Alive in Christ
New Member
Billwald,
No, its not. The Holy Spirit is the interpreter.
:godisgood:
No, its not. The Holy Spirit is the interpreter.
:godisgood:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
4 or 5 views on essential doctrines?
- Thread starter CarpentersApprentice
- Start date
And how does He do that?
Good morning, Matthew, etal, just a short kibbitz, thanks.
Jesus said he would not leave us comfortless--He has kept that promise. The Spirit, The Holy, still indwells His churches since the day of Pentecost, preserving a remnant through this day.
He still leads in all truth.
We do err, not knowing the Scripture and power of God.
God does not need us to accomplish His Will.
Selah,
Bro. James
Jesus said he would not leave us comfortless--He has kept that promise. The Spirit, The Holy, still indwells His churches since the day of Pentecost, preserving a remnant through this day.
He still leads in all truth.
We do err, not knowing the Scripture and power of God.
God does not need us to accomplish His Will.
Selah,
Bro. James
Could you unpack that a bit more; I'm not sure whether you're saying that the HS acts on a congregational or individual basis when it comes to interpreting Scripture?
For certain: God is not the author of confusion. The world of Christendom is filled with confusion, the author of which is Satan. He uses various large denominations to promulgate basic errors which have crept in unawares--the wolves dressed like sheep. They have deceived many. Jesus told His sheep not to believe them, and they don't.
This has seldom been the majority, in fact, the majority of the religious world has not a clue. They know not the truth and are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. See Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 7, the part about "depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you." To whom is Jesus speaking?
The Spirit, The Holy, (the other Comforter from Pentecost) leads the congregation through the preaching and teaching of The Word--sola scriptura. Whatever the potentates,popes, etal have said in the past 1600 years is subject to verification in the Word of God. They have all failed the tests. They were born in corruption and have propagated more corruption in every generation. This is the main reason Sola Scriptura has been scorned by the majority--it shows us for what we really are: depraved. We have serious trouble with that paradigm--in our flesh. If our personal interpretation does not agree with the congregation/HS, there is probably something wrong with our personal interpretation.
How does one reform something corrupted?
No es possible.
Selah,
Bro. James
This has seldom been the majority, in fact, the majority of the religious world has not a clue. They know not the truth and are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. See Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 7, the part about "depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you." To whom is Jesus speaking?
The Spirit, The Holy, (the other Comforter from Pentecost) leads the congregation through the preaching and teaching of The Word--sola scriptura. Whatever the potentates,popes, etal have said in the past 1600 years is subject to verification in the Word of God. They have all failed the tests. They were born in corruption and have propagated more corruption in every generation. This is the main reason Sola Scriptura has been scorned by the majority--it shows us for what we really are: depraved. We have serious trouble with that paradigm--in our flesh. If our personal interpretation does not agree with the congregation/HS, there is probably something wrong with our personal interpretation.
How does one reform something corrupted?
No es possible.
Selah,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Bro. James said:
What, pray tell, are these basic error promulgated by large denominations?
Starting toward the top: universal church, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation...there are more.
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump."
Now what?
Selah---Shalom,
Bro. James
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump."
Now what?
Selah---Shalom,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
All of the doctrines to which Bro James refers can be justified by an appeal to Scripture. The real question is: on what basis does he say that his interpretation of the Scriptures is correct and that of others isn't?
Ah, now I see it! However, I think a little elderly German man in the Vatican might disagree with Bro James' delusions of grandeur there
Apologies and restitution do not change the facts.
The above referenced doctrines are not supported by scripture. This is why the ones who translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic of the Holy Writ into the common vernacular aka: English, were so hounded, harassed and killed. See the biographies of Wycliffe, Tyndale, etal.
The religous powers that be cannot afford to be exposed for what they really are: deceivers, wolves dressed like sheep. See: Matthew 7:21-29, most any translation.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of The Living God.
Selah,
Bro. James
The above referenced doctrines are not supported by scripture. This is why the ones who translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic of the Holy Writ into the common vernacular aka: English, were so hounded, harassed and killed. See the biographies of Wycliffe, Tyndale, etal.
The religous powers that be cannot afford to be exposed for what they really are: deceivers, wolves dressed like sheep. See: Matthew 7:21-29, most any translation.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of The Living God.
Selah,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you'll find they are supported by Scripture, eg:
Col 1:18Bro. James said:
Matt 19:14 & JOhn 3:5; Acts 16:15, 33; Col 2:12
Mark 16:16; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21
John 6:33-59
This is the crux of the impasse: trying to force man-made doctrine/ unnecessary inferences through the paradigm of the whole counsel of God. Such only makes sense through the paradigm of the holy see.
Col. 1:18--the reference to church applies to every local New Testament Church. An invisible universal assembly is not even a possibility--except through the eyes of the universal papa and his conclave. There are dozens of scripture which refer to churches in various places. See Rev. Ch. 2,3. Where is the universal church in this book? Only when the saints are gathered do we find a certain universality--but not in this Age.
Matt. 19:14--where is the word baptism used? It is an unnecessary inference, used to support man-made doctrine.
John 3:5--born of water... Again, the word baptism is not used. This is another unnecessary inference. The point of this verse is to show that just a physical birth does not get one to heaven but rather a spiritual birth. Read the whole context--that which is flesh is flesh; that which is spirit is spirit--ye must be born again. Most human fetuses grow in a "bag of water"--make good sense in the whole context.
The concept of baptismal regeneration is completely contrary to many scripture: See Eph. 2:8-10, in the Confraternity if you like. In fact, if you leave out the footnotes, the Duay Version says what I contend. That is why the Holy See really does not want the laity reading scripture--we cannot understand it anyway. In the final analysis: the tradition of the church overrides anything the laity might find contradictory in the faith and practice.
Now what?
Unnecessary inferences are poor evidence for doctrines. Conclusions therefrom are also unnecessary.
Sorry, I cannot finish this rebuttal at this time. Tomorrow.
Selah,
Bro. James
Col. 1:18--the reference to church applies to every local New Testament Church. An invisible universal assembly is not even a possibility--except through the eyes of the universal papa and his conclave. There are dozens of scripture which refer to churches in various places. See Rev. Ch. 2,3. Where is the universal church in this book? Only when the saints are gathered do we find a certain universality--but not in this Age.
Matt. 19:14--where is the word baptism used? It is an unnecessary inference, used to support man-made doctrine.
John 3:5--born of water... Again, the word baptism is not used. This is another unnecessary inference. The point of this verse is to show that just a physical birth does not get one to heaven but rather a spiritual birth. Read the whole context--that which is flesh is flesh; that which is spirit is spirit--ye must be born again. Most human fetuses grow in a "bag of water"--make good sense in the whole context.
The concept of baptismal regeneration is completely contrary to many scripture: See Eph. 2:8-10, in the Confraternity if you like. In fact, if you leave out the footnotes, the Duay Version says what I contend. That is why the Holy See really does not want the laity reading scripture--we cannot understand it anyway. In the final analysis: the tradition of the church overrides anything the laity might find contradictory in the faith and practice.
Now what?
Unnecessary inferences are poor evidence for doctrines. Conclusions therefrom are also unnecessary.
Sorry, I cannot finish this rebuttal at this time. Tomorrow.
Selah,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I don't think Matt's "oblivious", but I think rather that he is asking (rhetorically) how the Holy Spirit interprets--does He inspire individual Christians into their own private interpretations, which may be diametrically opposed on some crucial salvation issues, -OR- does He guide the CHURCH as whole into a consensus of correct interpretation (just has He so guided the CHURCH collectively to recognize then 'close' the Canon)?D28guy said:
Matt said...
And Agnus Dei said...
No mere men are infallible. None. Zero. And the ones who claim inffalibility...the Jehovahs Wittnesses organisation, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh, the Romish Churches "Pope" and "Teaching Magisterium", Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, etc....are the furthest from truth.
Gods scriptures are infallible. The Holy Spirit is the perfect interpreter. But no human being has perfect hearing.
It is the cultic ones I listed...and others...who have the most to fear.
Mike
And Agnus Dei said...
No mere men are infallible. None. Zero. And the ones who claim inffalibility...the Jehovahs Wittnesses organisation, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh, the Romish Churches "Pope" and "Teaching Magisterium", Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, etc....are the furthest from truth.
Gods scriptures are infallible. The Holy Spirit is the perfect interpreter. But no human being has perfect hearing.
It is the cultic ones I listed...and others...who have the most to fear.
Mike
A bit late: is there somewhere to find how to use the "quote" feature on this blog? Any help will be greatly appreciated. I was confused before we changed formats. Now I am confounded.
Gracioso,
Bro. James
Gracioso,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator: