The bible as a standard

I'd answer seriously, but I'm having trouble controlling my laughter. You were told that by a person who believes the only reliable text in the Bible is that which is printed in red ink (as if the Spirit is able to guide Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to preserve the words of Jesus accurately, but not able to guide the other writings of Luke, Paul, Peter, John, etc.).

So we are not only guilty of relying only on the scriptures, but we are also guilty of relying on those parts of the scriptures that aren't in red ink, thus compounding our error! Woe is us!

 

"If you refuse to believe that there is more than the scriptures, there is no truth that I post that you will believe."

In order for something to be 'truth', in the Biblical sence, that very truth must be strongly supported with scripture.

If it cannot be supported, then it cannot be for certain 'truth'.

In short, Scripture = truth, if you have no scripture, you have no truth.
In a Biblical sence.


Therefore, you cannot base 'freewill', on what man feels or what man thinks God should be like.
'Freewill' must be clearly and strongly supported by scripture in order to be true.

'do not lean on your own understanding'

 

Why is everyone dismissing the power of the Spirit to instruct a believer on things that may not be clear in the Word? Does the Spirit count for anything?

 

Interesting thing that people somewhat understand and are not cautious about is, that the bible can be interpreted in two ways

carnal mans interpretation
and
the holy Spirit's interpretation

both are viewpoints are diametrically opposed to each other.

seriously ask yourself..
would God Ask you to pluck out your Eye ?
mat 5:29..although a lot of people think that is what is "good" advice from Jesus.

Man can find God everywhere and in everything...
sit still and hear his voice..

The bible only explains what your hearing in english as told through other peoples experiences

Thats why God teaches using TWO Parts...
hearing and seeing.

question here should be..
is reading the bible..hearing the voice of the spirit?..and can one use the experience of someone told about in the bible as personal understanding?

both answers...No.

 

The Scriptures are the standard. Christians cannot follow their version of Christianity at the expense of the word of God. Such prime examples exist that serve to warn us of the dangers in doing such: Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Seventh-Day Adventism, Open Theism, et al.

 

Forgive me, but I simple find it unbeleivable that people think that the Scriptures are incomplete.
The Scriptures contains everything we need to know, if the Scriptures do not mention things, then we are not to know and should not try to obtain knowledge.

Any 'truth' that is 'revealed' outside of scripture, is from one of two things. Either demons and the lies of Satan, or your own decieving heart.

 

THis sounds tremendously like the doctrine of the Church of Christ. I find it odd that you add Pentecostalism in there. Why did you not go ahead and add presbyterianism and methodism in there?

 

Sounds like a complaint that we won't eisegete the Bible. If that's the accusation then I am guilty and proud of it!

 

THis sounds tremendously like the doctrine of the Church of Christ. I find it odd that you add Pentecostalism in there. Why did you not go ahead and add presbyterianism and methodism in there? [/QB][/QUOTE]


no, pentacostals just fudge scriptures to say that truth can come outside of scripture.

 

The world gets the idea of those reading the bible is not understanding what it is saying.

"christians" say that God is Love..yet they also say that he will destroy the majority of his creation.

and yet you are still confused why the world calls "christians" hypocritcal ?

is it by their misunderstanding of their intepreting their Bible ?

or misinterpreting what God is telling them ?

 

I'm kind of disappointed that people here on this board are so invalidating the work of the Spirit. I'm not saying that the Spirit will contradict the Word - but for you all to deny that the Spirit can instruct the believer concerning issues where the Scripture is silent is amazing.

 

You are misunderstanding what is being said. Let me illustrate:

Scripture is silent about what to do about clones. Nevertheless the Spirit will guide believers to answer the question using principles and teachings already present in Scripture.

The Spirit will not import brand new and unheard of teachings and principles.

The question you need to answer is which practice is Yelsew suggesting?

 

Of course the Spirit can instruct the believer. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. What I see is that the Spirit does not teach something contrary to the written Word of God. So one cannot justify an interpretation of scripture that contradicts other scripture and say "It is true because the Spirit taught me that."

 

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

For myself...I dont mind living by the bibles "recommendations"...what I do mind is the teachings of men with their various intepretations of what they think the bible is expressing... to them.

Without the Spirits help.....

 

As I read the Bible I believe Penecostalism has more clearity of truth than a five point Calvinist. I am not a Penecostal person and I realize their are those in this branch of the church as well as extreme Calvinists who are off the scope.

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote eye-witness reports of Jesus, the Son of God. Paul, was not an eye witness of Jesus, but rather was made an enemy to Jesus. Peter, the head of the Jerusalem church seems silent about the specifics reported by the Gospels writers.

Since the Gospels record the words of the only begotten of the Father, who is also God "with the Father", it seems right that the recorded words of the one who is God, must carry more weight than the words of the ones for whom God became incarnate in order to save from their sins.

From a biblical point of view, Eye witness reports are inherently more valuable in a court of judgment than the teachings of one about those eye witness reports, or "third party" philosophical reports. The Gospels provide the source material that Paul teaches believers. And teachers are notorious for injecting their own slant to the historical truth (preachers too).

So it is logical that the church which Jesus founded, upon the truth that He Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, should place more weight on his "red-letter" words, than those of an apostle who had no "direct" teaching from the messiah. Paul received the eye-witness reports first hand from the eye-witnesses, however his testimony would be considered to be "hear-say" evidence in a court as opposed to the eye-witness reports or Matt, Mark, Luke and John. That which can be corroborated between them is acceptable as evidence. However, Paul goes places in a form of explanation of his understandings, that are not specific to the words of Jesus, but are essential to the understanding of the Christian lifestyle.

Do I diminish the importance of the Pauline letters? Not at all, every one of them is written to believers and provide insight into living the Christian life, and having assurance that belief in Jesus is fully justified.

Do I place undue importance in the Gospels? Again, not at all, the Gospels form the core of human belief in God. Without them, Paul would be spittin' into the wind! And so would you!