The Scriptures The Criterion For Interpreting Christ

Yes.

We judge determine the truth and error of competing doctrines by the objective standard of scripture as interpreted by the criterion of Jesus Christ as led by the Holy Spirit.

But having an objective standard such as the written word of God does not discredit the reality that Christ, specifically and personally, give us leadership and guidance apart from (but not in contradiction to) the scripture.

We are His sheep, we know His voice and we follow Him.

I certainly acknowledge the authority of scripture, but I also recognize that you carry no authority unless you are in line with scripture and are directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I’m still waiting for that public apology for your false characterizations of me in the “Jesus as the criterion” thread. The scripture plainly teaches that one should be humble, should not bear false witness and should also treat each other with respect. If you think yourself a prophet or spiritual, you should follow the clearly revealed will of God in scripture and apologize.

Do you have the integrity to do it?

 

Which opens the door for anyone to say, "Jesus led me to believe and do this so I don't accept your interpretation of the Bible."</font>[/QUOTE]1. The voice of God does not contradict the written revelation of God found in scripture.
2. Interpreting by the criterion of Jesus Christ does not mean that “anything goes” in regard to theology.

Frankly, I don’t think you understand what I wrote. Let me break down my statement into the three main parts:

We determine the truth and error of competing doctrines by the objective standard of scripture…

This statement is in full agreement with what you posted previously. I don’t think we have a difference here.

…as interpreted by the criterion of Jesus Christ…

That is, interpreting the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament by the life, teachings and actions of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels.

…as led by the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit helps us properly interpret the written revelation of God and gives us illumination.

If a woman senses a calling to be pastor, she should look to the scriptures to determine if her perceptions are correct. If the scripture does not allow for it, then she must determine that the “calling” she has received is invalid or has been misinterpreted.

While faithful and sincere Christians may disagree on the role of women in church ministry, this method of interpreting God’s callings should not be in dispute among those who respect scripture.

Your example starts with a false premise. Therefore, the rest of the reasoning is invalid.

Just because some people misuse the principle does not mean that the principle is invalid!

It is you, not I, who owes an apology; not to me, but to Christ, whose holy name you have maligned by reducing His holy words to the level of a pagan myth.</font>[/QUOTE]I said it before and I’ll say it again… You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are being exceptionally dishonest in order to find a justification to condemn me.

Here’s what I previously wrote:
--

The ancient world was well aware of the use of symbols, myth and allegory, and it is quite possible that the hearers of Jesus were not concerned about whether or not the events that Jesus referenced were literal.

This is discussing the possibly non-literal worldview of Palestine in the first century.

I toured a magnificent collection of artifacts from the tombs of ancient Egypt this afternoon (circa 2000 B.C.)…

This is a statement of fact.

…and was struck by the way the ancient mind freely used myth and symbols to express what they believed to be religious truth.

This is a statement regarding the nature of the worldview of ancient peoples in Egypt that is very likely to be a similar worldview to the Israelites when they were led out of ancient Egypt by Moses.

People in the Western world’s “modern” era are very concerned about “literalness” due to the influence of modern science, but that trend is changing due to the empty rationalism of the age.

This is my understanding of the current and changing Western worldview.

--

While you may disagree with my analysis (it is certainly your right), you do not have the right to misrepresent my words and call for “the infidels” to be driven out of the churches – clearly implying that I am somehow an “infidel”.

I HAVE NOT maligned the holy name of Christ “by reducing His holy words to the level of a pagan myth”!

 

Baptist Believer, it is at this point that the disagreement is so sharp and necessary. You don't know a thing about Christ that is accurate that is not in the Scripture.

Let me illustrate how this usually goes if anyone other than the four of us even care about this thread:

1. Jesus elevated women from the position of property to that of personhood.

2. Paul taught submission to one another and that wives were to be in submission to their husband.

3. The spirit of Christ would have us choose the first because submission puts women down.

Explanation:

1. Jesus agreed with what God had already said as recorded in Genesis that both man and woman was made in the image of God and therefore above the animals and all the rest of the created order.

2. Paul taught submission one to another and then gave four examples:

wives to husbands
the church to Christ
children to parents
slaves to masters

3. The clear teaching of Christ and his followers is that God has given complimentary positions in life. The husbands gives his all in loving protection, provision, and production. The wife gives her all in loving support, submission, and service.

There is even complimentary positions within the Godhead (as Christ TAUGHT IN THE GOSPELS).

Baptist Believer, you seem to be advocating the same language that the defunct CBF and embittered BGCT are putting forth.

 

Baptist Believer, it is at this point that the disagreement is so sharp and necessary. You don't know a thing about Christ that is accurate that is not in the Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Once again , let me point out that I have NEVER made this assertion. I have simply pointed out the obvious fact that we know Christ (notice that I’m not referring to information) in a way that is distinct from the written word of God.

Yes, although women were already persons in the Old Testament. Only the corruption of men’s hearts reduced their social standing to the level of property.

Yes. And as you noted, Paul taught mutual submission – men are also called to be submissive to their wives according to the instruction from that same passage in Ephesians. (Please note that the word “submission” is not used for men, but the teaching is very clear since Christ exercised submission to the Christ and to the world becoming the servant of all.)

False assumption. Submission is a mark of servanthood. Since we are all called to serve, there is not “putting down” by calling men and women to submission to each other.

My convictions are my own, but you seem to be reading the worst possible motives and theological positions into my words. I’m afraid you’ve been listening to the propaganda from the SBC leadership and not actually listening to what advocates of the “Jesus is the criterion for interpretation…” actually say. In any case, please focus on what I am saying instead of assuming that I represent a pre-packaged position that was spoon-fed to me by someone else.

For the record, the CBF is not defunct (I think you know that) and the BGCT is not necessarily “embittered”, although many of us in the BGCT get very tired of being misrepresented and lied about by the Southern Baptist leadership and the Southern Baptists of Texas group.

 

I don't want to stray off topic, but for the record, I did not note that Paul taught mutual submission. That is something that the "Jesus as the criterion for interpreting Scripture clan" believes.

You cannot possibly take "mutual submission" in that passage. You would have parents submitting to their children and masters submitting to their slaves. Can I get a witness that that is utter nonsense? Yes, you in the back. Thank you.

Christ did not submit to the church or to the world. Remember that Christ said he only does those things which please the father. Ahh, there it is. Christ submitted himself to the father in all things. Christ served man out of obedience to the father.

For the record, there is absolutely NOTHING in all of Scripture that indicates "mutual submission". It is a myth propogated by the extreme left (surprisingly ).

Now, back to the topic on hand...

 

Ephesians 5:21

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

yep, but keep reading to see what he meant....

 

Exactly, he addresses both wives AND husbands. They are to each submit to each other!

 

Exactly, he addresses both wives AND husbands. They are to each submit to each other! </font>[/QUOTE]Judges?

NNNNNNNNKK

Sorry Scott. That only works in feminist circles.

Paul said to submit one to another and then gave four examples. This is the part that you and all the other "mutual submission" advocates ignore.

Wives to husbands
Church to Christ
Children to Parents
Slaves to Masters

Do you also advocate that Christ submit himself to the church, that parents submit to their children and that masters submit to their slaves? How absurd.

 

I agree with BB that Christ indeed submitted himself for the church by dying for her. Parents submit to their children often, as they don't do what they may want to do in order to help raise them.

 

Mark, the difficulty is in disproving something that only exists in the minds of the extreme left.

Scott has Christ submitting to the church (nice to see who is Lord) and parents submitting to their children (just as the scripture says, "train up a parent in the way that you want and when you are old, you will still be disobedient to God.").

Nice work.

 

Scott, I see you forgot (or purposely omitted) to mention slaves and masters.

Could you just see how that would go?

Master: Okay, now you all need to get to work.

Slave: I have a better idea. How about you do what we say today.

Master: That would be fine except I told you what to do already.

Slave: Naw, we're good.

Master: Get to work.

Slave: Look, man, we're good.

Master: Um, perhaps you don't understand. I have guards. You will work.

Slave: You have no love in your heart.

Master: Guards!

Don't you see Scott, your position breeds chaos.

 

I wonder what Philemon did with Onesimus when he returned?

I think your idea of what a "slave" consisted of in the Bible needs further examination.

As to Mark's comment about slavery, that is perhaps the most offensive thing I've seen here. It would appear that you are advocating returning to the time of slaves.