :)
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:16
First Corinthians 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought".

how do you get to common ground without discussion?
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:17
St. Paul isn't saying that we shouldn't think about dogma. He is saying that our dogma should be uniform.

And, in this thread alone, we are presented with four differing 'schools of thought' - which is exactly what the passage was discussing.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:18
And, in this thread alone, we are presented with four differing 'schools of thought' - which is exactly what the passage was discussing.


Precisely, and you have noone but yourselves to blame for it. Apparently, Martin Luther glossed over that particular verse. :mad:
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:19
how do you get to common ground without discussion?

Take it up with Paul. I think that any 'truth' to be found in the book, is going to be found in the recorded words of the carpenter, not some johnny-come-lately commentator who never met him in living memory.

As you already know. :)
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:19
And, in this thread alone, we are presented with four differing 'schools of thought' - which is exactly what the passage was discussing.

there is no way to agree on a specific theology without discussion unless some of us decide to blindly follow someone.
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:19
Precisely, and you have noone but yourselves to blame for it. Apparently, Martin Luther glossed over that particular verse. :mad:

Not me - I'm of the non-Pauline, non-Johannine school.
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:20
there is no way to agree on a specific theology without discussion unless some of us decide to blindly follow someone.

But, wouldn't blindly following be a good thing, if it were to be the 'right someone'?
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:21
Not me - I'm of the non-Pauline, non-Johannine school.

You get what I mean. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the Church was more or less uniform in doctrine. Sure, there was the East/West schism, but it was more geographic and political than doctrinal...and sure, there was Gnosticism, but c'mon! Who recognizes them as Christians?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:22
Actually, I'm pretty sure there is New Testament scripture that says almost exactly that.

You're probably talking about the people saying "I follow Paul!" "I follow Apollos!" And Paul saying that they're crazy, they should be following Jesus: "Is Christ divided?"

But what Paul is talking about is when people form cliques. "I'm friends with the pastor, so I'll support his ideas." "The moderator of deacons is my son-in-law, so I must support his ideas." This is of course sinful.

But division over doctrine? Another idea.
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We destroy arguments and every llofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete."

Now, that's taken out of it's context, so we must be careful using it, but one of the points is that we are to fight off incorrect doctrine, aiming to be as perfect as we might in Christ always.
Grave_n_idle
08-12-2006, 21:24
You're probably talking about the people saying "I follow Paul!" "I follow Apollos!" And Paul saying that they're crazy, they should be following Jesus: "Is Christ divided?"

But what Paul is talking about is when people form cliques. "I'm friends with the pastor, so I'll support his ideas." "The moderator of deacons is my son-in-law, so I must support his ideas." This is of course sinful.

But division over doctrine? Another idea.
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We destroy arguments and every llofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete."

Now, that's taken out of it's context, so we must be careful using it, but one of the points is that we are to fight off incorrect doctrine, aiming to be as perfect as we might in Christ always.

I believe you have actually just reinforced my point.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:24
I have issue with the covenant theology because I think it's like frosting a cake that has fallen, you guys just fill the hole with frosting and call it a day. LOL

bad analogy.

Yes, I agree it is. I don't really understand what you're saying.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:25
Yes, I agree it is. I don't really understand what you're saying.

As I said: I think that all of them are bullshit. I believe in Catholic theology, and so did the Apostles and their successors.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:25
Precisely, and you have noone but yourselves to blame for it. Apparently, Martin Luther glossed over that particular verse. :mad:

yes, maybe you should read 1 Timothy 6, and 2 Peter 2

if someone is spreading false teachings that do not hold up to scripture.....then why agree with them?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:26
I believe you have actually just reinforced my point.

Well, it's not saying that we avoid division. Anytime you tell someone that they're wrong, there's division.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:27
But, wouldn't blindly following be a good thing, if it were to be the 'right someone'?

there is not a human in the world that is "right" enough for anyone to follow blindly.

I seek understanding through prayer, and scripture.

I can't see myself trusting someone else to tell me what is "right" without testing it.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:28
As I said: I think that all of them are bullshit. I believe in Catholic theology, and so did the Apostles and their successors.

I wasn't talking to you. But while we're on the subject, what is the Roman Catholic stance? Or do they not take one?

I think you should read the explanations. It's not the kind of theological division you think it is.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:28
yes, maybe you should read 1 Timothy 6, and 2 Peter 2

if someone is spreading false teachings that do not hold up to scripture.....then why agree with them?

http://fisheaters.com/challenge.html
http://fisheaters.com/solascriptura.html
http://fisheaters.com/septuagint.html
http://fisheaters.com/rock.html
http://fisheaters.com/callingmenfather.html
http://fisheaters.com/solafide.html
http://fisheaters.com/baptism.html
http://fisheaters.com/mass.html

Have fun. :cool:
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:29
What is the Roman Catholic stance?

I don't even know what the question is. What are those theologies addressing?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:31
Yes, I agree it is. I don't really understand what you're saying.

okay, let me see if I can stretch the analogy to fit (because as bad as it is I am attached to it for some reason)

Lets say Covenant theology is making a cake, it falls in the oven and has a huge hole in the middle.......I have the feeling you guys just frost over that to make it look pretty on the outside without worrying about the structural problems in the cake.

What new covenant theology has done is gone in and figured out why the cake fell, changed a few things up, baked a new cake that is good on the inside, and offered it up.

:rolleyes: I don't think I did it........you know, making the analogy work.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:31
I don't even know what the question is. What are those theologies addressing?

How salvation in the New and Old Testaments are related.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:32
okay, let me see if I can stretch the analogy to fit (because as bad as it is I am attached to it for some reason)

Lets say Covenant theology is making a cake, it falls in the oven and has a huge hole in the middle.......I have the feeling you guys just frost over that to make it look pretty on the outside without worrying about the structural problems in the cake.

What new covenant theology has done is gone in and figured out why the cake fell, changed a few things up, baked a new cake that is good on the inside, and offered it up.

:rolleyes: I don't think I did it........you know, making the analogy work.

I don't understand the analogy. Just give me the bloody question. What are the theologies adressing? Don't give me analogies.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:33
okay, let me see if I can stretch the analogy to fit (because as bad as it is I am attached to it for some reason)

Lets say Covenant theology is making a cake, it falls in the oven and has a huge hole in the middle.......I have the feeling you guys just frost over that to make it look pretty on the outside without worrying about the structural problems in the cake.

What new covenant theology has done is gone in and figured out why the cake fell, changed a few things up, baked a new cake that is good on the inside, and offered it up.

:rolleyes: I don't think I did it........you know, making the analogy work.

Well, it works for your point. I don't know that it's good (or accurate), but it works. I don't know what holes you're talking about, or how New Covenant claims to fix them, because, as I said, I just found out about New Covenant.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:33
I don't understand the analogy. Just give me the bloody question. What are the theologies adressing? Don't give me analogies.

I wasn't talking to you.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:36
I don't understand the analogy. Just give me the bloody question. What are the theologies adressing? Don't give me analogies.

Post # 46
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 21:37
As I said: I think that all of them are bullshit. I believe in Catholic theology, and so did the Apostles and their successors.

Are you speaking of Roman Catholic theology? If you are, you're full of it. Most of the doctrine currently a part of the Roman Catholic church wasn't even thought of in the Apostles' time or through most of the early church years.

Now, if you mean "Catholic" in the sense that we are just referring to the church in general, you would be correct, but the church in general has never been uniform. Even the Apostles themselves disagreed on doctrine, if the Bible is to be believed on this point.



As for me, I'd probably have to go with "none-of-the-above", but I'd be closest to new covenant, I think.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:37
How salvation in the New and Old Testaments are related.

Gotcha!

How are they related? The Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New. For example, The Flood and the Parting of the Red Sea are prefigurements of baptism, etc.

There was no "salvation" in the OT per se, because salvation comes soley from Christ, though that isn't to say that the Jewish Patriarchs didn't achieve salvation.

Just read the Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him, all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell. On the Third day, he rose again from the dead, in fulfillment of the scriptures."

According to Catholic Theology, the patriarchs were held in a Limbo of sorts until the sorrowful passion and glorious ressurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does that answer you?
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:38
Most of the doctrine currently a part of the Roman Catholic church wasn't even thought of in the Apostles' time or through most of the early church years.

St. Justin Matyr and many others would disagree with you.
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 21:38
oh, that. I don't tend to think discussing theology falls under that, but then again discussing the color of the carpet in the church wouldn't either, until you start to fight over it.

Precisely. It's a matter of whether you discuss it in a manner that promotes love and reconciliation, or in a way that simply serves to divide Christ's body.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:39
Gotcha!

How are they related? The Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New. For example, The Flood and the Parting of the Red Sea are prefigurements of baptism, etc.

There was no "salvation" in the OT per se, because salvation comes soley from Christ, though that isn't to say that the Jewish Patriarchs didn't achieve salvation.

Just read the Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him, all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell. On the Third day, he rose again from the dead, in fulfillment of the scriptures."

According to Catholic Theology, the patriarchs were held in a Limbo of sorts until the sorrowful passion and glorious ressurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does that answer you?

do you have scriptural backing for this "limbo"?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 21:39
Gotcha!

How are they related? The Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New. For example, The Flood and the Parting of the Red Sea are prefigurements of baptism, etc.

There was no "salvation" in the OT per se, because salvation comes soley from Christ, though that isn't to say that the Jewish Patriarchs didn't achieve salvation.

Just read the Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him, all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell. On the Third day, he rose again from the dead, in fulfillment of the scriptures."

According to Catholic Theology, the patriarchs were held in a Limbo of sorts until the sorrowful passion and glorious ressurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does that answer you?

Well, that's not what was meant by the phrase "He descended into Hell" but okay, I understand your doctrine. I think it's wrong, but I understand it.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:39
Precisely. It's a matter of whether you discuss it in a manner that promotes love and reconciliation, or in a way that simply serves to divide Christ's body.

any time I discuss theology my main purpose is to find out more about myself and what I believe and why.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:42
do you have scriptural backing for this "limbo"?

A) Where in the Bible does it say it has to be in the bible?

B) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_the_Fathers
Dinaverg
08-12-2006, 21:42
Hyperdispensationalism is so long, it has to be awesome.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:47
A) Where in the Bible does it say it has to be in the bible?

B) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_the_Fathers

I was taught to test every teaching with scripture.

Scriptural backing for theological claims is very important to me.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 21:47
St. Justin Matyr and many others would disagree with you.

Oh really? He would disagree with all of the documents preserved from the early church? He would disagree that "splinter" groups existed from the beginning?

The entire point of holding councils to establish a specific canon and declare heretics was the fact that the Church Fathers were worried about how many different versions of Christianity there were out there.

The Roman Catholic church likes to pretend that the way they do things is the "way its always been" and such, but it simply isn't true.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:47
I was taught to test every teaching with scripture.

Then test that teaching too. Does it say in the bible that it must be in the bible?
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 21:50
The entire point of holding councils to establish a specific canon and declare heretics was the fact that the Church Fathers were worried about how many different versions of Christianity there were out there.

Do you consider the Gnostics to be Christian?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 21:55
Then test that teaching too. Does it say in the bible that it must be in the bible?

Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 12:32; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 2:23; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 15:2-6; Mark 7:5-13; Luke 4:4; Luke 8:4-15; Luke 24:26-27; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 3:14-15; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Revelation 22:18-19
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:02
Do you consider the Gnostics to be Christian?

I consider anyone whose purpose is to follow Christ to be Christian, so yes, I would say that Gnostic Christians were Christian. I may disagree with their viewpoints and their interpretation, but that's true of pretty much all other Christians, to a certain extent.

I find anyone who seeks to declare other views as "heretical" as if that person is somehow the authoirty on God to be rather arrogant, and view them with quite a bit of suspicion.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:06
I consider anyone whose purpose is to follow Christ to be Christian, so yes, I would say that Gnostic Christians were Christian. I may disagree with their viewpoints and their interpretation, but that's true of pretty much all other Christians, to a certain extent.

I find anyone who seeks to declare other views as "heretical" as if that person is somehow the authoirty on God to be rather arrogant, and view them with quite a bit of suspicion.

Even if their beliefs are completely contrary to Scripture?

They have no need for the death and resurrection of Christ, so there is no sacrifice for sins nor a hope of resurrection of the body, two central ideas to Christianity.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 22:07
Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 12:32; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 30:5-6;

I'm going to automatically discount these verses. These are all from the OT, and, because the NT didn't exist yet, couldn't possibly have been talking about the Bible as we know it.

Matthew 2:23; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 15:2-6; Mark 7:5-13; Luke 4:4; Luke 8:4-15; Luke 24:26-27; John 17:17; Acts 17:11;

Again, I will discount all of these because they are all from when Christ was alive, or shortly after, and thus could not have been referring to the bible as we know it.

though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Doesn't refer to the Bible. That refers to Apostolic preaching.

We also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Again, that clearly doesn't refer to the Bible. That, again, refers to Apostolic preaching.

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Wow, I can't believe you just shot yourself in the foot. That doesn't refer to the Bible. that specifically says that the Bible is not the standard to which doctrines should be held. According to that verse, the standard to which doctrines should be held is to the Church.

=2 Timothy 3:15-17]And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

What are these holy scriptures? The NT? They didn't exist yet. That's a reference to the OT.

For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, the same also hath rested from his works, as God did from his.

11 Let us hasten therefore to enter into that rest; lest any man fall into the same example of unbelief. 12 For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Is that really referring to the Bible?

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

You love destroying your own arguments, don't you?

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"... This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

Revelation 22:18-19]For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

Does that refer to the bible as a whole or soley to the book of Relevations? Likewise, that doesn't say that doctrine must soley be based on it.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:11
Even if their beliefs are completely contrary to Scripture?

You choose to accept certain politically chosen Scripture as the only Scripture. Why should they not have their own political process in choosing said Scripture.

If we take Scripture as a whole (as in, everything any Judaic or Christian church has looked at as Scripture), pretty much all Christian beliefs are contrary to Scripture.

Meanwhile, what most people mean when they say, "contrary to Scripture" is "contrary to my personal interpretation of Scripture," or "contrary to the interpretation of Scripture I was taught."

Abelard was declared heretical in his own time for being "contrary to Scripture," even though his own ideas were pulled pretty much directly from Scripture. They just weren't in line with the official Catholic interpretation, and were thus declared heretical.

They have no need for the death and resurrection of Christ, so there is no sacrifice for sins nor a hope of resurrection of the body, two central ideas to Christianity.

Actually, in Gnostic Christianity, the death and resurrection of Christ was central. It was the action that allowed human beings to actually reach the type of enlightment they sought. Gnostic Chrisitans seem to have believed that the OT God was an evil being created by the one true God. They saw Christ as being that true God - who had taken pity on the humanity that should not have been created in the first place and chosen to offer them a road to salvation.

It's not what I believe, but it would have made reconciling Christ's message with the very violent message often prevalent in the OT a moot point.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 22:12
I'm going to automatically discount these verses. These are all from the OT, and, because the NT didn't exist yet, couldn't possibly have been talking about the Bible as we know it.



Again, I will discount all of these because they are all from when Christ was alive, or shortly after, and thus could not have been referring to the bible as we know it.



Doesn't refer to the Bible. That refers to Apostolic preaching.



Again, that clearly doesn't refer to the Bible. That, again, refers to Apostolic preaching.



Wow, I can't believe you just shot yourself in the foot. That doesn't refer to the Bible. that specifically says that the Bible is not the standard to which doctrines should be held. According to that verse, the standard to which doctrines should be held is to the Church.



What are these holy scriptures? The NT? They didn't exist yet. That's a reference to the OT.



Is that really referring to the Bible?



You love destroying your own arguments, don't you?





Does that refer to the bible as a whole or soley to the book of Relevations? Likewise, that doesn't say that doctrine must soley be based on it.

so you dismiss all scripture? interesting.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:15
so you dismiss all scripture? interesting.

Now Smunkee, that isn't fair. It's pretty clear that he isn't dismissing the Scripture you quoted. He is simply suggesting that it doesn't say what you think it says - that your interpretation of it is wrong.

You may disagree, but nothing within there suggested that he rejects all Scripture.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 22:16
so you dismiss all scripture? interesting.

No, no, no. I am not saying that we should dismiss scripture. Sacred Scripture is an incredibly good thing. My point, however, is that the Bible does not in fact say that we must look soley to it, or even claims itself as authorative.

My point is that the Bible specifically says that we must listen, not to the Bible, but to the Church and to Apostolic Tradition.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

My point is that the Faith does not begin and end with the Bible. The Bible leads us to the Church of the Apostles, which is the Body of Christ and the Earthly Kingdom of God.
Maineiacs
08-12-2006, 22:17
Hyperdispensationalism, definitely. I believe that without Paul of Tarsus, Christianity would have sunk back into Judaism and if remembered at all, would be a single paragraph about yet another person who claimed to be the Messiah.

Hyperdispensationalism puts Paul ahead of Jesus. I have a very serious problem with that.
Dinaverg
08-12-2006, 22:19
Now Smunkee, that isn't fair. It's pretty clear that he isn't dismissing the Scripture you quoted. .

*coughI'm going to automatically discount these versescough*
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:20
You choose to accept certain politically chosen Scripture as the only Scripture. Why should they not have their own political process in choosing said Scripture.

If they want to have their own set of Scripture, fine. But I won't call them Christians. I'll call them Gnostics.

If we take Scripture as a whole (as in, everything any Judaic or Christian church has looked at as Scripture), pretty much all Christian beliefs are contrary to Scripture.

Ehh, I disagree.

Meanwhile, what most people mean when they say, "contrary to Scripture" is "contrary to my personal interpretation of Scripture," or "contrary to the interpretation of Scripture I was taught."

Sadly, yes, that is what most people mean.

Abelard was declared heretical in his own time for being "contrary to Scripture," even though his own ideas were pulled pretty much directly from Scripture. They just weren't in line with the official Catholic interpretation, and were thus declared heretical.

You can be a Christian and be a heretic. Look at the Arminians, IMO.

Actually, in Gnostic Christianity, the death and resurrection of Christ was central. It was the action that allowed human beings to actually reach the type of enlightment they sought. Gnostic Chrisitans seem to have believed that the OT God was an evil being created by the one true God. They saw Christ as being that true God - who had taken pity on the humanity that should not have been created in the first place and chosen to offer them a road to salvation.

That's not what I have read about the Gnostics.

It's not what I believe, but it would have made reconciling Christ's message with the very violent message often prevalent in the OT a moot point.

Eh, I think it's quite easily reconciled.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 22:22
*coughcough*

You are amphibolizing. You know that's not what I meant.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 22:26
You are amphibolizing. You know that's not what I meant.

I don't think so, when you say "I am going to dismiss this" I have to say that you meant that you were going to dismiss it, unless you are lying.

You basically said "oh, well, the Bible didn't exist yet as we know it, so when they speak about God breathed scripture they aren't talking about the Bible"

so you in effect dismiss all scripture.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 22:27
I don't think so, when you say "I am going to dismiss this" I have to say that you meant that you were going to dismiss it, unless you are lying.

You basically said "oh, well, the Bible didn't exist yet as we know it, so when they speak about God breathed scripture they aren't talking about the Bible"

Precisely. How the hell can they be talking about the Bible if it didn't exist yet?

so you in effect dismiss all scripture.

Not really.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:29
*coughcough*

Now, you're taking things out of context. He was discounting them as being relevant to her argument, not in general.


If they want to have their own set of Scripture, fine. But I won't call them Christians. I'll call them Gnostics.

So none of the early church Christians were Christians? You do realize that, before an official canon was set, individual churches all established their own sets of Scripture and which ones they saw as most important?

By this logic, none of the Apostles were Christians, and none of the pre-council churches contained Christians.

Ehh, I disagree.

How much Scripture have you read outside of the current Protestant or Catholic canon? How many of the texts rejected by the council of Nicea have you read? How many of the rejected Gospels?

Sadly, yes, that is what most people mean.

But you think you're immune to using it in that way? I highly doubt it, considering I've seen you do it.

Note, this isn't an attack, I think we all do it. But I also think we should be careful and try to keep from doing so.

You can be a Christian and be a heretic. Look at the Arminians, IMO.

In that case, the Gnostic Christians can be viewed Christian.

That's not what I have read about the Gnostics.

The Gnostics were a large group of different ideologies. Those who claimed to follow Christ were a subset of all Gnostics.

Eh, I think it's quite easily reconciled.

Indeed?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 22:29
Precisely. How the hell can they be talking about the Bible if it didn't exist yet?
how could it have anything to say to you if you didn't exist yet?


Not really.
yes, really.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:31
I don't think so, when you say "I am going to dismiss this" I have to say that you meant that you were going to dismiss it, unless you are lying.

And yet it was incredibly clear that he meant he was dismissing it as irrelevant to your argument, not in general.

You basically said "oh, well, the Bible didn't exist yet as we know it, so when they speak about God breathed scripture they aren't talking about the Bible"

He's right. How could they have been talking about the Bible, especially the Bible as we know it, if it didn't even yet exist? Much of the Scripture now included didn't exist. The particular grouping of subsets of Scripture into the Bible didn't exist.

The Bible itself - the official canon - was basically put together by a pseudo-democratic process. One would assume that these verses would have referred to Scripture as it was then known - which means a great deal of Scripture was excluded from the Bible, and Scripture that was not yet around when these verses were written was included.
The Fourth Holy Reich
08-12-2006, 22:32
how could it have anything to say to you if you didn't exist yet?

That is an incredibly weak analogy.

yes, really.

I acknowledge that the Bible is authorative, not because the Bible says so (and it doesn't), but because the Church of the Apostles said so.
Maineiacs
08-12-2006, 22:33
Sadly, yes, that is what most people mean.

Don't you hate it when people take it upon themselves to tell you that you must accept their interpretation, even though they're no more experts than you are?



You can be a Christian and be a heretic. Look at the Arminians, IMO.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone that doesn't go to your specific church that you don't consider a heretic? Your posts on this forum would not seem to indicate that there is.
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:37
So none of the early church Christians were Christians? You do realize that, before an official canon was set, individual churches all established their own sets of Scripture and which ones they saw as most important?

And now we have an official Canon. And we are to follow it. It was chosen for a reason: they were the books written by Prophets, Apostles, or those once removed from them. Any others were rejected.

By this logic, none of the Apostles were Christians, and none of the pre-council churches contained Christians.

That's not what I said. Gnostics accept works as scripture which cannot be directly connected to the Apostles. Individual churches may not have had the complete Canon, but they did have it.

How much Scripture have you read outside of the current Protestant or Catholic canon? How many of the texts rejected by the council of Nicea have you read? How many of the rejected Gospels?

None, and as soon as I'm able, I intend to change that.

But you think you're immune to using it in that way? I highly doubt it, considering I've seen you do it.

That's why I try to always refer to Scripture. It's hard because sometimes I don't have a Bible or I get caught up in the debate. But, I should always provide Scripture to support my view and Scripture to refute opposing views.

Note, this isn't an attack, I think we all do it. But I also think we should be careful and try to keep from doing so.

Of course and of course.

In that case, the Gnostic Christians can be viewed Christian.

No, there are some things one needs to believe to be a Christian. But Christians can disagree on finer points. Arminians and Calvinists cannot both be right, so at least one group must be heretical, but they are both Christian.

The Gnostics were a large group of different ideologies. Those who claimed to follow Christ were a subset of all Gnostics.

The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses claim to follow Christ, but they are not Christian either.

Indeed?

Indeed.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 22:37
And yet it was incredibly clear that he meant he was dismissing it as irrelevant to your argument, not in general.
one of the verses he discounted was attributed to Jesus (which he "automatically discounted because it was when Jesus was alive) it directly supports my argument that scripture is held in higher regard than tradition.

Matthew 15:2-6

2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.





He's right. How could they have been talking about the Bible, especially the Bible as we know it, if it didn't even yet exist? Much of the Scripture now included didn't exist. The particular grouping of subsets of Scripture into the Bible didn't exist.

The Bible itself - the official canon - was basically put together by a pseudo-democratic process. One would assume that these verses would have referred to Scripture as it was then known - which means a great deal of Scripture was excluded from the Bible, and Scripture that was not yet around when these verses were written was included.
I guess that would depend on what you believe about the Bible.



That is an incredibly weak analogy.
how so?

I acknowledge that the Bible is authorative, not because the Bible says so (and it doesn't), but because the Church of the Apostles said so.
but not as authoritative as tradition?
United Beleriand
08-12-2006, 22:40
Just wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Most people go on happily without considering it, but I think it is an important issue.

Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/Covenant_theology

New Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology

Dispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism

Hyperdispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-dispensationalism

I'm a firm adherent to covenant theology.So if you adhere to a theology, what do you know about non-Christian gods?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:45
Don't you hate it when people take it upon themselves to tell you that you must accept their interpretation, even though they're no more experts than you are?

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that people need to look at Scripture and ask themselves "Should I support this interpretation? Is this a big enough deal to make a fuss about?"

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone that doesn't go to your specific church that you don't consider a heretic? Your posts on this forum would not seem to indicate that there is.

Lol!

What is heresy? It's just incorrect doctrine. And what's doctrine? It's just religious teaching.

I think that the vast majority of people in the world, as well as in my individual church, are heretics. I have to label them as such. My conscience is captive to Scripture and if I am convinced Scripture teaches something, then I must call that thing doctrine. And anything that disagrees with that doctrine must be called heresy, and its supporters heretics.

Does that mean that I make a fuss about it and demand that they be excommunicated over everything? No. But there are some things which have enough of an impact to fuss over and I do.

There is no one who I do not consider to be a heretic. Some I consider to be less than others, but I don't agree with anyone 100%. And I probably have some heresy in there somewhere. But I can't see it to label it as such, or else I would get rid of it and could no longer call myself a heretic.

EDIT: Example: I have a firend who thinks that it is okay to call God the Father "Daddy" I think that is overstepping the boundaries prescribed for us in worship, so I belive she is supporting false teaching or heresy. Do I make a fuss over it? No, but we discuss it. But we are in agreement about predestination, so I would not call her a heretic in that respect. Make sense?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:45
So if you adhere to a theology, what do you know about non-Christian gods?

Pardon?
United Beleriand
08-12-2006, 22:47
Pardon?What do you know about Mesopotamian gods, for an instance? What do you know about Yah? You know that god the Jews claim as their own and of which Yeshua is allegedly an incarnation?
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 22:49
What do you know about Mesopotamian gods, for an instance? What do you know about Yah? You know that god the Jews claim as their own and of which Yeshua is allegedly an incarnation?

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're asking.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 22:55
And now we have an official Canon. And we are to follow it. It was chosen for a reason: they were the books written by Prophets, Apostles, or those once removed from them. Any others were rejected.

Many books that churches held as written by prophets, apsotles, or those once removed from them were also rejected. Many texts held sacred in Judaism were rejected, while some were accepted.

Let's be honest here. In the end, the canon came down to two things: "Which Scriptures are used by the most churches and/or the most important churches?" and "Let's get rid of any books that might contradict some of these others we like."

That's not what I said. Gnostics accept works as scripture which cannot be directly connected to the Apostles.

So does the Bible. So?

Individual churches may not have had the complete Canon, but they did have it.

They all had very different canons. Most churches used, as Scripture, some texts that were not included in the canon and may even have been deemed heretical. Most churches did not use, as Scripture, texts that were actually included in the end.

None, and as soon as I'm able, I intend to change that.

Do you think you'll find anything of spiritual use to you?

That's why I try to always refer to Scripture. It's hard because sometimes I don't have a Bible or I get caught up in the debate. But, I should always provide Scripture to support my view and Scripture to refute opposing views.

And yet you generally ignore that, with just a slightly different interpretation or a stronger emphasis on a different portion of Scripture, your view can be refuted.

All of our beliefs are highly dependent upon our interpretation of Scripture (and how we view Scripture itself). They are all dependent on which portions we emphasize, in our own minds or to others.

There are very few beliefs that you can refute using Scripture without falling back on your own personal interpretation to do it.

No, there are some things one needs to believe to be a Christian.

Who determines these? You?

The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses claim to follow Christ, but they are not Christian either.

According to what authority? You?


one of the verses he discounted was attributed to Jesus (which he "automatically discounted because it was when Jesus was alive) it directly supports my argument that scripture is held in higher regard than tradition.

But what does Jesus mean by Scripture? None of the Gospels were written at this point in time. None of Paul's letters had been written. Some of the texts originally included in the canon but not included in the Protestant Bible had not yet been written.

I think that Reich's point is that Jesus wasn't referring to these books when he said Scripture because they didn't yet exist. He was referring to Scripture as it was held by the Jews of the time (quite a bit of which isn't included in the Bible, btw).

You believe that these words apply to those books written after Christ that you view as Scripture, but that is your personal interpretation, not something directly stated in the text.

I guess that would depend on what you believe about the Bible.

No, that would be historical fact.

Now, you may believe that the council was gifted with infallibility in these matters and that they would only choose the right Scripture, but the fact that many books that had been held as Scripture were rejected and that the selection process was based mostly upon the number and power of the churches which used a given text is just part of history.


I acknowledge that the Bible is authorative, not because the Bible says so (and it doesn't), but because the Church of the Apostles said so.
but not as authoritative as tradition?

Even you will have a great deal of trouble separating the two, Smunkee. Your interpretation of any given passage is going to rely heavily upon tradition - upon your understanding of the Scripture as a whole, which is, itself, based heavily in tradition. Things have changed over the years, but I've found that it is very difficult indeed for someone to look to an interpretation different from the traditional one, even when nothing in the text actually refutes that interpretation.
United Beleriand
08-12-2006, 22:58
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're asking.Theology means to study the gods. So what have you learned? Are you trying to play dumb again?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 22:59
Even you will have a great deal of trouble separating the two, Smunkee. Your interpretation of any given passage is going to rely heavily upon tradition - upon your understanding of the Scripture as a whole, which is, itself, based heavily in tradition. Things have changed over the years, but I've found that it is very difficult indeed for someone to look to an interpretation different from the traditional one, even when nothing in the text actually refutes that interpretation.

I think I can effectively separate what has scriptural backing and what is a "traditional" belief with no scriptural backing.

I have a huge problem with someone who puts tradition on the same level as scripture, some one who will say "oh, well, someone said that a long time ago and I don't really have any way to know it's true but since they had a funny hat I am going to go ahead and say it's true"
Farnhamia
08-12-2006, 22:59
Theology means to study the gods. So what have you learned? Are you trying to play dumb again?

You're being silly. If you've spent any time here, you know Edward is discussing Christianity. :rolleyes:
Edwardis
08-12-2006, 23:01
Theology means to study the gods. So what have you learned? Are you trying to play dumb again?

I'm talking about (in this thread at least) the study of God's work of salvation and how it is the same/differs in the Old and New Testaments.
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 23:01
I think I can effectively separate what has scriptural backing and what is a "traditional" belief with no scriptural backing.

I have a huge problem with someone who puts tradition on the same level as scripture, some one who will say "oh, well, someone said that a long time ago and I don't really have any way to know it's true but since they had a funny hat I am going to go ahead and say it's true"

lol

And that's substantively different from appealing to the authority of the writings of a bunch of crazy Jewish guys throughout history?

Sorry, don't think so.
Moosle
08-12-2006, 23:03
TFHR, I have two problems with your argument:

1. In the OT it says that all scripture are god-breathed. Yes, I realize that that was OT, and the NT was not in existence at that time. However, the NT has become scripture according to the traditions of your church. Since the passage in the OT merely states that all scripture is god-breathed, and the NT is defined as scripture by your church, then you must also agree that the NT is god-breathed. If p then q / p/ therefore q.

2. By the traditions of your church, the Bible is the benchmark. They are the one's who believe that the Bible is truth, and infallible, and god-inspired and all that. If you wish to use the traditions of the church as your benchmark of theology, then you must utilize the Bible as an authority, since Bible-as-authority is a tradition of your church.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:03
lol

And that's substantively different from appealing to the authority of the writings of a bunch of crazy Jewish guys throughout history?

Sorry, don't think so.

I was totally expecting that :p
United Beleriand
08-12-2006, 23:04
You're being silly. If you've spent any time here, you know Edward is discussing Christianity. :rolleyes:Well, since Christianity is limited to one belief and one deity there is no objectivity in it and thus it cannot be called theology. Any -logy must be objective and must allow for alternative interpretations. So to study theology you should start in the beginning, and surely not with Christianity.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 23:04
I think I can effectively separate what has scriptural backing and what is a "traditional" belief with no scriptural backing.

And what about a traditional belief with scriptural backing? As a general rule, you (and most people) will most likely reject a new interpretation of scripture, even if it has just as much (or more) scriptural backing than the "traditional" view, because your view of Scripture itself is heavily molded by tradition.

I have a huge problem with someone who puts tradition on the same level as scripture, some one who will say "oh, well, someone said that a long time ago and I don't really have any way to know it's true but since they had a funny hat I am going to go ahead and say it's true"

So why exactly do you think that Bible is a proper set of Scripture? All you have is the word of a bunch of men in funny hats that they were divinely inspired to pick the right texts.

I understand that you don't want something that is purely tradition to take precedence over something you view as purely Scriptural, but that is an extreme. In the end, tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. Fully separating them would require reading Scripture without ever having heard anything about it ahead of time and interpreting it all on your own.
United Beleriand
08-12-2006, 23:06
I'm talking about (in this thread at least) the study of God's work of salvation and how it is the same/differs in the Old and New Testaments.So you would certainly first want to nail down what god you are really talking about, don't you? In the case of the Christian god that would be Yah, with all the attributes assigned to him since ancient Mesopotamian times, right?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:07
And what about a traditional belief with scriptural backing? As a general rule, you (and most people) will most likely reject a new interpretation of scripture, even if it has just as much (or more) scriptural backing than the "traditional" view, because your view of Scripture itself is heavily molded by tradition.



So why exactly do you think that Bible is a proper set of Scripture? All you have is the word of a bunch of men in funny hats that they were divinely inspired to pick the right texts.

I understand that you don't want something that is purely tradition to take precedence over something you view as purely Scriptural, but that is an extreme. In the end, tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. Fully separating them would require reading Scripture without ever having heard anything about it ahead of time and interpreting it all on your own.

in the end it becomes circular logic.....

I don't know that I can explain this to someone who believes so very differently than I do.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 23:07
I'm talking about (in this thread at least) the study of God's work of salvation and how it is the same/differs in the Old and New Testaments.

Maybe soteriology would have been a better term, but then a lot of people might have ignored the thread because they were unfamiliar with the word.
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 23:08
in the end it becomes circular logic.....

I don't know that I can explain this to someone who believes so very differently than I do.

Are our beliefs really all that different?
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:08
Maybe soteriology would have been a better term, but then a lot of people might have ignored the thread because they were unfamiliar with the word.

true, he probably would have gotten stuck debating me though.
Ashmoria
08-12-2006, 23:08
Even if their beliefs are completely contrary to Scripture?

They have no need for the death and resurrection of Christ, so there is no sacrifice for sins nor a hope of resurrection of the body, two central ideas to Christianity.

this is why an emphasis on the minutia of theology is a bad thing. if gnostic christians believed in jesus and followed his teachings, why would it matter if they got the idea of the ressurection wrong? isnt jesus more important than getting the details completely correct in your head?

if they are christians, they will partake in salvation no matter whether they knew it was part of the package or not.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:09
Are our beliefs really all that different?

as far as I can tell with past experience they are vastly different.
Ashmoria
08-12-2006, 23:14
I think I can effectively separate what has scriptural backing and what is a "traditional" belief with no scriptural backing.

I have a huge problem with someone who puts tradition on the same level as scripture, some one who will say "oh, well, someone said that a long time ago and I don't really have any way to know it's true but since they had a funny hat I am going to go ahead and say it's true"

yeah but you still have to get past that part where the books of the bible were decided by committee. by a bunch of men almost none of whom would have agreed with your personal theology. men who you would not have recognized as having any authority over you.

the bible IS tradition. some ideas were kept, some were trashed but it was decided by prevailing political powers not by god.
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 23:38
I was totally expecting that :p

Heh. Do you just know me too well already, or is it just a general expectation about this forum? :p
Dempublicents1
08-12-2006, 23:40
as far as I can tell with past experience they are vastly different.

Strange. I've always gotten the impression that we disagreed on some of the details, but weren't all that different in the end.

the bible IS tradition. some ideas were kept, some were trashed but it was decided by prevailing political powers not by god.

To be fair, many people believe that the "prevailing political powers" were controlled in this act by God, so that God truly did decide what was kept and what was not.
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:46
Heh. Do you just know me too well already, or is it just a general expectation about this forum? :p

ah, I knew that you had been in the thread previously and were far too intelligent to let that pass without comment.
Texan Hotrodders
08-12-2006, 23:47
Strange. I've always gotten the impression that we disagreed on some of the details, but weren't all that different in the end.

That was my impression too. I really don't see a massive gap between her beliefs and yours.

ah, I knew that you had been in the thread previously and were far too intelligent to let that pass without comment.

Is Smunkee flattering me? :eek:
Smunkeeville
08-12-2006, 23:58
That was my impression too. I really don't see a massive gap between her beliefs and yours.
I am working on information from a debate around November of 2005......could be wrong though.



Is Smunkee flattering me? :eek:

not a chance ;)
Dempublicents1
09-12-2006, 00:33
I am working on information from a debate around November of 2005......could be wrong though.

What were we debating?
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 00:59
To be fair, many people believe that the "prevailing political powers" were controlled in this act by God, so that God truly did decide what was kept and what was not.

yes but THATS a tradition that is definitely not covered by scripture.
Vegan Nuts
09-12-2006, 01:19
Just wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Most people go on happily without considering it, but I think it is an important issue.

Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/Covenant_theology

New Covenant Theology - http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology

Dispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism

Hyperdispensationalism - http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-dispensationalism

I'm a firm adherent to covenant theology.

boo. none of these represent a traditional christian understanding (unless a 180 year old theory held by a small minority can be said to be "Traditional" with respect to a 2000 year old religion), and none of them even make logical sense. the "hyper-dispensationalists" are blatent heretics. christians do not consider the gospels irrelevent. dispensationalism was invented in the 1820s and is an innovation in every respect as baseless in the christian tradition and damaging to ones understanding of God as the selling of indulgences. covenant theology isn't as explicitly heretical as dispensationalism, though as "new covenant theology" is described as being a middle ground between the former and dispensationalism, it's just as wrong. the only theology with any basis in the beliefs of the ancient church is that of Theosis, and Agnosia.
The Fourth Holy Reich
09-12-2006, 01:32
1. In the OT it says that all scripture are god-breathed. Yes, I realize that that was OT, and the NT was not in existence at that time. However, the NT has become scripture according to the traditions of your church.

Sure, they are scripture. But they aren't the scriptures to which are being referred. Your point is moot.

2. By the traditions of your church, the Bible is the benchmark. They are the one's who believe that the Bible is truth, and infallible, and god-inspired and all that. If you wish to use the traditions of the church as your benchmark of theology, then you must utilize the Bible as an authority, since Bible-as-authority is a tradition of your church.

I never claimed the Bible was not authoratative.
Moosle
09-12-2006, 01:48
Sure, they are scripture. But they aren't the scriptures to which are being referred. Your point is moot.

I disagree. If all scripture is god-breathed, and the NT is scripture, then why is it not also god-breathed?

If I say all grilled cheese sandwiches are made with cheese, then the grilled cheese sandwhiches made in the future are also made with cheese; not just the grilled cheese sandwiches that were previously or presently in existence.


I never claimed the Bible was not authoratative.

I realize this, but you also seem to argue that it is fallible. I may have misunderstood this point; however, if you are arguing it is fallible, then this stance goes against the traditions of the Catholic church.
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 01:53
I disagree. If all scripture is god-breathed, and the NT is scripture, then why is it not also god-breathed?

If I say all grilled cheese sandwiches are made with cheese, then the grilled cheese sandwhiches made in the future are also made with cheese; not just the grilled cheese sandwiches that were previously or presently in existence.


sometimes a PB&J sandwich gets mislabled as grilled cheese?

why would the declaration of one set of scriptures as being "god breathed" mean that anything that anyone lables as scripture is also godbreathed? is the book of mormon god breathed?
Moosle
09-12-2006, 02:12
sometimes a PB&J sandwich gets mislabled as grilled cheese?

why would the declaration of one set of scriptures as being "god breathed" mean that anything that anyone lables as scripture is also godbreathed? is the book of mormon god breathed?

I was waiting for this objection. Here's why it doesn't work here:

This argument exists within the framework of Catholic ideology.
They accept the OT as Scripture.
They accept the NT as Scripture.
They do not accept the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc as Scripture.

Since in the OT it says that all Scripture is god-breathed, then all those writings that Catholics accept as Scripture are therefore god-breathed.
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 02:22
I was waiting for this objection. Here's why it doesn't work here:

This argument exists within the framework of Catholic ideology.
They accept the OT as Scripture.
They accept the NT as Scripture.
They do not accept the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc as Scripture.

Since in the OT it says that all Scripture is god-breathed, then all those writings that Catholics accept as Scripture are therefore god-breathed.

yeah but i dont have a clue as to what "god breathed" means. i was just making a point.

in any case, the catholic church doesnt consider the bible the inerrant word of god, thats a protestant thing.

after the edit:

AND

anyone can claim it but it still doesnt follow that anything written after the verse that says its god breathed comes under the aegis of that verse. that which didnt exist cant have been included by the writer.
Smunkeeville
09-12-2006, 02:24
What were we debating?

substitutionary atonement.
The Fourth Holy Reich
09-12-2006, 02:35
in any case, the catholic church doesnt consider the bible the inerrant word of god, thats a protestant thing.

Um...no. We do in fact consider the Bible completely inerrant, albeit not necessarily entirely literal.

I am just saying that the verses she brought up are about the OT, not the NT. The bible is not the only source of doctrine was the point I was trying to make.
Smunkeeville
09-12-2006, 02:39
Um...no. We do in fact consider the Bible completely inerrant, albeit not necessarily entirely literal.

I am just saying that the verses she brought up are about the OT, not the NT. The bible is not the only source of doctrine was the point I was trying to make.

if it's inerrant and it says that all scripture is God-breathed, which it does in the OT and in the NT (which you dismissed because "it wasn't the Bible yet") then it can't be wrong (you know that's what inerrant means right)

if it is wrong, then it's not inerrant, it's fallible, if it is fallible then you would have to dismiss all of it wouldn't you?
Texan Hotrodders
09-12-2006, 02:44
if it's inerrant and it says that all scripture is God-breathed, which it does in the OT and in the NT (which you dismissed because "it wasn't the Bible yet") then it can't be wrong (you know that's what inerrant means right)

if it is wrong, then it's not inerrant, it's fallible, if it is fallible then you would have to dismiss all of it wouldn't you?

I'm fallible. Would you have dismiss everything I say, Smunkee?
Smunkeeville
09-12-2006, 02:46
I'm fallible. Would you have dismiss everything I say, Smunkee?

I don't know?

haha. yet, again, I was waiting for it.

TFHR can't call the Bible inerrant and yet say that it was mistaken about something.......

If the Bible is fallible then there is no way to know what is true and what is false and being the nature of the supernatural it's not exactly something you can objectively test.
Moosle
09-12-2006, 02:50
yeah but i dont have a clue as to what "god breathed" means. i was just making a point.

god-breathed means god-inspired, and is the generally accepted proof given by Christians that the Bible is infallible. (ie, it says it is inspired by god, god is infallible, therefore the Bible is infallible. Pay no attention that it's circular)

AND

anyone can claim it but it still doesnt follow that anything written after the verse that says its god breathed comes under the aegis of that verse. that which didnt exist cant have been included by the writer.

Once again, this must be looked at from within the framework of Catholic ideology. Assuming all Catholic assumptions are true:

The author's intentions do not matter. The author is merely a tool of god. God knew that there would be more scripture, blah blah blah.

Furthermore, If they accept that the Bible is true, then all the verses are true. If all the verses are true, then that OT verse is true. If that OT verse is true, well, there you have it.

Last thing. I just found this:

Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (stuff in parenthesis by the website I got quote from-- explanations from the horse's mouth, as it were)

There's the god-breathed, in the New Testament.
Jimanistan
09-12-2006, 03:03
I don't go for pre-defined approaches to God. I go my own way, and if it's wrong I pray I am forgiven. And this is an odd position from a catholic:)
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 03:15
god-breathed means god-inspired, and is the generally accepted proof given by Christians that the Bible is infallible. (ie, it says it is inspired by god, god is infallible, therefore the Bible is infallible. Pay no attention that it's circular)


when the RCs use the word infallible they dont mean the same thing that protestants do when they use the word. the RCs dont believe in a literal garden of eden with a literal 6 days of creation. the protestant fundamentalists do.


Once again, this must be looked at from within the framework of Catholic ideology. Assuming all Catholic assumptions are true:

The author's intentions do not matter. The author is merely a tool of god. God knew that there would be more scripture, blah blah blah.


of course. i was just pointing out that it wasnt logical. theology doesnt have to be logical in that way.
Moosle
09-12-2006, 03:19
when the RCs use the word infallible they dont mean the same thing that protestants do when they use the word. the RCs dont believe in a literal garden of eden with a literal 6 days of creation. the protestant fundamentalists do.

Mmm. I think that Protestants are more diversified. Sure, some go for a literal interpretation, but that's just the fundies. I would say the majority have an interpretation view similar to the Catholics, in regards to literal or no.

of course. i was just pointing out that it wasnt logical. theology doesnt have to be logical in that way.

::thumbs up::
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 03:25
Mmm. I think that Protestants are more diversified. Sure, some go for a literal interpretation, but that's just the fundies. I would say the majority have an interpretation view similar to the Catholics, in regards to literal or no.



::thumbs up::

yeah i know. thats why i used the word fundamentalist to describe those who believe in a literal interpretation of the book of genesis. its probably not the best word to use but i couldnt think of a better one.

while i dont think that the sort of theology mentioned in the OP is particularly useful for christians, i do think that the variety of belief, emphasis and worship styles put forth by the various protestant sects help more people embrace a christian life.
The Fourth Holy Reich
09-12-2006, 03:31
I don't go for pre-defined approaches to God. I go my own way, and if it's wrong I pray I am forgiven. And this is an odd position from a catholic:)

No, it isn't an odd position. It is a heretical position.
Ashmoria
09-12-2006, 03:44
No, it isn't an odd position. It is a heretical position.

whats a little heresy between friends?
Texan Hotrodders
09-12-2006, 17:24
I don't know?

haha. yet, again, I was waiting for it.

TFHR can't call the Bible inerrant and yet say that it was mistaken about something.......

If the Bible is fallible then there is no way to know what is true and what is false and being the nature of the supernatural it's not exactly something you can objectively test.

Sure there is. It's called faith. I'm fairly sure you're familiar with it. ;)

You have faith in God, a God that you have a personal relationship with. This God loves you and the rest of creation immensely, and you can feel that.

So when you look at the scripture used by the community, use your faith to interpret it. Does it show the loving God that you have a relationship with? Does it show God's love for all of creation?

If not, don't accept it as true.
Maineiacs
09-12-2006, 18:53
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that people need to look at Scripture and ask themselves "Should I support this interpretation? Is this a big enough deal to make a fuss about?"

You completely missed my point, didn't you?

Lol!

What is heresy? It's just incorrect doctrine. And what's doctrine? It's just religious teaching.

I think that the vast majority of people in the world, as well as in my individual church, are heretics. I have to label them as such. My conscience is captive to Scripture and if I am convinced Scripture teaches something, then I must call that thing doctrine. And anything that disagrees with that doctrine must be called heresy, and its supporters heretics.

Does that mean that I make a fuss about it and demand that they be excommunicated over everything? No. But there are some things which have enough of an impact to fuss over and I do.

I find this very sad. What a bleak life you must lead. Don't you find it tiring to be so judgemental 24/7?

There is no one who I do not consider to be a heretic. Some I consider to be less than others, but I don't agree with anyone 100%. And I probably have some heresy in there somewhere. But I can't see it to label it as such, or else I would get rid of it and could no longer call myself a heretic.

EDIT: Example: I have a firend who thinks that it is okay to call God the Father "Daddy" I think that is overstepping the boundaries prescribed for us in worship, so I belive she is supporting false teaching or heresy. Do I make a fuss over it? No, but we discuss it. But we are in agreement about predestination, so I would not call her a heretic in that respect.

The part I bolded illustrates my point. Why should it be your interpretation that determines who is or isn't a heretic? What makes you so special?


Make sense?

Not really, no.
New Domici
09-12-2006, 20:40
I never said that you had to be a great theologian to be a Christian. I said that I think the issue of how God opens salvation to Man is an important one that ought to be discussed.

Ok. How does this fit?

Jesus was not there to serve as a sacraficial goat that earns us all forgiveness as if we had given God a share of our livestock.

By his example we were shown a life that is lived for a purpose that trancends mortal concerns.

The problem with most modern conservative theologies is that they take it literally. They think that Jesus paid a price to get God to say "Ok, enough suffering has happened, so now people just have to buy into it and I'll allow them into heaven."

One thing that Catholics have to their credit is that they understand that hell isn't a place. It's a condition of your spirit.

Too much of the theological discourse in America is dominated by people who think that at the end of the world they'll be scooped bodily into heaven and those who have already died, and deserve it, will have their bodies restored to them.

Christ himself said "in the afterlife we will be as the angels, neither male nor female." i.e. Heaven is the condition of your soul shorn of all earthly attributes. This includes things like moods, family attachments, a sense of yourself as distinct from others.

To be in hell does not mean that you are in a location apart from others. It means that you identify with material and transitory things as being you or a part of you. If you think that in heaven you will feel and think as you do now and have not developed that part of you that sees beyond those things, then you will loose what you consider to be yourself. Because you have identified with the part of you that must die.

That's why "the wages of sin is death." All physical passions are temporary. Justice at wrongs avenged, pride in a job well done, the love of a family, these things are sin every bit as much as casual sex and excessive drinking.

Christ did not earn your way into heaven by getting the cosmic bouncer to you let you in despite your shortcomings. You can't get into heaven and be angry, arrogant, cheerful, enthusiastic or any other feeling that stems from glands in your endocrine system. That part of you will be gone. Christ gave you the chance to get into heaven by showing you what it means to live without those things so that when they're gone, you won't miss them. But of course, we also got that from Buddha and from the Shamans of most hunter-gatherer societies and countless other sources. Such a basic truth of the human condition cannot be held by a monopoly of any one group.

The problem with virtually all Christian groups is that they think that if you don't join them, you're going to hell. And that if you do, you will be preserved, as you are, forever. You won't. Get over it. When you do, and if you did it by studying Christs example, then you'll be a Christian. If you think that by asking him to forgive you for your sins and just trying to be "a better Christian," you'll have a get out of hell free card, you're mistaken. And if you think that it means you get Skybox tickets to the apocalypse... well you might as well get your theology from the Brothers Grimm.
New Domici
09-12-2006, 20:42
Sure there is. It's called faith. I'm fairly sure you're familiar with it. ;)

You have faith in God, a God that you have a personal relationship with. This God loves you and the rest of creation immensely, and you can feel that.

So when you look at the scripture used by the community, use your faith to interpret it. Does it show the loving God that you have a relationship with? Does it show God's love for all of creation?

If not, don't accept it as true.

Have you ever heard of a book called "Misquoting Jesus?"

Great book, and written by a life-long Christian.

People have been using their faith to interpret the Bible for centuries. And as a result, they've screwed it all up.
Texan Hotrodders
09-12-2006, 21:00
Have you ever heard of a book called "Misquoting Jesus?"

Great book, and written by a life-long Christian.

Never heard of it, no. But I did Google it and read through some commentary. Looks like something I'd be interested in reading, though I doubt it'll be telling me anything new.

People have been using their faith to interpret the Bible for centuries. And as a result, they've screwed it all up.

I tend to think that many folks throughout history have misinterpreted and even abused the Bible because they started out with an unhealthy faith that they felt they needed to "prove" through scripture.

But I don't think that interpreting the Bible through the lens of one's faith is an inherently wrong approach.
Grave_n_idle
10-12-2006, 20:01
if it's inerrant and it says that all scripture is God-breathed, which it does in the OT and in the NT (which you dismissed because "it wasn't the Bible yet") then it can't be wrong (you know that's what inerrant means right)

if it is wrong, then it's not inerrant, it's fallible, if it is fallible then you would have to dismiss all of it wouldn't you?

If course - if all scripture is god-breathed according to the bible, AND the bible is infallible - then the Koran must also be true...
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 02:51
this is why an emphasis on the minutia of theology is a bad thing. if gnostic christians believed in jesus and followed his teachings, why would it matter if they got the idea of the ressurection wrong? isnt jesus more important than getting the details completely correct in your head?

if they are christians, they will partake in salvation no matter whether they knew it was part of the package or not.

No, it's exactly why theology is important. They refuse to believe in Christ as He revealed Himself. They twisted Him to be what they wanted Him to be, and were therefore not worshiping the same God.
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 02:58
No, it's exactly why theology is important. They refuse to believe in Christ as He revealed Himself. They twisted Him to be what they wanted Him to be, and were therefore not worshiping the same God.

coming from a calvinist I find that statement incredibly ironic.

and I say that with nothing but...never mind, I can't really make that any less disparaging. here's hoping you'll be reborn a hindu in your next life.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 02:58
I find this very sad. What a bleak life you must lead. Don't you find it tiring to be so judgemental 24/7?

We are to tear down every high and lofty opinion raised against God's Word.

The part I bolded illustrates my point. Why should it be your interpretation that determines who is or isn't a heretic? What makes you so special?

Nothing makes me special. My point is that I am convinced from God's infallible Word that this must be true. Therefore, I cannot help but call anything else false.

It's not my belief which I am convinced is true.

It's my belief which I am convinced is true.

Because I see that belief taught and required in Scripture, I must believe it and it must be true, or else I must be misinterpreting. And there are things which can be interpreted different ways. But they are very minute points and I don't fuss over them. But that does not change that I am convinced that views opposing mine must be false teachings and therefore heresy.

Not really, no.

Well, sorry, I don't know how else to explain it.
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 03:01
substitutionary atonement.

a very nasty idea invented in the 1000s. boo fuedal punative metaphor. yay greek philosophical exegesis!
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 03:06
there are things which can be interpreted different ways. But they are very minute points.

no, they are not. historically your theology would be completely alien to the vast majority of christians. the sweeping bulk of calvinist theology differs vastly from anything the ancient church believed. unless the nature of salvation, the charactor of god and man, the substance of creation, and the nature of truth are "minute points", then no, the bulk of christian thinkers for the bulk of history have held vastly different opinions than yours, and still held scripture to be divine revelation which supported their views. there is nothing even *approaching* a concensus on the interpretation of the scriptures, when protestants come into the picture. if we ignored the whole lot of them then yes, the remaining differences between the catholics, orthodox, and churches of the orient would be miniscule. when protestants come into it, however, it's hardly even the same religion anymore.
Ashmoria
11-12-2006, 04:18
No, it's exactly why theology is important. They refuse to believe in Christ as He revealed Himself. They twisted Him to be what they wanted Him to be, and were therefore not worshiping the same God.

i cant think of anything less likely to be true.

you really think that the jesus who ranted against the pharasees and their legalistic view of god was only upset because they had the details wrong? that he came to bring a whole new legalistic gotta-get-it-right-right-down-to-the-smallest-detail religion?

*shaking my head*
Smunkeeville
11-12-2006, 04:27
a very nasty idea invented in the 1000s. boo fuedal punative metaphor. yay greek philosophical exegesis!

you have thoughts on substitutionary atonement that I would like to hear......I just know it. :p
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 05:46
you have thoughts on substitutionary atonement that I would like to hear......I just know it. :p

:rolleyes: really? that's the first time I've heard that...haha
Maineiacs
11-12-2006, 06:01
We are to tear down every high and lofty opinion raised against God's Word.



Nothing makes me special. My point is that I am convinced from God's infallible Word that this must be true. Therefore, I cannot help but call anything else false.

It's not my belief which I am convinced is true.

It's my belief which I am convinced is true.

Because I see that belief taught and required in Scripture, I must believe it and it must be true, or else I must be misinterpreting. And there are things which can be interpreted different ways. But they are very minute points and I don't fuss over them. But that does not change that I am convinced that views opposing mine must be false teachings and therefore heresy.

.

Well, sorry, I don't know how else to explain it.

I'm not against God's word. I'm against having to accept your interptetation as the correct one. Your interpretation apparently leads you to condemn everyone that disagrees with you. Please point out scriptural evidence that shows you to be 100% correct, and I'll stop my criticism of you and convert to your church. Please note that it must be proof that you, specifically you are the one who's correct. I could very well be misinterpreting Scripture; after all I'm only human. But unless I'm mistaken, so are you. So please explain how your interpretation is more valid than mine.
Smunkeeville
11-12-2006, 16:02
:rolleyes: really? that's the first time I've heard that...haha

why the eye rolling?

I was mostly serious.

I would like to hear.......really.
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 17:36
substitutionary atonement.

Ah, brought up the possibility of Abelard's viewpoint, did I?

Of course, I still think the exact method of atonment is a small portion of belief. Most of us are going to believe something different because Christ never seems to have sat down and said, "I'm going to provide you with salvation, and this is how....." The larger picture, I believe, is Christ's message and the fact that he provided a path to salvation. The exact how and why is a finer point that I expect disagreement on.

Nothing makes me special. My point is that I am convinced from God's infallible Word that this must be true. Therefore, I cannot help but call anything else false.

It's not my belief which I am convinced is true.

It's my belief which I am convinced is true.

Because I see that belief taught and required in Scripture, I must believe it and it must be true, or else I must be misinterpreting. And there are things which can be interpreted different ways. But they are very minute points and I don't fuss over them. But that does not change that I am convinced that views opposing mine must be false teachings and therefore heresy.

*shakes head* You were getting so close to honesty here:

And I probably have some heresy in there somewhere. But I can't see it to label it as such, or else I would get rid of it and could no longer call myself a heretic.

Why try to go back to claiming infallibility in your own beliefs when you already admitted that some of them are probably wrong?
Rambhutan
11-12-2006, 17:46
I'm a firm adherent to covenant theology.

Heretic
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:22
I'm not against God's word. I'm against having to accept your interptetation as the correct one. Your interpretation apparently leads you to condemn everyone that disagrees with you. Please point out scriptural evidence that shows you to be 100% correct, and I'll stop my criticism of you and convert to your church. Please note that it must be proof that you, specifically you are the one who's correct. I could very well be misinterpreting Scripture; after all I'm only human. But unless I'm mistaken, so are you. So please explain how your interpretation is more valid than mine.

Which point? I am referring to the whole of my theological system and all my beliefs about God. Are you referring to a particular one, or do you want me to prove all my beliefs through Scripture?
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:23
Heretic

Where in Scripture are the differing views supported?
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:25
Why try to go back to claiming infallibility in your own beliefs when you already admitted that some of them are probably wrong?

Because I am not claiming infallibility. I never have. I am saying that I am convinced of these beliefs by the infallible Word of God. I am by no means infallible. I can be wrong. But, I refuse to say that my beliefs may be wrong until someone shows me in Scripture that they are.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:27
i cant think of anything less likely to be true.

you really think that the jesus who ranted against the pharasees and their legalistic view of god was only upset because they had the details wrong? that he came to bring a whole new legalistic gotta-get-it-right-right-down-to-the-smallest-detail religion?

*shaking my head*

He didn't "rant" against "their legalistic view of God". He "ranted" against their legalistic view of religion: that they could put things up next to Scripture in authority, that their hearts were turned from God, that they kept the Law without submitting their hearts, that they cried "the Temple of the Lord" and lived as they wanted

That's what He was "ranting" against. Not against trying to get our view of God correct down to the last iota and demanding that others try also.
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 20:30
Because I am not claiming infallibility.

Yes, you are. A complete refusal to admit the simple truth - that you may be wrong - is an arrogant claim of infallibility.

I am saying that I am convinced of these beliefs by the infallible Word of God.

Indeed. And other people are convinced of differing beliefs by the infallible word of God. Seems fairly obvious that human beings, fallible as we are, can get it mixed up.

I am by no means infallible. I can be wrong. But, I refuse to say that my beliefs may be wrong until someone shows me in Scripture that they are.

So you refuse to state that you may be wrong (ie. be truthful) until you are convinced that you actually are wrong.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between stating that you may be wrong and saying that you are wrong? You are basically stating that you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that you might be wrong until you are absolutely convinced that you are. And yet, in another thread, you claimed to question your own beliefs. This is obviously not true if you won't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

You can't have it both ways. It is illogical to state that you are not infallible and then, in the same breath, to state that you won't even admit the possibility that you might be wrong. If you are fallible, then you might be wrong - plain and simple. No matter how infallible God's word is, we are not talking about God's direct guidance. We are talking about your personal beliefs, all of which have been filtered through your own fallible mind. As long as you are fallible, those beliefs might be wrong.
Maineiacs
11-12-2006, 20:35
Which point? I am referring to the whole of my theological system and all my beliefs about God. Are you referring to a particular one, or do you want me to prove all my beliefs through Scripture?

What I'm saying is either show me reasons why I should accept your version of Christianity over mine, or stop consigning everyone who doesn't interperet Scripture in precisely the way you think it should be to the flames. Prove that your opinion in this matter is more valid than mine. Yes, I will grant that your interpretation of God's word is more valid than mine -- FOR YOU; but why should your way also be more valid for me than my own understanding of Scripture? Who are you to pass judgement? By whose authority do you do this? Do you have some direct line to God that no one else has? In short, look to your own soul, not everyone else's.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:45
So you refuse to state that you may be wrong (ie. be truthful) until you are convinced that you actually are wrong.

You don't understand. You are not making a distinction which need be made.

I can be wrong.
Scripture cannot be.
So, if I see a belief explained in Scripture, it cannot be wrong. And since I adopt it as my own, my belief cannot be wrong.

Again it's not that my belief cannot be wrong.
It's that my belief cannot be wrong.

Is their a possibility that I misinterpreted? Yes, of course. But, until someone shows from Scripture, the whole Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture that I am, my belief stands as inerrant.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between stating that you may be wrong and saying that you are wrong?

No, I see that difference quite clearly. It just doesn't apply here.

You are basically stating that you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that you might be wrong until you are absolutely convinced that you are.

No, I'm saying that the Word of God cannot be wrong and any belief taught in it cannot be wrong. Therefore, I refuse to contemplate that any belief I have which is taught in Scripture, the whole Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture is wrong until it is shown to me that it is.

And yet, in another thread, you claimed to question your own beliefs. This is obviously not true if you won't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

I question. Does Scripture teach this? If it does, then I am good. If it does not, I see my falliblity and adopt the correct doctrine. It's not hard to understand. I don't know why you are having difficulty with it.

Scripture cannot be wrong.
I can.
I see a doctrine from Scripture. It cannot be wrong.
I adopt that belief. My belief cannot be wrong.
If I am shown that my interpretation of Scripture was incorrect, I see that I am wrong, but that Scripture is not.

If I go through life saying that "This is just my opinion. It may be wrong." Then I have nothing to stand on. Because I am human and fallible. But, if I take my beliefs from the infallible Word of God, then I have everything to stand on and have no need to say "I may be wrong."

If you show me that my interpretation is faulty, then I must repent. But until you do, I am required to support what I am convinced Scripture teached as Truth, not just as what may be Truth.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 20:52
What I'm saying is either show me reasons why I should accept your version of Christianity over mine, or stop consigning everyone who doesn't interperet Scripture in precisely the way you think it should be to the flames. Prove that your opinion in this matter is more valid than mine. Yes, I will grant that your interpretation of God's word is more valid than mine -- FOR YOU; but why should your way also be more valid for me than my own understanding of Scripture? Who are you to pass judgement? By whose authority do you do this? Do you have some direct line to God that no one else has? In short, look to your own soul, not everyone else's.

Hold on!

Heresy does not damn one necessarily. It is wrong teaching. You can adopt wrong teaching and still be a Christian. I think you are either confused or in sin, but you can still be a Christian if you are a heretic. There are many. As long as you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior in the manner He has revealed Himself in Scripture, you are a Christian. Everything else matters, but they pale in comparison to that.

And as for the "It works for you" "It works for me" stuff, I can only say bull. Add whatever suffix you want. There is but one Gospel. Any idea which differs from that one Gospel is heresy and needs to be cast out from our beliefs. We can debate about what that Gospel contains, but we cannot have two (or more) contradictory beliefs in it.

By whose authority do I judge? God commands us to tear down every high and lofty opinion raised agaisnt the Gospel. And I do have a direct line to God that every orthodox catholic Christian has. It is the gift of prayer and the Holy Spirit.

I don't look to your soul. I am commanded not to do that. But I am commanded to look at your actions and ideas.
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 20:56
You don't understand. You are not making a distinction which need be made.

Yes, it does need to made.

I can be wrong.

ok

Scripture cannot be.

ok

So, if I see a belief explained in Scripture, it cannot be wrong. And since I adopt it as my own, my belief cannot be wrong.

This doesn't follow. You may see something in Scripture that isn't there. You may misinterpret it. You may misread it. You may read it in the wrong context. You may misunderstand the lesson. And so on....

If you are fallible, and your beliefs depend on you reading Scripture (however infallible Scripture itself may be), then your beliefs may be wrong, just as anything you determine may be wrong.

Again it's not that my belief cannot be wrong.
It's that my belief cannot be wrong.

You're moving bolding but the problem is still there. As long as your belief is your belief, and you are a fallible human being, it very well might be wrong.

Is their a possibility that I misinterpreted? Yes, of course.

This is a statement that you might be wrong.

But, until someone shows from Scripture, the whole Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture that I am, my belief stands as inerrant.

You are being incredibly illogical. Your belief isn't inerrant unless it is absolutely correct. If there is a chance that it might be shown to be wrong, then there is a distinct possibility that it might be wrong.

No, I see that difference quite clearly. It just doesn't apply here.

Of course it does.

No, I'm saying that the Word of God cannot be wrong and any belief taught in it cannot be wrong.

By that logic, everyone who draws their beliefs from Scripture, even if they directly contradict yours, are right. You guys can be saying the exact opposite things, but if you both have Scripture to back it up, you're both absolutley right.

Is that really what you believe?

I question. Does Scripture teach this? If it does, then I am good.

A person can find anything in Scripture they're looking for. If you refuse to contemplate the possibility that you may be wrong, you're going to find whatever you want in Scripture. That isn't truly questioning.

Scripture cannot be wrong.
I can.
I see a doctrine from Scripture. It cannot be wrong.

Once again, this doesn't follow. If you can be wrong, then you can see something in Scripture that isn't really there - something that wasn't meant. You can misinterpret Scripture so that your doctrine is wrong. You can miss a lesson in Scripture because you don't want to see it. And so on.....

I adopt that belief. My belief cannot be wrong.

Of course it can.

If I am shown that my interpretation of Scripture was incorrect, I see that I am wrong, but that Scripture is not.

If your interpretation can possibly be incorrect, then the doctrine you draw from Scripture can possibly be wrong.

If I go through life saying that "This is just my opinion. It may be wrong." Then I have nothing to stand on. Because I am human and fallible. But, if I take my beliefs from the infallible Word of God, then I have everything to stand on and have no need to say "I may be wrong."

Other people take their beliefs from the infallible Word of God too, and they disagree with you on some things. Are you both right?

Is your faith really so weak that you cannot admit even the possibility that you may be wrong without think you "have nothing to stand on." Is the guidance of God not enough for you, so that you have to claim infallibility in your beliefs to hold them?

If you show me that my interpretation is faulty, then I must repent. But until you do, I am required to support what I am convinced Scripture teached as Truth, not just as what may be Truth.

Once again, there is a huge difference between truthfully admitting that you may be wrong and actually stating that you are wrong. You can absolutely support what you are convinced Scripture says and still be honest by admitting that you may be wrong. Anything else is dishonesty or a claim to infallibility.

Either you are infallible, or you may be wrong. Which is it?
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 20:59
And as for the "It works for you" "It works for me" stuff, I can only say bull. Add whatever suffix you want. There is but one Gospel. Any idea which differs from that one Gospel is heresy and needs to be cast out from our beliefs. We can debate about what that Gospel contains, but we cannot have two (or more) contradictory beliefs in it.

Of course you can. One or both of you would probably be wrong. Of course, it could be *either* of you. If I read Scripture, pray on it, draw from God's guidance, and so forth and find something different from you, which one of us is correct?

By whose authority do I judge? God commands us to tear down every high and lofty opinion raised agaisnt the Gospel. And I do have a direct line to God that every orthodox catholic Christian has. It is the gift of prayer and the Holy Spirit.

And yet we all use that gift and still come to differing conclusions - most likely a product of our own fallibility.

Once again, I ask you, if we both study Scripture, pray on it, ask God for guidance and receive it, but then still come to different answers, which of us is correct? Is it you automatically? If not, you must admit the possibility that you may be wrong.
Maineiacs
11-12-2006, 21:01
Hold on!

Heresy does not damn one necessarily. It is wrong teaching. You can adopt wrong teaching and still be a Christian. I think you are either confused or in sin, but you can still be a Christian if you are a heretic. There are many. As long as you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior in the manner He has revealed Himself in Scripture, you are a Christian. Everything else matters, but they pale in comparison to that.

And as for the "It works for you" "It works for me" stuff, I can only say bull. Add whatever suffix you want. There is but one Gospel. Any idea which differs from that one Gospel is heresy and needs to be cast out from our beliefs. We can debate about what that Gospel contains, but we cannot have two (or more) contradictory beliefs in it.

By whose authority do I judge? God commands us to tear down every high and lofty opinion raised agaisnt the Gospel. And I do have a direct line to God that every orthodox catholic Christian has. It is the gift of prayer and the Holy Spirit.

I don't look to your soul. I am commanded not to do that. But I am commanded to look at your actions and ideas.


I'm not raising a "high and lofty opinion" against the Gospel. I'm not questioning God's wisdom, I'm questioning yours. And how can any two people debate what the Gospel contains if they don't siffer in their opinion? You're still saying "my way or the highway", and have as yet offered no proof that you understand the Scripture better than I, or anyone else. Why should I have to accept that you've got everything 100% right without proof? Who said you were the one who got to tell people what to think?
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 21:05
Either you are infallible, or you may be wrong. Which is it?

I have the ability to be wrong.
Scripture does not.
Anything which Scripture teaches cannot be wrong (which is not that same as saying anything which can be gleaned from Scripture cannot be wrong).

If I am convinced that Scripture teaches something, then I must say that that teaching cannot be wrong.

Do I have the ability to misinterpret? Yes.

Does that cast doubt on everything I say? It should.

Does that mean that the belief is to be questioned? Yes.

Does that mean that it is merely an interpretation which can be dismissed if we don't like it or it does not fit our view? No.

Which is why I provide (or at least ought to provide) Scripture supporting my view and Scripture refuting opposing views for everything I say. And until someone using Scripture shows that interpretation to be incorrect, I must adopt it as Truth taught in Scripture. And if it is Truth taught in Scripture, it cannot be wrong.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 21:07
I'm not raising a "high and lofty opinion" against the Gospel. I'm not questioning God's wisdom, I'm questioning yours. And how can any two people debate what the Gospel contains if they don't siffer in their opinion? You're still saying "my way or the highway", and have as yet offered no proof that you understand the Scripture better than I, or anyone else. Why should I have to accept that you've got everything 100% right without proof? Who said you were the one who got to tell people what to think?

You're arguing over nothing. I only repeat Scripture (or at least I ought to only repeat Scripture) or those things contained in Scripture.

I cannot prove or disprove anything until there is a subject to discuss.
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 21:09
I have the ability to be wrong.
Scripture does not.
Anything which Scripture teaches cannot be wrong (which is not that same as saying anything which can be gleaned from Scripture cannot be wrong).

Yes, those things are the same. You may think that Scripture teaches something that it does not. You may think that Scripture does not teach something it does. Thus, while you believe that the actual teachings of Scripture cannot be wrong, if you are fallible, you must admit that what you think to be the teachings of Scripture may be wrong.

If I am convinced that Scripture teaches something, then I must say that that teaching cannot be wrong.

Then you are claiming your own infallibility.

Do I have the ability to misinterpret? Yes.

This is wholly incompatible with the previous statement. If you may misinterpret Scripture, then you must admit that the teachings you believe in may be wrong. Anything else is dishonest.

Which is why I provide (or at least ought to provide) Scripture supporting my view and Scripture refuting opposing views for everything I say. And until someone using Scripture shows that interpretation to be incorrect, I must adopt it as Truth taught in Scripture. And if it is Truth taught in Scripture, it cannot be wrong.

If it cannot be wrong, then you can never question it, even if shown Scripture that disproves it. If, upon being shown Scripture to the contrary, you would change your views, then it obviously might be wrong.

Once again, you are confusing honest (admitting that you *might* be wrong) with actually saying that you are wrong. You can believe something very strongly - you can be absolutely and utterly convinced - and still be honest enough to admit that you may be wrong.
Maineiacs
11-12-2006, 21:10
I have the ability to be wrong.
Scripture does not.
Anything which Scripture teaches cannot be wrong (which is not that same as saying anything which can be gleaned from Scripture cannot be wrong).

Do I have the ability to misinterpret? Yes.

Does that cast doubt on everything I say? It should.

Does that mean that the belief is to be questioned? Yes.

Does that mean that it is merely an interpretation which can be dismissed if we don't like it or it does not fit our view? No.



Please tell me you didn't just say "yes, I might be getting it wrong, but accept it anyway". That may be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read.
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 21:12
Please tell me you didn't just say "yes, I might be getting it wrong, but accept it anyway". That may be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read.

Actually, what he keeps saying is, "I might have gotten it wrong, but I cannot admit I might be wrong."
Maineiacs
11-12-2006, 21:15
Actually, what he keeps saying is, "I might have gotten it wrong, but I cannot admit I might be wrong."

So, I'm not the only one that thinks that makes absolutely no sense then?
Dempublicents1
11-12-2006, 21:19
So, I'm not the only one that thinks that makes absolutely no sense then?

No, I think Edwardis is afraid that the ability to admit one's own fallibility - to admit that one might be wrong - conveys a weakness of faith. He won't admit that his beliefs might be wrong, because he thinks he has to believe in them less to do so.

Personally, I see it the other way. A person who cannot admit even the possibility that they might be wrong, I think, is quite obviously weak in their faith. Their faith is so weak, in fact, that even the slightest questioning would destroy it. Thus, they refuse to even consider that they might be wrong, allowing them to hold onto whatever the belief is, but completely preventing them from growing in their faith.

There was another NSGeneralite once who told me that, if her personal interpretation of the Bible wasn't 100% correct, then "all hope was lost." It made me very sad to see someone with such incredibly weak faith. =(
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 23:51
No, I think Edwardis is afraid that the ability to admit one's own fallibility - to admit that one might be wrong - conveys a weakness of faith. He won't admit that his beliefs might be wrong, because he thinks he has to believe in them less to do so.

Personally, I see it the other way. A person who cannot admit even the possibility that they might be wrong, I think, is quite obviously weak in their faith. Their faith is so weak, in fact, that even the slightest questioning would destroy it. Thus, they refuse to even consider that they might be wrong, allowing them to hold onto whatever the belief is, but completely preventing them from growing in their faith.

There was another NSGeneralite once who told me that, if her personal interpretation of the Bible wasn't 100% correct, then "all hope was lost." It made me very sad to see someone with such incredibly weak faith. =(

You greatly misunderstand me. I have tried to show how my view on this, but apparently I have failed.

It is necessary to be absolutely sure to have a strong faith, on some things. On others, not so much.

And as for all hope being lost if my views on the minutia are wrong, that's just sad. It means that I have misinterpreted and I need to reinterpret.

I am not saying that I am infallible. I am very fallible. But, I cannot (not will not) say that my beliefs can be wrong until you prove them wrong with Scripture. And then, all hope is not lost. I must reevaluate my beliefs and see what must be changed. But, if they are truly going to be my beliefs, I must be convinced that they are true. Otherwise, they are not my beliefs: they are merely an idea I'm playing with.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 23:51
Please tell me you didn't just say "yes, I might be getting it wrong, but accept it anyway". That may be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read.

I've never told anyone to accept anything because I say it. I've told them to accept it because Scripture teaches it, but never because I say it.
Edwardis
11-12-2006, 23:56
Of course you can. One or both of you would probably be wrong. Of course, it could be *either* of you. If I read Scripture, pray on it, draw from God's guidance, and so forth and find something different from you, which one of us is correct?

One of us (or neither of us). There are some things we cannot know either way. That's why there are some things which the Church should not take a stand on, like whether Man will be omniscient in heaven. But, if there's a person who says yes and a person who says no, they both cannot be right.

And yet we all use that gift and still come to differing conclusions - most likely a product of our own fallibility.

At least one persons.

Once again, I ask you, if we both study Scripture, pray on it, ask God for guidance and receive it, but then still come to different answers, which of us is correct? Is it you automatically? If not, you must admit the possibility that you may be wrong.

If there are two opposing views, it doesn't matter how they came to that conclusion, at least one must be false. At least one did not truly go through the sequence which you mentioned above.
Dempublicents1
12-12-2006, 00:22
You greatly misunderstand me. I have tried to show how my view on this, but apparently I have failed.

Apparently.

It is necessary to be absolutely sure to have a strong faith, on some things. On others, not so much.

How is this relevant?

And as for all hope being lost if my views on the minutia are wrong, that's just sad. It means that I have misinterpreted and I need to reinterpret.

Ok, I think.

I am not saying that I am infallible. I am very fallible.

If you are both fallible and honest, you have to admit that your beliefs may be wrong. Anything else is either a claim to infallibility, or pure dishonesty.

But, I cannot (not will not) say that my beliefs can be wrong until you prove them wrong with Scripture.

Once again, you lose the difference between "might be" and "are." You are basically saying that you can only admit that you beliefs *might* be wrong if they actually are, at which point its useless to admit that they "might be", you'd be saying that they actually are.

If you are fallible, then it is possible that your beliefs are wrong. Period. That is the very definition of fallibility. Why can't you admit it? Is your faith really this weak?

And then, all hope is not lost. I must reevaluate my beliefs and see what must be changed. But, if they are truly going to be my beliefs, I must be convinced that they are true. Otherwise, they are not my beliefs: they are merely an idea I'm playing with.

You can be absolutely convinced that something is true and still admit that you might be wrong.

I've never told anyone to accept anything because I say it. I've told them to accept it because Scripture teaches it, but never because I say it.

And when they see something different in Scripture than you do? A different interpretation? Are they supposed to just take your word for it that your interpretation is right when they feel that God is telling them otherwise?

One of us (or neither of us).

In other words, you might be wrong. Are you finally admitting it?

At least one persons.

And that person can't be you, eh?

If there are two opposing views, it doesn't matter how they came to that conclusion, at least one must be false. At least one did not truly go through the sequence which you mentioned above.

Wrong. They both went through the sequence mentioned above. However, they are both fallible. Thus, they can misinterpret God's guidance. We all can. Are you saying that it is impossible for you to get God's wishes wrong? That's claiming infallibility, my dear.

If human beings are fallible, which I think we have fairly well established, then two people can get the same guidance, do the say praying, and read the same Scripture, while still coming to different conclusions. This is because we are all fallible. We can all be wrong. Anything we receive is going to be filtered through that fallibility.

If this does not happen, if everyone comes to the same conclusion through study and prayer and asking for guidance from God - if we all find the *correct* answer by doing this, then we are somehow gifted with infallibility.

Which is it? Are we fallible and therefore might get things wrong, even with guidance? Or does God force our hand and make us infallible when we try and figure it out?
Mythotic Kelkia
12-12-2006, 03:54
This thread should have been titled "christian theology".
Ashmoria
12-12-2006, 04:30
He didn't "rant" against "their legalistic view of God". He "ranted" against their legalistic view of religion: that they could put things up next to Scripture in authority, that their hearts were turned from God, that they kept the Law without submitting their hearts, that they cried "the Temple of the Lord" and lived as they wanted

That's what He was "ranting" against. Not against trying to get our view of God correct down to the last iota and demanding that others try also.

and yet when anyone asked him what was expected of them he said "follow me" not "accept me as your personal lord and savior" or "be a covenentist" or "only dispensationalists get into heaven"

he just said "follow me". nothing else was necessary.
Edwardis
12-12-2006, 04:37
Which is it? Are we fallible and therefore might get things wrong, even with guidance? Or does God force our hand and make us infallible when we try and figure it out?

I'm finished. We're not getting anywhere, so unless you have anything new to say (I don't) I suggest we just drop it.

I'm beginning to think that we may be in agreement on the issue, just not the terms to use or the style of explanantion.
Edwardis
12-12-2006, 04:42
and yet when anyone asked him what was expected of them he said "follow me" not "accept me as your personal lord and savior" or "be a covenentist" or "only dispensationalists get into heaven"

he just said "follow me". nothing else was necessary.

But the question is "Are you following Christ or are you following who you want Christ to be?"

If you are truly following Christ, then some things must necessarily follow (provided there is time: you don't repent on your death bed) and some things ought to follow.

And if those things do not follow, we ought to ask whether you are following Christ at all. And before you say "Judge not lest you be judged!" what about this passage?

Matthew 7:15-20 "Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."
Ashmoria
12-12-2006, 04:48
But the question is "Are you following Christ or are you following who you want Christ to be?"

If you are truly following Christ, then some things must necessarily follow (provided there is time: you don't repent on your death bed) and some things ought to follow.

And if those things do not follow, we ought to ask whether you are following Christ at all. And before you say "Judge not lest you be judged!" what about this passage?

Matthew 7:15-20 "Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

person after person came to jesus to be healed or saved. all they needed was their faith. he didnt even discuss the finer points of theology.

when the rich man asked jesus what he needed to be saved, jesus didnt discuss proper belief, he said "take all you have, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow me."

when the poor woman touched the hem of his garment, he didnt ask what she believed, he healed her because of her faith in him.

your hairsplitting theology takes you farther from jesus not closer.
Edwardis
12-12-2006, 04:56
person after person came to jesus to be healed or saved. all they needed was their faith. he didnt even discuss the finer points of theology.

when the rich man asked jesus what he needed to be saved, jesus didnt discuss proper belief, he said "take all you have, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow me."

when the poor woman touched the hem of his garment, he didnt ask what she believed, he healed her because of her faith in him.

your hairsplitting theology takes you farther from jesus not closer.

You're saying what you feel, not what is supported by Scripture.

Faith in whom? Very important question. In fact, it determines where your soul ends up. What you are advocating is that anyone who says "I trust Jesus" is to be considered Christian.

Never mind they reject the sinfulness of Man. Why would that matter? Because then Jesus was not the Sacrifice for sins. If they do not believe that Jesus is the Sacrifice for sins, they deny His mission, and thus deny Him.

And similar situations abound.

As for hairsplitting, if we are really getting down so far as that, it is still important, but not something to fight over. If we are truly splitting hairs, then we should discuss it and agree to disagree.

If it is something so large as the sovereignty of God, it is very important and worth fighting over. If it is something so large as the deity of Jesus, it is worth fighting over. These large issues are the ones that determine who it is we are following, and that determines who we have faith in, and that determines whether we are forgiven or condemned.
Ashmoria
12-12-2006, 05:17
You're saying what you feel, not what is supported by Scripture.

Faith in whom? Very important question. In fact, it determines where your soul ends up. What you are advocating is that anyone who says "I trust Jesus" is to be considered Christian.

Never mind they reject the sinfulness of Man. Why would that matter? Because then Jesus was not the Sacrifice for sins. If they do not believe that Jesus is the Sacrifice for sins, they deny His mission, and thus deny Him.

And similar situations abound.

As for hairsplitting, if we are really getting down so far as that, it is still important, but not something to fight over. If we are truly splitting hairs, then we should discuss it and agree to disagree.

If it is something so large as the sovereignty of God, it is very important and worth fighting over. If it is something so large as the deity of Jesus, it is worth fighting over. These large issues are the ones that determine who it is we are following, and that determines who we have faith in, and that determines whether we are forgiven or condemned.


if it wasnt important to jesus why would it be important to me?
Edwardis
12-12-2006, 05:22
if it wasnt important to jesus why would it be important to me?

Who Jesus is, isn't important?

Luke 12:48 "But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

He did not tell them more, so they are not required to know more. He told Abraham less, so Abraham was required to know less. He gave us most, so we are required to know most.
Ashmoria
12-12-2006, 05:32
Who Jesus is, isn't important?

Luke 12:48 "But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

He did not tell them more, so they are not required to know more. He told Abraham less, so Abraham was required to know less. He gave us most, so we are required to know most.

huh? you think we know more than the apostles did? they had 3+ years, we have a few highlights.
Edwardis
12-12-2006, 05:38
huh? you think we know more than the apostles did? they had 3+ years, we have a few highlights.

What did the Apostles do?

They wrote down all the teachings which God gave them. Some things clarifications of what Jesus taught, some things which Jesus did not speak on. With both, though, we know more than the woman who touched Jesus' cloak or the man whom Jesus healed, and we are repsonsible for more.
PootWaddle
12-12-2006, 07:24
In addition to the theology topic options given in the OP, acceptance of Gnostic beliefs has been advocated in this thread, and that’s what I’m addressing... Not the theology minutiae.

The real problem with Gnosticism, at its core, is that it demands that we achieve our own salvation via our inward knowledge of the truth and our action upon that knowledge.

Thus, in the end, there is no actual salvation for little children, the mentally challenged (via birth defect or physical injury to the brain etc.,), the senile, the less perceptive, those of lesser IQ, etc., etc., etc., and so on and so forth. These people cannot be saved through Gnosticism and the comprehension of inward knowledge and secret understandings. And yet I tell you, these are the people that are most likely to be saved, Heaven was made for such as these, and Gnosticism would have us believe that they were wasted human flesh.

Gnosticism tells us to trust our salvation to our own intellect, an yet we are to ignore the substantiation of those that have gone before us? And that recognition is that we are liable to not have our intellect when we die. Injury or illness can steal our capacity to think clearly, could that loss of ability then steal our very salvation? Nonsense.

Jesus saves, you can’t earn it, not even with your intellect. Gnosticism is just another form of elitism, this time mental elitism. Gnosticism is a dead end, there was a good reason to squash it.
Vegan Nuts
12-12-2006, 08:01
why the eye rolling?

I was mostly serious.

I would like to hear.......really.

oh - most people who agree with me don't bother debating on internet forums, and most people who care about substitutiary atonement who would want to debate it are not going to be friendly to my position. anyways:

a google for the phrase "substitutiary atonement" produces a link with this description for the top result:

"Jesus' death on the cross provided a penal substitutiary atonement for the sins of humanity. In salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by His ..."


a penal substitutiary atonement in which Jesus, god the son, saves us from a wrathful (and apperently schizophrenic) god the father, by dying to placate this god's blood-lust. or desire for vengence. call that "justice" if you will, but that is the justice of a 2 year old - and anything that demands death in such a manner is not mercy, even if it is convulted enough to die itself.

the ancient church never understood the punative metaphor as the prime one. the eastern church still does not. you see this in the nicene creed "we acknowledge one baptist for the remission of sins" - sin is understood as a disease that goes into remission. forgiveness is a translation often applied in modern english, but the phrase in latin is "remissiónem peccatorum", and I've seen "remission" in every translation from the greek as well. christ to the ancients is our healer, not the guy who paid our bail. christ is refered to as a healer very, very often - and the Theosis theology of the ancient church and modern eastern church is built around this.

"I am the vine and you are the branches"

we are understood to be saved from our disease by an *organic union* with Christ. like Midas, everything touched by him turns to gold. St. Athanasius in his work "On the Incarnation" writes:

"God became man that man might become God"

Christ did not die so that he might take our place, as in the substitutiary atonement model, but so that he would join us. if christ died on the cross as a substitution - why all the talk of US being crucified? of US taking up our crosses? christ died not in our stead, but as our leader. the hymns of Pascha and the iconography of the eastern church talk about the tomb of Christ as a place of union - do a google image search for "christ the bridegroom" - there is an almost *sexual* union in the tomb. "you come forth from the tomb as one who comes forth from the bridal chamber", they sang in ancient times - in the tomb christ finished the incarnation. he finished the grafting of his divinity to the human experience. we, as humanity, experience death and hell in the absense of Christ. in order that we might fully become the branches grafted to his life-giving and healing vine, he had to die and descend into hell as well. protestants often choose to ignore the universally held belief that christ not only died on the cross, but descended into hell.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead,
Is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be glory and dominion
Unto ages of ages.

Amen.

christ did not die to save us from "justice" or "vengence" or "penalty" literally any more than he tore down the temple of solomon and rebuilt it with his bare hands in 3 days. these are metaphors, and nothing more. besides - what sort of monster god would demand his son die for other's sins? if I break a lamp, is it justice if my innocent sister takes a beating for it? who demands the justice? does satan demand a ransom from God? since when does God answer to satan?!? does GOD demand punishment? then what of his mercy? if christ took our penalty for us, then God *did* exact punishment, and is not merciful, and the actual perpetrators of wrongdoing did not receive it - and God is not just. the idea that christ took on a penalty for an infringement of divine law is simple-minded and a gross perversion of God's charactor. no one proposed this idea of "satisfaction" before Anselm of Canterbury, who was in the midst of a fuedal society. under anglo saxon law, it was entirely permissable for a person to accept punishment for someone else's crime. it's a germanic custom, not actualy justice. nobody would accept it if the modern justice system let a murderer go free while we locked up or executed an innocent man who volunteered for him...that's just bullshit and nobody would argue it except a few pig-headed people in the case of Salvation. the ancient understanding is that nothing but God is eternal, and in order to inherit eternal life, we must join with God and partake of his energy (but not his essence, we do not become deities in the pagan sense) - it's simple algebra - for X = Y, also must Y = X - for a dying, hellbound human nature to be eternal, the eternal must die and go to hell.

in the light of that understanding of salvation, "substitution" looks absolutely barbaric and idiotic. the God of Theosis theology is both merciful and just - the god of substitiary atonement and satisfaction theology is neither merciful nor just.
PootWaddle
12-12-2006, 08:12
...

Your salvation through Christ's sacrifice for the remission of sin theology is fine, it's beautiful. Your anti-substitution theology goes too far in the negative.

If my loved one was sentenced to a life term in a Turkish prison (allegory) and I wanted him saved, I’d pay a handsome penny, I might even volunteer myself in his sted. If I made it worth the Turkish governments (more allegory) efforts I bet they’d agree to it. Why do I have to be the driver to pay the speeding ticket? I do not, the court will take my check in the guilty parties name.
Vegan Nuts
12-12-2006, 08:20
and forgive me, it's not my intention to be presumptuous or self-righteous here (I am a hypocrit and I know it), but when discussing theology...I think it is best to remember the words of Christ in the 23rd chapter of Matthew:

Woe to you...who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

for anyone genuinely interested in servie to Christ, there are far more important things to do than debating the minutiae of his nature on an internet forum. I am not a christian so I certainly don't mean to set myself up as some sort of example.

not to call the forum audience names or anything, but I think this is also rather pertinent:

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

people do not come to places like this to be moved, they come to bicker and to inflate their own egos in little intellectual duels. at least, I know I do.
Vegan Nuts
12-12-2006, 08:25
Your salvation through Christ's sacrifice for the remission of sin theology is fine, it's beautiful. Your anti-substitution theology goes too far in the negative.

If my loved one was sentenced to a life term in a Turkish prison (allegory) and I wanted him saved, I’d pay a handsome penny, I might even volunteer myself in his sted. If I made it worth the Turkish governments (more allegory) efforts I bet they’d agree to it. Why do I have to be the driver to pay the speeding ticket? I do not, the court will take my check in the guilty parties name.

true - it's an excellent metaphor and one attested to in scripture. I only object to when people act like it is a literal, perfect understanding - and the only one. in my younger days I did so myself, and the "god" I claimed functioned in that way was just a convoluted reflection of my own selfishness. it's a beautiful metaphor to think of Christ persuing his loved ones in any way, but I fear what happens when people conceive of it as the only way. my negativity is directed against my own past mistakes, so I apologise if I've been offensive.

as St. John Chrysostom said:

A comprehended god is no god.

so I shouldn't be claiming one way of understanding over another. they're all futile in the face of what is ultimately a Mystery of Love.
PootWaddle
12-12-2006, 08:27
true - it's an excellent metaphor and one attested to in scripture. I only object to when people act like it is a literal, perfect understanding - and the only one. in my younger days I did so myself, and the "god" I claimed functioned in that way was just a convoluted reflection of my own selfishness. it's a beautiful metaphor to think of Christ persuing his loved ones in any way, but I fear what happens when people conceive of it as the only way. my negativity is directed against my own past mistakes, so I apologise if I've been offensive.

as St. John Chrysostom said:



so I shouldn't be claiming one way of understanding over another. they're all futile in the face of what is ultimately a Mystery of Love.

I think we're agreed then. ;) God Bless.

And maybe you'll remember your part in Christ again.
Vegan Nuts
12-12-2006, 08:41
I think we're agreed then. ;) God Bless.

And maybe you'll remember your part in Christ again.

if I followed half the things he said, half the time, I'd be a completely different person - and maybe one who could legitimately call himself a christian. as it is...I love the old gods. I honestly believe he came to renew the priesthood of every conception of the Ineffable, not spread some dogmatic monotheism...I believe God spoke and speaks in everything, and every religion is valid to the end that no one can truly comprehend the Truth, as a person. (allow me to clarify, I mean the Truth, which *is* a person) in that, I see Christ as a god - the tituliary deity of the true priesthood. they call him our High Priest - and that priesthood is perhaps something to aspire to eventually, but I don't think it's a religion. in the mean time I think we can worship Kali or Odin or Raven or whomever, for all that the human mind can grasp...haha, if ants had to look at random different parts of an elephant, they'd come up with a million different entities that were *part* of the elephant, and still have no clue what the whole thing was. I think we're the ants in the elephant is God - and our gods and religions are just the various descriptions we come up with for the parts we see. no one can comprehend the whole and remain sane. maybe that belief makes me a heretic...*shrug* I'm alright with that. it's taken me a long time after realising what a self-righteous snot I was when I claimed Christianity to even consider Christ divine at all, who knows, I could end up more vocally Christian than Edwardis here some day. *shrug* to perceive the whole being of the elephant...madness:

Drive me out of my mind, O Mother!
What use is esoteric knowledge
Or philosophical knowledge
Transport me totally with the burning wine
Of your all-embracing love.
Mother of mystery, who imbues with mystery
The hearts of those who love you,
Immerse me irretrievably
In the stormy ocean without boundary,
Pure love, pure love, pure love.

Wherever your lovers reside
Appears like a madhouse
To common perception.
Some are laughing with your freedom,
Others weep tears of your tenderness,
Still others dance, whirling with your bliss.
Even your devoted Gautama, Moses,
Krishna, Jesus, Nanak and Muhammad
Are lost in the rapture of pure love.

This poet stammers,
Overcome with longing:
“When? When? When?
When will I be granted companionship
With her intense lovers?”
Their holy company is heavenly
A country fair for those mad with love
Where every distinction
Between master and disciple
Disappears

Their love of love sings:
“Mother! Mother! Mother!
Who can fathom your mystery,
Your eternal play of love with love?
You are divine madness, O goddess,
Your love the brilliant crown of madness,
Please make this poor poet madly wealthy
With the infinite treasure of your love
Smunkeeville
12-12-2006, 15:19
oh - most people who agree with me don't bother debating on internet forums, and most people who care about substitutiary atonement who would want to debate it are not going to be friendly to my position. anyways:

a google for the phrase "substitutiary atonement" produces a link with this description for the top result:

"Jesus' death on the cross provided a penal substitutiary atonement for the sins of humanity. In salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by His ..."


a penal substitutiary atonement in which Jesus, god the son, saves us from a wrathful (and apperently schizophrenic) god the father, by dying to placate this god's blood-lust. or desire for vengence. call that "justice" if you will, but that is the justice of a 2 year old - and anything that demands death in such a manner is not mercy, even if it is convulted enough to die itself.

the ancient church never understood the punative metaphor as the prime one. the eastern church still does not. you see this in the nicene creed "we acknowledge one baptist for the remission of sins" - sin is understood as a disease that goes into remission. forgiveness is a translation often applied in modern english, but the phrase in latin is "remissiĆ³nem peccatorum", and I've seen "remission" in every translation from the greek as well. christ to the ancients is our healer, not the guy who paid our bail. christ is refered to as a healer very, very often - and the Theosis theology of the ancient church and modern eastern church is built around this.

"I am the vine and you are the branches"

we are understood to be saved from our disease by an *organic union* with Christ. like Midas, everything touched by him turns to gold. St. Athanasius in his work "On the Incarnation" writes:

"God became man that man might become God"

Christ did not die so that he might take our place, as in the substitutiary atonement model, but so that he would join us. if christ died on the cross as a substitution - why all the talk of US being crucified? of US taking up our crosses? christ died not in our stead, but as our leader. the hymns of Pascha and the iconography of the eastern church talk about the tomb of Christ as a place of union - do a google image search for "christ the bridegroom" - there is an almost *sexual* union in the tomb. "you come forth from the tomb as one who comes forth from the bridal chamber", they sang in ancient times - in the tomb christ finished the incarnation. he finished the grafting of his divinity to the human experience. we, as humanity, experience death and hell in the absense of Christ. in order that we might fully become the branches grafted to his life-giving and healing vine, he had to die and descend into hell as well. protestants often choose to ignore the universally held belief that christ not only died on the cross, but descended into hell.



christ did not die to save us from "justice" or "vengence" or "penalty" literally any more than he tore down the temple of solomon and rebuilt it with his bare hands in 3 days. these are metaphors, and nothing more. besides - what sort of monster god would demand his son die for other's sins? if I break a lamp, is it justice if my innocent sister takes a beating for it? who demands the justice? does satan demand a ransom from God? since when does God answer to satan?!? does GOD demand punishment? then what of his mercy? if christ took our penalty for us, then God *did* exact punishment, and is not merciful, and the actual perpetrators of wrongdoing did not receive it - and God is not just. the idea that christ took on a penalty for an infringement of divine law is simple-minded and a gross perversion of God's charactor. no one proposed this idea of "satisfaction" before Anselm of Canterbury, who was in the midst of a fuedal society. under anglo saxon law, it was entirely permissable for a person to accept punishment for someone else's crime. it's a germanic custom, not actualy justice. nobody would accept it if the modern justice system let a murderer go free while we locked up or executed an innocent man who volunteered for him...that's just bullshit and nobody would argue it except a few pig-headed people in the case of Salvation. the ancient understanding is that nothing but God is eternal, and in order to inherit eternal life, we must join with God and partake of his energy (but not his essence, we do not become deities in the pagan sense) - it's simple algebra - for X = Y, also must Y = X - for a dying, hellbound human nature to be eternal, the eternal must die and go to hell.

in the light of that understanding of salvation, "substitution" looks absolutely barbaric and idiotic. the God of Theosis theology is both merciful and just - the god of substitiary atonement and satisfaction theology is neither merciful nor just.

thanks. ;) that is interesting.
Grave_n_idle
12-12-2006, 16:53
I have the ability to be wrong.
Scripture does not.
Anything which Scripture teaches cannot be wrong (which is not that same as saying anything which can be gleaned from Scripture cannot be wrong).


I assume, therefore, that you have never actually read the entire Bible... if you think scripture cannot be wrong, one has to assume you truly believe that snails melt, bats are a type of bird, and Mical had several children, and none.
Dempublicents1
12-12-2006, 16:54
the ancient church never understood the punative metaphor as the prime one. the eastern church still does not. you see this in the nicene creed "we acknowledge one baptist for the remission of sins" - sin is understood as a disease that goes into remission. forgiveness is a translation often applied in modern english, but the phrase in latin is "remissiĆ³nem peccatorum", and I've seen "remission" in every translation from the greek as well. christ to the ancients is our healer, not the guy who paid our bail. christ is refered to as a healer very, very often - and the Theosis theology of the ancient church and modern eastern church is built around this.

Have you ever, by chance, read any of Peter Abelard's essays?

His theory on atonement was that Christ died so that we would turn to God in love, rather than in fear and that, through that love and with God's grace, we would be able to overcome sin. The term "remission" works very well with his ideas.
then what of his mercy? if christ took our penalty for us, then God *did* exact punishment, and is not merciful, and the actual perpetrators of wrongdoing did not receive it - and God is not just. the idea that christ took on a penalty for an infringement of divine law is simple-minded and a gross perversion of God's charactor. no one proposed this idea of "satisfaction" before Anselm of Canterbury, who was in the midst of a fuedal society. under anglo saxon law, it was entirely permissable for a person to accept punishment for someone else's crime. it's a germanic custom, not actualy justice.

Another point is that Anselm's ideas were heavily based in an already well-entrenched (although not Scriptural) penance system. The penance system had begun in the early church, when priests were unsure what to do with those who had relapsed into sin. It had developed quite a bit by Anselm's time, and the idea that one could do penance for another was quite common. The idea of Purgatory had become a part of theology, and the Catholic practice of doing penance to help those in Purgatory get out faster was very well entrenched.

Anselm's idea of Christ taking on the burden for our sins - satisfying the penalty for them - was based in this idea of being able to do penance for - to take on the penalties for - the sins of others. He argued that, being divine and sinless, Christ's death essentially equated to an infinite amount of penance - a reservoir that we could all draw from for salvation. The penance portion of the atonement theory has gotten lost through the years (particularly since most denominations have dropped the penance practice altogether), but the theory itself has remained throughout most churches.
Smunkeeville
12-12-2006, 17:01
I assume, therefore, that you have never actually read the entire Bible... if you think scripture cannot be wrong, one has to assume you truly believe that snails melt, bats are a type of bird, and Mical had several children, and none.

Michal's children were adopted ;)

Michal had no child [2 Sam 6:23]

Michal had five children [2 Sam 21:8]



"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest." 2 Sam. 21:8-9
Ashmoria
12-12-2006, 17:46
oh - most people who agree with me don't bother debating on internet forums, and most people who care about substitutiary atonement who would want to debate it are not going to be friendly to my position. anyways:

<snip>


thanks for the post. i enjoyed it very much.
Grave_n_idle
12-12-2006, 18:12
Michal's children were adopted ;)

Michal had no child [2 Sam 6:23]

Michal had five children [2 Sam 21:8]



"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest." 2 Sam. 21:8-9

I've seen that translation before... the 'she brought up for...' bit, but it is a fabrication, it's not even vaguely supported in the native tongue.

It's another one of those cases of our modern bible being 'edited' to hide so many of the bits that are difficult or contradictory. (Like all the references to animals having 'souls'...)
Smunkeeville
12-12-2006, 18:49
I've seen that translation before... the 'she brought up for...' bit, but it is a fabrication, it's not even vaguely supported in the native tongue.

It's another one of those cases of our modern bible being 'edited' to hide so many of the bits that are difficult or contradictory. (Like all the references to animals having 'souls'...)

could be.

I am still working on my old languages......not good enough yet to debate using them, most of the time.

however, if you asked me 6 years ago how many kids I had I would say "none" and now I would say "two" so, I guess I am in a similar boat with being contradictory.
Texan Hotrodders
12-12-2006, 19:32
people do not come to places like this to be moved, they come to bicker and to inflate their own egos in little intellectual duels. at least, I know I do.

I come to do both; I have been moved (to the right) and my ego has been inflated as well.

Not that it needed much help, you understand. ;)
Grave_n_idle
12-12-2006, 23:30
could be.

I am still working on my old languages......not good enough yet to debate using them, most of the time.

however, if you asked me 6 years ago how many kids I had I would say "none" and now I would say "two" so, I guess I am in a similar boat with being contradictory.

The difference is - while you are usually right, no one is claiming you are incapable of being incorrect.

Similarly - your description of how many children you have - while, no doubt, correct - is not being claimed as a go-ordained history.

If God 'wrote' the Bible, and he wrote it in the past-tense, you'd think he'd know how many children Michal had had?
Smunkeeville
13-12-2006, 05:25
The difference is - while you are usually right, no one is claiming you are incapable of being incorrect.

Similarly - your description of how many children you have - while, no doubt, correct - is not being claimed as a go-ordained history.

If God 'wrote' the Bible, and he wrote it in the past-tense, you'd think he'd know how many children Michal had had?

ah........but God inspired people in their time to write, hence God breathed. That's why it's important to look at context while studying the Bible, who knows what kind of crap you could pull out of there without any background information to shape the stories around, although you do know and yes it's scary.
Vegan Nuts
13-12-2006, 17:30
thanks. ;) that is interesting.

you're welcome :D glad somebody liked it - I love religious ideas in basicly any tradition (I stayed up all night reading about tantra and islamic jurisprudence) but most people's eyes tend to glaze over when I try to talk to them about it...

Have you ever, by chance, read any of Peter Abelard's essays?

His theory on atonement was that Christ died so that we would turn to God in love, rather than in fear and that, through that love and with God's grace, we would be able to overcome sin. The term "remission" works very well with his ideas.


Another point is that Anselm's ideas were heavily based in an already well-entrenched (although not Scriptural) penance system. The penance system had begun in the early church, when priests were unsure what to do with those who had relapsed into sin. It had developed quite a bit by Anselm's time, and the idea that one could do penance for another was quite common. The idea of Purgatory had become a part of theology, and the Catholic practice of doing penance to help those in Purgatory get out faster was very well entrenched.

Anselm's idea of Christ taking on the burden for our sins - satisfying the penalty for them - was based in this idea of being able to do penance for - to take on the penalties for - the sins of others. He argued that, being divine and sinless, Christ's death essentially equated to an infinite amount of penance - a reservoir that we could all draw from for salvation. The penance portion of the atonement theory has gotten lost through the years (particularly since most denominations have dropped the penance practice altogether), but the theory itself has remained throughout most churches.

aberlard as in heloise and abelard? never read anything by him I'm afraid. I'm fond of much of catholic theology (st. francis assissi, st. hildegard von bingen, st. john of the cross, and alot of others) but as far as the real biggies like salvation and origional sin and the like go, I tend to prefer eastern orthodox thought. I've always been more of a greek than a roman thinker...

oh, interesting about the penance bit. that makes sense. still, penance of justification is a strictly western idea - typical of the roman mind, very linear and juridicial, as opposed to the more philosophical and naturalistic greek approach to just about everything. it would appear that the eastern church never evolved this roman sort of penance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penance#Eastern_Orthodox_Church), which doesn't suprise me.



thanks for the post. i enjoyed it very much.

indeed =) anyone who would like to hear an actual practicing Orthodox person (and someone much smarter than me) write about...anything, really, should look up the books of Bp. Kallistos Ware, some of whose pre-bishopric works are written under the name Timothy Ware.
Dempublicents1
13-12-2006, 18:01
aberlard as in heloise and abelard?

The same.

never read anything by him I'm afraid. I'm fond of much of catholic theology (st. francis assissi, st. hildegard von bingen, st. john of the cross, and alot of others) but as far as the real biggies like salvation and origional sin and the like go, I tend to prefer eastern orthodox thought. I've always been more of a greek than a roman thinker...

Based on what you said in your last post, I think you'd probably enjoy Abelard's ideas (although you definitely have to get past how arrogant he was). In the end, he was declared a heretic for them, as they completely conflicted with the much more accepted theory put forth by Anselm.

Most of my classes really stopped focussing on the Eastern churches much once getting to the schism, so I'm not as familiar with how their theology developed afterwards, but perhaps it the fact that Abelard's ideas were closer to the Eastern church (not to mention the fact that he wasn't clergy and was extremely arrogant) that stood in the way of propogating his ideas more fully.

oh, interesting about the penance bit. that makes sense. still, penance of justification is a strictly western idea - typical of the roman mind, very linear and juridicial, as opposed to the more philosophical and naturalistic greek approach to just about everything. it would appear that the eastern church never evolved this roman sort of penance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penance#Eastern_Orthodox_Church), which doesn't suprise me.

Interesting. At some point, I really need to look more closely into Eastern Christian theology.
Snow Eaters
13-12-2006, 23:00
And as for the "It works for you" "It works for me" stuff, I can only say bull. Add whatever suffix you want. There is but one Gospel.

I'm pretty sure there are 4 actually.
Snow Eaters
13-12-2006, 23:02
If I am convinced that Scripture teaches something, then I must say that that teaching cannot be wrong.


How do you become convinced?

You seem to hold several "beliefs" about scripture that are purely interpretation and speculation, Calvinism being one of them.

What is your standard of being "convinced"?
Snow Eaters
13-12-2006, 23:05
What did the Apostles do?

They wrote down all the teachings which God gave them.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

seems like the Apostles might have had more than we do.
Snow Eaters
13-12-2006, 23:07
If God 'wrote' the Bible, and he wrote it in the past-tense, you'd think he'd know how many children Michal had had?

Does anyone really believe that other than Genesis/Exodus?
as far as I'm aware, event he most ardent inerrancy of scripture promoters would believe it was recorded in the present tense by the writer's in their day or at least by the writer's collecting the various recent (loosely) events and putting them together.
Dempublicents1
13-12-2006, 23:15
I'm pretty sure there are 4 actually.

More that that even. There are 4 that have been accepted by most churches as accurate.
United Beleriand
13-12-2006, 23:54
Does anyone really believe that other than Genesis/Exodus?
as far as I'm aware, event he most ardent inerrancy of scripture promoters would believe it was recorded in the present tense by the writer's in their day or at least by the writer's collecting the various recent (loosely) events and putting them together.Just look it up. Checking whether or not the Septuagint (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm) has been written in past tense is pretty easy, since the text is available.
Snow Eaters
13-12-2006, 23:59
More that that even. There are 4 that have been accepted by most churches as accurate.

Sure, but it's those four that are "accepted" as Gospel that makes them the gospels in the first place. Others would now just be accounts by different people.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 00:00
I'm pretty sure there are 4 actually.

There are four Gospels, but there is one Gospel.

There are four divinelyinspired books which tell of Jesus birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

There is one explanation of how Man came into sin and can be saved from sin.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 00:02
How do you become convinced?

You seem to hold several "beliefs" about scripture that are purely interpretation and speculation, Calvinism being one of them.

What is your standard of being "convinced"?

Something works on your heart to make you believe it. Hopefully,the Spirit does. But it could also be a demon or your own sinful nature.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 00:04
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

seems like the Apostles might have had more than we do.

See how easy it is to be careless with words?

What I meant was that all Jesus told them which we are required to know they wrote down. There was nothing they wrote down which does not apply and there is nothing which we need to know which they kept hidden from us.
United Beleriand
14-12-2006, 00:07
There are four Gospels, but there is one Gospel.

There are four divinely inspired books which tell of Jesus birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

There is one explanation of how Man came into sin and can be saved from sin.Can you offer evidence or indications for the divine inspiration?
What is the one explanation of how Man came into sin and can be saved from sin?
United Beleriand
14-12-2006, 00:08
Sure, but it's those four that are "accepted" as Gospel that makes them the gospels in the first place. Others would now just be accounts by different people.You mean acceptance by church authorities?
United Beleriand
14-12-2006, 00:12
See how easy it is to be careless with words?

What I meant was that all Jesus told them which we are required to know they wrote down. There was nothing they wrote down which does not apply and there is nothing which we need to know which they kept hidden from us.How do you know that? Have you been present when they wrote that down or do you have a special source of information? Can you offer evidence or indications for the accuracy of these accounts? How did they get to know about Yeshua's birth and youth? Who was there to record that? Yeshua's brothers? Were they interviewed?
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 00:48
See how easy it is to be careless with words?

What I meant was that all Jesus told them which we are required to know they wrote down. There was nothing they wrote down which does not apply and there is nothing which we need to know which they kept hidden from us.

is there some place in the gospels where jesus tells the apostles what to jot down for posterity and what they can just leave out?

we know what was passed orally from group to group which was eventually written down by men who never met jesus in the flesh. even the epistles of peter and james dont seem to mention any personal stories about jesus.
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 03:37
Something works on your heart to make you believe it. Hopefully,the Spirit does. But it could also be a demon or your own sinful nature.

So, perhaps a demon has convinced you that Calvinism is the right belief and your own sinful nature has led you believe in a Covenant Theology???
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 03:40
There are four Gospels, but there is one Gospel.

There are four divinelyinspired books which tell of Jesus birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

There is one explanation of how Man came into sin and can be saved from sin.

The books agree on the message where they overlap but they differ in details, how do you reconcile that with your belief that your beliefs are absolutely true?

Where does Jesus endorse a particular theological view on how man came into sin and precisely how man is saved?
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 03:43
So, perhaps a demon has convinced you that Calvinism is the right belief and your own sinful nature has led you believe in a Covenant Theology???

Well, that is possible, but I see my beliefs supported in Scripture and opposing beliefs refuted, so I'm not worried about the demons or my sinful nature leading me to Calvinism.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 03:47
The books agree on the message where they overlap but they differ in details, how do you reconcile that with your belief that your beliefs are absolutely true?

Where does Jesus endorse a particular theological view on how man came into sin and precisely how man is saved?

No one has ever proven to me that the Bible contradicts itself. Most "contradictions" are a result of being taken out of context.

Jesus is God and God inspired the Prophets and Apostles who recorded throughout the whole of Scripture how Man came to sin (Genesis) what that sin means (good example is Romans) that God loves us enough to provide Salvation (good example is Romans again) that Jesus came (Gospels) and died, rose, and ascended (Gospels) and that He will come again (Revelation).

The rest of the Bible repeats these themes or tells us how we should act because of these themes.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 03:47
Well, that is possible, but I see my beliefs supported in Scripture and opposing beliefs refuted, so I'm not worried about the demons or my sinful nature leading me to Calvinism.

so is everyone else's. its all a matter of interpretation and all denominations use the bible as the proof for what they believe. so why is YOUR interpretation better than that of the archbishop of canterbury's?
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 03:48
is there some place in the gospels where jesus tells the apostles what to jot down for posterity and what they can just leave out?

we know what was passed orally from group to group which was eventually written down by men who never met jesus in the flesh. even the epistles of peter and james dont seem to mention any personal stories about jesus.

Well, the only reason they were included in the Canon is because they were written by people who were specifically called by Christ.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 04:33
Well, the only reason they were included in the Canon is because they were written by people who were specifically called by Christ.

and where does scripture say THAT? we dont even know who wrote the gospels and several of the epistles.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:39
so is everyone else's. its all a matter of interpretation and all denominations use the bible as the proof for what they believe. so why is YOUR interpretation better than that of the archbishop of canterbury's?

Because I use the whole of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture. Though, I do admit that I like to use creeds, confessions and catechisms to summarize the teacings of Scripture.

If the archbishop is looking at the whole of Scripture and Scripture alone and if he comes to an opposing comclusion, then he must accept that opposing belief. I think it is very unlikely that he will come to an opposing belief, but he can.
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 04:41
Well, that is possible, but I see my beliefs supported in Scripture and opposing beliefs refuted, so I'm not worried about the demons or my sinful nature leading me to Calvinism.

I'm not actually trying to imply you're being led by demons anyway, but I don't see the support in scripture for your specific theological beliefs either and as such, I believe you are placing far too much emphasis on the doctrine of man.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:41
and where does scripture say THAT? we dont even know who wrote the gospels and several of the epistles.

The only book of the Bible whose authorship can be doubted is Hebrews, and most still think that it was Paul who penned it.

There was never really any doubt about this stuff until the last century. That's when these revisionist people came in and started trying to make everything into a political struggle between the sexes.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:42
I'm not actually trying to imply you're being led by demons anyway, but I don't see the support in scripture for your specific theological beliefs either and as such, I believe you are placing far too much emphasis on the doctrine of man.

Make a thread on the particular topic and I'll give verses in support (or denial). Or TG me.
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 04:47
No one has ever proven to me that the Bible contradicts itself. Most "contradictions" are a result of being taken out of context.

Jesus is God and God inspired the Prophets and Apostles who recorded throughout the whole of Scripture how Man came to sin (Genesis) what that sin means (good example is Romans) that God loves us enough to provide Salvation (good example is Romans again) that Jesus came (Gospels) and died, rose, and ascended (Gospels) and that He will come again (Revelation).

The rest of the Bible repeats these themes or tells us how we should act because of these themes.


Depends on what you mean by "contradictions".
The gospels themselves have different accounts of the same events.
I don't have any issue with that because I believe that the message is inspired, not necessarily the scripture itself, the sripture being the way that men put down the message that was inspired. The message doesn't contradict when taken as a whole, even though the details might conflict.

But you have a more traditionally modernism approach to scripture from what I gather where flaws in scripture should be a real problem. I don't understand how you maintain your dogmatic adherence to your doctrines in the face of human flaws in scripture.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 04:49
The only book of the Bible whose authorship can be doubted is Hebrews, and most still think that it was Paul who penned it.

There was never really any doubt about this stuff until the last century. That's when these revisionist people came in and started trying to make everything into a political struggle between the sexes.

well supposing that the book of matthew was written by someone named matthew (not all that likely) who is matthew?

you havent ever studied up on the authorship of the books of the new testament? i highly recommend it.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:51
Depends on what you mean by "contradictions".
The gospels themselves have different accounts of the same events.
I don't have any issue with that because I believe that the message is inspired, not necessarily the scripture itself, the sripture being the way that men put down the message that was inspired. The message doesn't contradict when taken as a whole, even though the details might conflict.

But you have a more traditionally modernism approach to scripture from what I gather where flaws in scripture should be a real problem. I don't understand how you maintain your dogmatic adherence to your doctrines in the face of human flaws in scripture.

Ummm, because if there is even one flaw in Scripture, then it is not Scripture. If God is there, and if He cares, then one would think that He would care enough to make sure we get it right.

If there is even one flaw in Scripture, we have no basis for anything. Why? Because we cannot trust it. For all we know, the hands of Man could have corrupted the message beyond all recognition.

But, if it is truly God's Word, and it comes from Him, then it must be perfect: infallible and inerrant.

And that's the Reformed view. Modernism is your view basically. Or you could be Neo-orthodox (which should really be called Neo-liberalism).
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:54
well supposing that the book of matthew was written by someone named matthew (not all that likely) who is matthew?

you havent ever studied up on the authorship of the books of the new testament? i highly recommend it.

Matthew the Apostle? The tax collector? Because Jesus called him specifically, his writing was put in the Canon.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 04:58
Ummm, because if there is even one flaw in Scripture, then it is not Scripture. If God is there, and if He cares, then one would think that He would care enough to make sure we get it right.

If there is even one flaw in Scripture, we have no basis for anything. Why? Because we cannot trust it. For all we know, the hands of Man could have corrupted the message beyond all recognition.

But, if it is truly God's Word, and it comes from Him, then it must be perfect: infallible and inerrant.

And that's the Reformed view. Modernism is your view basically. Or you could be Neo-orthodox (which should really be called Neo-liberalism).

but then you do have nothing. there are obvious flaws, bad translations at the very least.

the bible isnt god. its an indication of god. jesus didnt come to earth to trick us with biblical riddles. if perfect understanding and perfect belief is required, we are all doomed.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 04:59
but then you do have nothing. there are obvious flaws, bad translations at the very least.

the bible isnt god. its an indication of god. jesus didnt come to earth to trick us with biblical riddles. if perfect understanding and perfect belief is required, we are all doomed.

But if you can't trust Scripture, you don't know that there was a Jesus.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 05:20
But if you can't trust Scripture, you don't know that there was a Jesus.

yes

you would have to have faith in jesus instead of faith in the bible's accuracy.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 05:29
yes

you would have to have faith in jesus instead of faith in the bible's accuracy.

Oh, I understand now. I thought you were totally confused, but at least now I know where you're coming from.

Anyway you think about it, you have to have the Bible, and it must be infallible. Some how, some way, everything you know about Jesus has come through Scripture. And as for putting trust in Jesus and not the Bible, you would not know who Jesus was without the Bible, and so if you cannot trust it, you cannot trust what the Bible says about Him. And if you cannot trust that, you don't really know Who you are trusting.

The stance you are taking allows you to avoid the unpleasent doctrines which the Bible teaches, but you are cutting off the limb you're sitting on.
Grave_n_idle
14-12-2006, 07:51
But if you can't trust Scripture, you don't know that there was a Jesus.

And, do you realise that you here admit that the only evidence for any 'truth' of the bible... is the bible?

That's why the argument is circular - if you don't accept that the book is god-breathed, then you have no reason to believe Jesus was some miraculous figure, and if you don't believe he was some miraculous figure, you have no reason to believe the book to be god-breathed.

The entire argument for believing the bible, relies on believing it BEFORE you start the debate.
The Brevious
14-12-2006, 08:12
And, do you realise that you here admit that the only evidence for any 'truth' of the bible... is the bible?

That's why the argument is circular - if you don't accept that the book is god-breathed, then you have no reason to believe Jesus was some miraculous figure, and if you don't believe he was some miraculous figure, you have no reason to believe the book to be god-breathed.

The entire argument for believing the bible, relies on believing it BEFORE you start the debate.

Good point.

Also ... i noted no mention of Quantum Presbyterian in the OP.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 15:21
Good point.

Also ... i noted no mention of Quantum Presbyterian in the OP.

Quantum Presbyterian? By definition, Presbyterians are Reformed and they follow Covenant theology.

I've never heard of "Quantum Presbyterian"

EDIT: Apparently it's a Simpsons thing. Which is all the more reason to dismiss "Quantum Presbyterianism" as stupidity incarnate.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 16:06
Oh, I understand now. I thought you were totally confused, but at least now I know where you're coming from.

Anyway you think about it, you have to have the Bible, and it must be infallible. Some how, some way, everything you know about Jesus has come through Scripture. And as for putting trust in Jesus and not the Bible, you would not know who Jesus was without the Bible, and so if you cannot trust it, you cannot trust what the Bible says about Him. And if you cannot trust that, you don't really know Who you are trusting.

The stance you are taking allows you to avoid the unpleasent doctrines which the Bible teaches, but you are cutting off the limb you're sitting on.

yes

and do you see now where YOU are coming firom? you are standing on that limb instead of being in the arms of jesus. in a strange way you believe more in the bible than in god. if the bible is proven wrong you have nothing.

no wonder you insist so rigidly on the accuracy of your theology. its not easy to stand on a limb. it might break; you might fall off.
PootWaddle
14-12-2006, 16:15
yes

and do you see now where YOU are coming firom? you are standing on that limb instead of being in the arms of jesus. in a strange way you believe more in the bible than in god. if the bible is proven wrong you have nothing.

no wonder you insist so rigidly on the accuracy of your theology. its not easy to stand on a limb. it might break; you might fall off.

Jesus himself said we are the branches and he is the vine...

John 15:4-6
4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Being on the branch isn't such a bad place to be...
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 16:21
Jesus himself said we are the branches and he is the vine...

John 15:4-6
4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Being on the branch isn't such a bad place to be...

as long as it is being held by the vine of jesus.
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 17:15
Ummm, because if there is even one flaw in Scripture, then it is not Scripture. If God is there, and if He cares, then one would think that He would care enough to make sure we get it right.


Whoa.
There's your problem right there. You've just left your stated territory of inerrant scripture and only inerrant scripture and are firmly into personal speculation about the designs and motives of God.

If "caring" about us "getting it right" was what God was all about, then surely He could show up as a burning bush to every man, woman and child and we'd have no need to be concerned about getting it wrong anymore.

Clearly, clarity is not on His agenda. Even Jesus spoke in parables and not directly.
Make no mistake, I'm fully of the opinion that scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God, therefore the message will be of God, but the message is brought via human, and flawed vessels and we are to seek it.
I believe that the value is in the seeking and discovery, led by the Spirit of God and definitely NOT in some rigidly defined and codexed (I think I just made up a new adjective) theological doctrinal statement that gets everything "right".


And that's the Reformed view. Modernism is your view basically. Or you could be Neo-orthodox (which should really be called Neo-liberalism).

No, I describe your view as "Modernism" because it essentially views scripture as some kind of God-dictated manual or scientific textbook, that view grew quite easily out of the Reformed view.

Neo-Orthodox isn't too far from where I am, but I identify mostly with those that are currently describing themselves in a "post-modernism" view, which isn't really a good name yet as it encompasses too much for it to really stand on it's own name yet.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 17:19
yes

and do you see now where YOU are coming firom? you are standing on that limb instead of being in the arms of jesus. in a strange way you believe more in the bible than in god. if the bible is proven wrong you have nothing.

no wonder you insist so rigidly on the accuracy of your theology. its not easy to stand on a limb. it might break; you might fall off.

No, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 17:24
Whoa.
There's your problem right there. You've just left your stated territory of inerrant scripture and only inerrant scripture and are firmly into personal speculation about the designs and motives of God.

I went into the realm of speculation for the sake of argument. Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as you come back and say "And this speculation is not mere speculation because it is supported by Scripture"

If "caring" about us "getting it right" was what God was all about, then surely He could show up as a burning bush to every man, woman and child and we'd have no need to be concerned about getting it wrong anymore.

All things happen for God's glory, including some people getting it wrong.

Clearly, clarity is not on His agenda. Even Jesus spoke in parables and not directly.

Yes, but He always explained the parable directly after.

Make no mistake, I'm fully of the opinion that scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God, therefore the message will be of God, but the message is brought via human, and flawed vessels and we are to seek it.
I believe that the value is in the seeking and discovery, led by the Spirit of God and definitely NOT in some rigidly defined and codexed (I think I just made up a new adjective) theological doctrinal statement that gets everything "right".

I couldn't disagree more.

No, I describe your view as "Modernism" because it essentially views scripture as some kind of God-dictated manual or scientific textbook, that view grew quite easily out of the Reformed view.

No, Modernism is synonomous with liberalism which says that God's Word is contained in the word's of Man, which is definately not the Reformed view.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 17:33
No, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God.

obviously thats not true. you believe in god because you believe in the bible.

if the bible were shown to be inaccurate (which it is in many many places) then your faith would be destroyed. your FAITH is in the inerrancy of the bible, not in god.

for other people finding out that the bible is inaccurate--that there was no garden of eden, that the story of moses was taken from the babylonians (or whoever) that the story of christmas is totally made-up--doesnt destroy their faith. it helps to deepen their understanding of the mysterious nature of god. they believe in the bible because they believe in god.
Snow Eaters
14-12-2006, 17:34
I went into the realm of speculation for the sake of argument. Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as you come back and say "And this speculation is not mere speculation because it is supported by Scripture"


But it is not supported. You are making an assumption on God's intention with scripture.



Yes, but He always explained the parable directly after.


He explained it to the disciples, not the the hundreds or thousands that he had told the parable to, and even then, he often left them guessing about what he was upto.


I couldn't disagree more.


You are free to, I'm explaining where we differ and why.


No, Modernism is synonomous with liberalism which says that God's Word is contained in the word's of Man, which is definately not the Reformed view.

Then we are using words with different connotations, go with how I defined it rather than with the word then. The termis less important than the concepts.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 17:39
obviously thats not true. you believe in god because you believe in the bible.

if the bible were shown to be inaccurate (which it is in many many places) then your faith would be destroyed. your FAITH is in the inerrancy of the bible, not in god.

for other people finding out that the bible is inaccurate--that there was no garden of eden, that the story of moses was taken from the babylonians (or whoever) that the story of christmas is totally made-up--doesnt destroy their faith. it helps to deepen their understanding of the mysterious nature of god. they believe in the bible because they believe in god.

No, they don't believe in the Bible at all.

I believe in aspects of God (total sovereignty for example), because I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible because I believe in God.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 17:43
But it is not supported. You are making an assumption on God's intention with scripture.

No, there are Biblical verses backing it up. I can't find any right now (Of course, why would I be able to find them when I need them?). The ones which say that all Scripture is God breathed and that God gave us all that He wants us to know.

He explained it to the disciples, not the the hundreds or thousands that he had told the parable to, and even then, he often left them guessing about what he was upto.

And? He still explained it, and they in turn explained it to us.

You are free to, I'm explaining where we differ and why.

Yes, and I am confirming those differences

Then we are using words with different connotations, go with how I defined it rather than with the word then. The termis less important than the concepts.

Sorry, Modernist has an almost dirty connotation in my mind.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 17:46
Anyway you think about it, you have to have the Bible, and it must be infallible. Some how, some way, everything you know about Jesus has come through Scripture. And as for putting trust in Jesus and not the Bible, you would not know who Jesus was without the Bible, and so if you cannot trust it, you cannot trust what the Bible says about Him. And if you cannot trust that, you don't really know Who you are trusting.


No, they don't believe in the Bible at all.

I believe in aspects of God (total sovereignty for example), because I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible because I believe in God.

youre the one who said it. so YOU explain to me how the top quote doesnt mean that without the belief in the bible you dont believe in god.
Edwardis
14-12-2006, 17:49
youre the one who said it. so YOU explain to me how the top quote doesnt mean that without the belief in the bible you dont believe in god.

I didn't say that you can't believe in God if you don't believe in the Bible. What I said (or at least what I meant to say) is that if you don't have an outside source, you have only your thoughts and feelings which are hardly unbiased.

So, the Holy Spirit prompts you to belief and God gave His infallible Word to tell you what to believe.
Ashmoria
14-12-2006, 17:54
I didn't say that you can't believe in God if you don't believe in the Bible. What I said (or at least what I meant to say) is that if you don't have an outside source, you have only your thoughts and feelings which are hardly unbiased.

So, the Holy Spirit prompts you to belief and God gave His infallible Word to tell you what to believe.

youre the one who said "But if you can't trust Scripture, you don't know that there was a Jesus."

where is your faith? in the bible or in jesus?