Why...

[Living_stone]

If the bible is our chief source of revelation (and I am not arguing against that point), why is it there are so many drastically different points of view and understandings of it? Why can so many of us, even just on this board, earnest followers of Christ and the Father, seeking to be led by the spirit...why can we not agree on many basic points?

Does the fault lay with some of us? All of us? None of us? The spirit? The source material?

If I ask: Who or what is the Rock of Matthew 16, I'll get a dozen answers.
If I ask: Was Jesus being literal in John 6, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Do the scriptures support praying to the saints, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Does the bible suggest infants should/can be baptized, I'll get different answers.
Etc.

All will use some verse of scripture to support their claims. How do we know what interpretation is correct? Can we know? Is there some objective way (apart from what I would say, the Church). How does Joe Average Christain know?

Does God expect us all to be exegesical masters with degrees in ancient languages?

Does He expect us all to be literate?

This question is bugging me...

 

[BobRyan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the "natural tendancy of man" is to resort to a "Pope". In the best case they choose one that is not tainted by the crimes against humanity comitted in the dark ages - but STILL our inclination is to seek out concensus within some man-made tradition.

Simply going to God's Word and "believing whatever it tells you" no matter WHAT your traditional heretage - is hard to do. But that is not because the Holy Spirit is "not sufficient" or the Word is "not readable" - it is because we WANT to IGNORE the Word of God when our tradition finds it "inconvenient" !

When that happens we call those texts "difficult" and "hard to explain". Because in many case we really mean "hard to explain away". It is not uncommon to hear someone say "HEY I thought I already refuted that TEXT"! (which should "tell" you something!)

Surely you see yourself doing that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living_stone]

Respond to this one, the otherone double posted funny...I don't know why that is. If a mod can delete it, that would be appriciated.

 

[BobRyan]

The RC view (and those that sympathise with that here) is that "we are the only ones that listen to tradition everyone else JUST uses the Bible alone").

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH!

The Mark 7 problem that the Jews and the RCC have in triplicate is EVERYBODY's problem! Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

EVERYONE is hamstrung by the traditions of their "popes". It is why the dark ages caught on and held on so well. It is kind of like saying "I can't figure out why all you guys keep saying sin against God is BAD. There is so much sinning going on why not ENDORSE and PROMOTE IT instead of always saying it is a bad thing?".

Our sinful nature drives us to sin AND drives us to cling to man-made tradition OVER God's Word - is is just a fact of life!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living_stone]

And your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
If the bible is our chief source of revelation (and I am not arguing against that point), why is it there are so many drastically different points of view and understandings of it? Why can so many of us, even just on this board, earnest followers of Christ and the Father, seeking to be led by the spirit...why can we not agree on many basic points?

Does the fault lay with some of us? All of us? None of us? The spirit? The source material?

If I ask: Who or what is the Rock of Matthew 16, I'll get a dozen answers.
If I ask: Was Jesus being literal in John 6, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Do the scriptures support praying to the saints, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Does the bible suggest infants should/can be baptized, I'll get different answers.
Etc.

All will use some verse of scripture to support their claims. How do we know what interpretation is correct? Can we know? Is there some objective way (apart from what I would say, the Church). How does Joe Average Christain know?

Does God expect us all to be exegesical masters with degrees in ancient languages?

Does He expect us all to be literate?

This question is bugging me...

Why should the question bother you?
You need two qualifications:

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--You need to be saved, and have the indwelling Spirit of God within you. Without the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God you have no hope of ever understanding the Scriptures. It is the Spirit of God that illuminates the believers mind and gives understanding. Are you born again? Does God's Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? That is the most important thing.

Secondly:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--You have an obligation to study the Bible yourself without relying on the magesterium, and on others. It is your obligation: "Study to show yourself approved unto God," not the Catholic Church approved.
There is only one answer to the questions that you aksed. It is not the Catholic answer or even the Protestant answer. It is the Bible answer. What does the Bible say in answer to those questions. The Bible has only one answer, one interpretation. It is your obligation to find out what it is. Study to show yourself approved unto God.
"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God."
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

The question is a bugging one because we are all looking for the truth; as sincere Christians we want to follow Christ as accurately as we can. If there is ambiguity in our individual ability to interpret Scripture - and I don't think anyone can deny that there is - then that is a source of distress for those who would seek to follow Christ; it also makes a mockery of His promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Therefore (a) there has to be a solution (otherwise Jesus' words are hollow) and (b) it has to be a solution other than the individualistic one of "Me, Jesus and my Bible"

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
If the bible is our chief source of revelation (and I am not arguing against that point), why is it there are so many drastically different points of view and understandings of it? Why can so many of us, even just on this board, earnest followers of Christ and the Father, seeking to be led by the spirit...why can we not agree on many basic points?

Does the fault lay with some of us? All of us? None of us? The spirit? The source material?

If I ask: Who or what is the Rock of Matthew 16, I'll get a dozen answers.
If I ask: Was Jesus being literal in John 6, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Do the scriptures support praying to the saints, I'll get different answers.
If I ask: Does the bible suggest infants should/can be baptized, I'll get different answers.
Etc.

All will use some verse of scripture to support their claims. How do we know what interpretation is correct? Can we know? Is there some objective way (apart from what I would say, the Church). How does Joe Average Christain know?

Does God expect us all to be exegesical masters with degrees in ancient languages?

Does He expect us all to be literate?

This question is bugging me...

First, let me say that I honestly think that everyone who frequents this board is sincere. A logical conclusion to this statement is each one thinks they have the truth.

All cannot be right, because truth doesn't contradict itself. Truth is truth, nothing added, nothing taken away. The sum of God's word is truth (not just a part of it - Psalm 119:160)

There is one truth or "the truth". The apostles were guided into all truth. God's word is truth. The only acceptable worship to God must be in truth (Jn 4:23-24). Since the source of faith is God's word (Rom 10:17) and there is only the bible, it stands to reason, there is only one faith (Eph 4:5). The one faith was once delivered (Jude 3).

Christians are to be united, all speaking the same thing, of one mind and one judgment (I Cor 1:10).

Why is there division?
1) Some don't study or rightly divide the word (II Tim 2:15)
2) Some use doctrines of men, when the word of God is sufficient (II Tim 3:16-17, II Pet 1:3).
3) Some don't have a love of the truth (II Thess 2:10)
4) Some are deceived into believing a lie (II Thess 2:11, II Tim 3:13)
5) Some people seek what they want to hear and believe a myth(II Tim 4:3-4
6) I Tim 4:1-2, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,"
7) Some will "twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" - II Pet 3:16

Everyone on this board is no doubt sincere. Therefore when one is deceived, they don't realize it. All cannot be right.

Of course there will always be differnces of opinion, i.e., why did Nicodemus come to Jesus by night? The bible doesn't reveal that so any explanition is merely speculation.

However, other things are matters of faith. Things that have been revealed.

Here is a great example, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" - Mark 16:16

How or why would anyone possibly come to another conclusion than the obvious conclusion? They want to come to another conclusion, because this doesn't "fit" their beliefs.

If Jesus really meant "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" and he really wanted to get that message across, what other words could he have used to make it any plainer???

Yet people twist this to mean something other than its logical conclusion.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
And your interpretation is the correct one?

I am not sure if that is just the obligatory
"dodge of the point" or you are just not reading the posts.

 

[BobRyan]

How or why would anyone possibly come to another conclusion than the obvious conclusion? y want to come to another conclusion, because this doesn't "fit" their beliefs.

Precisely - the sinful human nature - the sinful tendancy is to either do what the RCC does with man-made tradition "naturally" or to go so far as to do it by institutionalized doctrinal command.

INSTEAD of having no one inclined to "prefer" tradition and bias over God's Word (as the RC posters keep claiming) what we really have is EVERYONE inclined to make that mistake "naturally".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is a bugging one because we are all looking for the truth; as sincere Christians we want to follow Christ as accurately as we can. If there is ambiguity in our individual ability to interpret Scripture - and I don't think anyone can deny that there is - then that is a source of distress for those who would seek to follow Christ;

You are simply not reading the posts.

As it turns out "INDIVIDUALLY" we are all sinful humans which means we ALL seek the "corporate concensus" or "belief system" of man-made tradition. WE ALL have a corporate group that we lean on "instinctively" and that gets in the way of being able to truly "individually" hear the Holy Spirit and read God's Word.

So we will say things like "that is a hard text to explain".

Very often those who say that mean "explain away to fit my corporate tradition".

Instead of that "corporate" bias system being the "Exception" (as you keep insisting) it is "the rule"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Snitzelhoff]

I... uh... agree with Mman's post...

Surely the End is upon us...

Michael

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is a bugging one because we are all looking for the truth; as sincere Christians we want to follow Christ as accurately as we can. If there is ambiguity in our individual ability to interpret Scripture - and I don't think anyone can deny that there is - then that is a source of distress for those who would seek to follow Christ;

You are simply not reading the posts.

As it turns out "INDIVIDUALLY" we are all sinful humans which means we ALL seek the "corporate concensus" or "belief system" of man-made tradition. WE ALL have a corporate group that we lean on "instinctively" and that gets in the way of being able to truly "individually" hear the Holy Spirit and read God's Word.

So we will say things like "that is a hard text to explain".

Very often those who say that mean "explain away to fit my corporate tradition".

Instead of that "corporate" bias system being the "Exception" (as you keep insisting) it is "the rule"!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you're saying here Bob; you seem to be agreeing with me that some kind of corporate teaching Tradition is needed...

 

[Living_stone]

There is only one answer to the questions that you aksed. It is not the Catholic answer or even the Protestant answer. It is the Bible answer. What does the Bible say in answer to those questions. The Bible has only one answer, one interpretation.

And what interpretation is that?

A book, even an inspired book, is just words on a page. It takes human reader. And each human reader approaches the bible differently.

And what would Joe Average Christian have done 1900 years ago when he didn't have access to the bible - or at least all of the scriptures - and often didn't know which works were and weren't canonical?

Precisely - the sinful human nature - the sinful tendancy is to either do what the RCC does with man-made tradition "naturally" or to go so far as to do it by institutionalized doctrinal command.

Good Lord, you have a one track mind.

 

[Briguy]

The RCC does have the best way to look at this in the sense that they believe that "truth" is in the "church" and her doctrines and dogmas. This would make sense to me IF I could see how their interpretation and concepts fit into Biblical doctrine and practice. For example, the new testemant is full of teaching on being humble, serving eachother, not relying on human wealth, but giving "all" we have to others. The RCC, is lead by a Vactican that is it's own city. It is adorned with the finest things. Paintings, gold, silver,expensive artifacts, just for starters. The cardinals' and pope's where clothes and hats that are the exact opposite from humble. People kiss the pope's ring, and every pope has allowed that as far as I know. I could go on and on. So theory here doesn't work even though the RCC model seems to make the most sense. The best answer is more like what DHK said. Search for God. seek Him in the scriptures, keeping those basic truths and teachings in mind. Truths like humbleness, meekness, loving others, etc... Keep seeking the truth until you are with Him. That is all we can do. Heck, Paul and Peter had a disagreement and Paul and Barnabus did too (or was it Silas). We will not be judged by God by how we interpret a certain scripture but we will be judged directly by the condition of our heart, for God sees straight through us to our heart. If we are covered by His son's blood we are covered, it won't matter whether we believe the water in John 3 is birth fluid, the word of God, or baptism. (it's birth fluid btw - LOL).

Mman, we could all throw out scriptures we think prove a point. There are obviously many more scriptues that talk about salvation that don't mention baptism then there are those that do mention baptism in conjunction with salvation.

I could quote a verse from Hebrews that seems to totally take away "free choice" from Gentiles. It says in regards to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles that "those God ordained, believed" Does that close the door on the free will, predetermination debate? I didn't think so.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Living_stone]

For example, the new testemant is full of teaching on being humble, serving eachother, not relying on human wealth, but giving "all" we have to others. The RCC, is lead by a Vactican that is it's own city. It is adorned with the finest things. Paintings, gold, silver,expensive artifacts, just for starters.

Part of humility is accepting gifts from those who honor you.

And any historian would respect more than anything the Vatican Archives, the ammount of history they've kept - even pagan history they did not agree with! Paintings and statues and even a whole city/state were given to the Pope.

How do you feel about the Eastern Orthodox then?

 

[Briguy]

Hi LS, I was only making a bigger point by using an isolated example. The point was that even if, by theory, the RCC way of looking at "truth" is the best way of knowing what is the correct doctrine, it too fails the test on other levels. The example I cited was a practical one but let me defend it briefly. It would have been very easy for the Vactican and various Popes to turn down gifts or to sell them and give the money to the needy. They could have encouraged the members to not buy gold and silver, for the well taken care of leadership, but to give their money to their own local poor. Having all sorts of expensive things for no real reason does not line up with Biblical teaching, regardless if they were purchased or gotten for free. The hats and robes that are worn by the cardinals etc... in either the Eastern O, or the RCC are both worn by choice. The expensive chalices that are used are also by choice. Jesus drank out of carpenters cups, not expensive ones. Jesus taught on hillsides and the earliest Christians met in houses. The early Christians, who sold anything extra they had, would not have dreamed of having their money go to huge magestic buildings with expensive stained glass everywhere and leaders with big robes, etc... Just today I learned a friend of mine was named salesman of the year at his company. He was given a big Plasma TV as a reward. He sold the TV on e-bay and is using the money to fund a mission trip he is going on to another country (somewhere in Africa I believe). Who pleases God more: the Pope who gets a gift of a gold ring and keeps it because it was a gift? or the lay person who gets a gift of a TV but funds a mission trip with it? I think you see what I am getting at.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Living_stone]

The hats and robes that are worn by the cardinals etc... in either the Eastern O, or the RCC are both worn by choice.

Only because they don't change with the times. The suits worn by the average pastor cost roughly the same.

The expensive chalices that are used are also by choice.

But it's spent on Christ, to house his blood.

We have secular records from the 1st centuries of Christianity (Pliny's letters to Trajan) that report confiscations from the early christians - and golden and sliver chalaces are amongst them.

Jesus didn't chide the woman who used the expensive perfume to annoint him - it was Judas who did that. It this case, I think that chiding them for spending a little extra on Christ (for if they are correct, the blood is his blood!) is very explainable and commendable.

The early Christians, who sold anything extra they had, would not have dreamed of having their money go to huge magestic buildings with expensive stained glass everywhere and leaders with big robes

There is nothing wrong with building a beautiful place of worhsip. Worship should be beautiful, and they were not opposed. But they were not allowed, for that would have been a big neon sign reading "Lion Food" for most of them.

Moreover, the Churches aren't owned by anyone in particular. They belong to the church, the entire body.

Who pleases God more: the Pope who gets a gift of a gold ring and keeps it because it was a gift? or the lay person who gets a gift of a TV but funds a mission trip with it?

I think part of the difference is that your friends business woudl nto be offended, but a craftsman who labored over a ring might. He gave it freely as a gift.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree, and I think that the historic Christian witness is more on my side.

Add to that the fact that the Catholic Church is the largest charitible orgianization in the world and your claims seem...silly.

The poor you will always have with you. But the Church has labored for 2000 years to preserve Culture. Fancy paintings ans sculptures aren't just "pretty art". They are history the Churhc has protected. Sell it all, make 5 hojillion dollars, give it to the poor and then what? You'll still have the poor. But then this art will be in the hands of private individuals and not available to everyone.

As a historian, I most certainly appriciate what the Catholic Church/Vatican Archives have done for posterity.

 

[KellyWhite]

Do the Catholics need to pay reparations to the Protestants for things that happened in the 16th century?

 

[Briguy]

LS, your points are well taken. I understand what you are saying. The fact of the matter is that our examples in the new testement do not reflect what we see in some denominations today. The RCC maybe being the biggest example with the money they spend on buildings, etc... Look at just humbleness once. When Paul praised and some looked to him as being important to their salvation he stopped them right away and turned them back to Christ only. When John fell at the feet of the angel, the angel said for him not to do that as he was just a servant of God as well. In contrast people kiss the popes ring, they line streets to get a glimpse of him. He waves in parades as some kind of king would do. He is adorned in fine clothes, etc... Do you see that I am only trying to say that we can look in the Bible and see how we should act and can see how the early church leadership did act, as well as angels, and conclude that what we see from the RCC does not line up to that.

In Christ,
Brian