Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[glorydaz]

Every believer has access to the Holy Spirit. No one needs someone else to "interpret" the Scripture.

OK then.

NT Wright reaches oneconclusion.

Glorydaz reaches another conclusion.

Both cannot be correct.

So, please, tell us, on what basis do we determine who has the correct interpretation?

Hopefully, people will read the Word for themselves and trust the Holy Spirit to be the decider of fact.

The whole Word of God, Drew....nothing less will do.

 

[logical bob]

Anointment of God, the Spirit, whatever. Look, throughout these boards you guys are debating all sorts of theological points. I'm sure you all sincerely think your views are confirmed by the Spirit or the anointing of God. None of you deny that Jesus is the Christ, so none of you are the liars identified in 1 John 2. You can all find verses that support your opinions. How are we supposed to tell who's right?

Jesus said to listen to those he sent. Here's what St. Clement wrote in about 90 AD. Clement was ordained by Peter.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44

Yes, well Clement was in charge of the church, so he would say that wouldn't he?

And this apostolic succession presumbaly runs all the way to today's Catholic hierarchy with their institutional protection of child rapists. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Mysteryman]

Anointment of God, the Spirit, whatever. Look, throughout these boards you guys are debating all sorts of theological points. I'm sure you all sincerely think your views are confirmed by the Spirit or the anointing of God. None of you deny that Jesus is the Christ, so none of you are the liars identified in 1 John 2. You can all find verses that support your opinions. How are we supposed to tell who's right?

Hi Bob

It depends on what you meant when you said - "we" < Who are the "we", you are talking about here ?

Life starts at the point of one's birth. You start to learn from that point on. What you seek, is what you attain. Or, at least try to attain.

Many good chrisitans start out as babes in the Word. But not all. And what I mean by that, is that the apostle Paul started his ministry as one who was very mature in the scriptures. But for the majority, the christian starts out as a babe only drinking the milk of the word and not the meat, as they are not ready to eat the meat of the word. Some grow faster than others. But they still seek for all the right reasons. But many start to wander and stray, because there is an adversary of God who wants nothing more than to bring in false doctrines unto the church, in order that the church will become deceived.

The Word tells us that light dispells darkness. The truth is light. Darkness can not stand up against the light of the truth of the Word of God. Those who are walking in darkness will lead others into the ditch. Which means, that they will lead others into wrong teachings, which only brings about false hopes and false understandings. This also brings about envy and strif, and many will follow their pernicious ways.

This does not mean that babes will loose their salvation. But it does mean that they will loose rewards or crowns. Those who are more mature, are to help those who struggle with the righteousness of the Word. However, again this is not automatic. Many only want to remain as babes, and never want to mature in the scriptures. It is all a part of free will that God gives to every person. Christian and non christian alike.

Lets face it, even babes in Christ struggle to understand that maturity is spiritual. With everything that is being said on these forums, still love prevails at all times. So I believe that Love is the motivating factor.

 

[francisdesales]

[
And this apostolic succession presumbaly runs all the way to today's Catholic hierarchy with their institutional protection of child rapists. Thanks, but no thanks.

Logic Bob,

By your logic, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are proof that the office of the President of the United States is no longer in charge of the Executive Branch of the US. Crinimal behavior of a Pope does nothing to overturn what Christ established 2000 years ago. Did not Judas betray the Christ? It DOES tell us that EVERYONE is subject to sin and temptations...

Naturally, the thing to do is call our leaders to task, since no one is above the law. Whether we are speaking of Bishops or Presidents. Authority depends upon people accepting that leadership.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Isn't it very clear that there are VERY holy Protestants who disagree DIAMETRICALLY on KEY issues??? No, theology is not obtained by "sitting down with the Bible alone". that is perfectly clear.

I agree - it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the "read your Bible as an individual, and in (apparently) intentional ignorance of cultural / social / political / linguistic background knowledge" approach yields a dizzying array of disparate interpretations.

I believe that is why God CONTINUES to give us pastors, preachers, et al. For the purpose of being taught. I do not see a 'self-taught' paradigm in Scriptures. Rather, I see the office of bishops and elders, for the purpose of leading the flocks.

I am not sure where the idea of "read the Bible, the Spirit will make it clear" comes from, since it is so easily disproven by experience. I guess it is our human pride rationalizing our point of view and calling it "God's point of view"...

Not all of us, my fellow Buffalo Sabres fan (well, they are one of my favourite teams) :D .

I apologize for my logical fallacy - generalization...!

You like the Sabres because they cannot beat the Senators!!! ;)

Oops, another generalization...

Funny, five years ago, it was the other way around

But hey, ya got to love Ryan Miller! I think even Canadiens like him! Now that they won the Hockey Gold medal. Probably hate him if US would have won that game.

To assert that "me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit" leads to truth, when it is clear that so many people believe different things under such an approach, seems like a wilfull denial of the manifest truth. This really is an "emperor has no clothes" situation.

Go figure. Perhaps people think that if this is true, it MUST lead to becoming Catholic - but I do know this is not the case and their are alternative means of walking in Christ while not living in an illogical mindset regarding the Spirit leading ME to know all doctrines, in contradistinction to another person who equally is adamant about being led by the SAME Spirit and preaching different doctrines!

Regards

 

[Drew]

I know how you like to read that one verse and ignore the entire point Paul is making in Romans.

The problem, of course, is that verse is entirely fatal to the view you are promoting. Why you think you can dismiss Paul's clear claim that eternal life is given based on good works is entirely a mystery to me.

Now to address the text you bring up.

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The important distinction is this: Even though Romans 2 does clearly connect the giving of eternal life to the actual "good works" we do, this does not mean that Paul is saying that moral self-effort is the source of those good works. As is so clear from Romans 8 - another place where Paul affirms that it is not what you believe but how you live that determines whether you inherit life - it is the Holy Spirit that is the drivng engine behind the good works that our lives produce.

So what Paul is saying in Titus is simply this: The good works that do save us are not to be credit to us - they are produced as the result of the regenerative effect of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I have given an actual argument here, gd, an actual case as to how this text of yours fits into a model where Paul embraces ultimate justification by good works. Please tell us how the Romans 2 text fits into your model - explain to us why Paul would write something in Romans 2 that, if you are right, he really does not believe after all.

 

[francisdesales]

The important distinction is this: Even though Romans 2 does clearly connect the giving of eternal life to the actual "good works" we do, this does not mean that Paul is saying that moral self-effort is the source of those good works. As is so clear from Romans 8 - another place where Paul affirms that it is not what you believe but how you live that determines whether you inherit life - it is the Holy Spirit that is the drivng engine behind the good works that our lives produce.


So what Paul is saying in Titus is simply this: The good works that do save us are not to be credit to us - they are produced as the result of the regenerative effect of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I have given an actual argument here, gd, an actual case as to how this text of yours fits into a model where Paul embraces ultimate justification by good works. Please tell us how the Romans 2 text fits into your model - explain to us why Paul would write something in Romans 2 that, if you are right, he really does not believe after all.

:amen

 

[Drew]

Every believer has access to the Holy Spirit. No one needs someone else to "interpret" the Scripture.

OK then.

NT Wright reaches oneconclusion.

Glorydaz reaches another conclusion.

Both cannot be correct.

So, please, tell us, on what basis do we determine who has the correct interpretation?

Hopefully, people will read the Word for themselves and trust the Holy Spirit to be the decider of fact.

The whole Word of God, Drew....nothing less will do.

I trust you realize that your "answer" is a patent and obvious evasion. You simply do not answer my question.

Any reader with a lick of sense will know that all sorts of people will claim to be led by the Spirit and yet reach entirely different conclusions.

 

[MMarc]

By what authority? Not FLESH AND BLOOD. Remember what Jesus told Peter. ''Flesh and blood did not teach you this but my Father who is in Heaven.''

Exactly. GOD HIMSELF gave this authority! Thanks for making that crystal clear for us all...

For as Jesus is identified as the Messiah by God through the mouth of Peter, so Peter is identified by God as the Rock which the Church is built upon, with the power to bind and loosen. Clearly, that is a divinely-given authority.

Unless you don't think Jesus was God. Nowadays, a number of self-proclaimed Christians make that statement...

So by what authority did Jesus walk? Was it by the authority of the Pharisees? The religious leaders of His day? Who gave Jesus the insights He had, the religious rulers of His day killed Him out of jealousy to fulfill all righteousness.

??? Your point, please?

See we see here how God can give or take away wisdom. Pride leaves people blind and those who think they are the only holders of the truth and puff themselves up sadly are the most blind, like in the day of Jesus and most periods where the prophets and saints were led to the church, they were all persecuted.

That includes those who break away from the Church and invent things as they go. Christianity is a revealed religion. Every Catholic is baptized in the Spirit, born from above. Ask any priest...

And I would like to read where it is mandated by Rome to pray for people to receive the HS. Please show me where this is written in the priestly acts. I never saw it.

Padre Pio walked in amazing power and instead of having him travel to impart his gifts, the popes kept him almost hidden. When they should have let him travel the world. Why is that you think?

That's not how humble men act. When you begin to read about humble men, you'll learn that. They don't need to travel the world to show off themselves like some circus act or some traveling pastor show.... People were aware of him and traveled to see him. No one was "hidding" him!!! Typicial ignorant statement[/quote]


I didn't say show off Padre Pio like a circus act, those are your words. But they could have brought him to all catholic churches to IMPART HIS GIFT TO OTHERS. And they didn't.

You assume when someone comes to salvation they get the Holy Spirit, this is false and sadly most catholics will resurrect at the 2nd resurrection and won't enter Heaven because they did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The apostles believed in Jesus long before they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As for Peter upon whom the church would be built, He was referring to the faith of Peter.

If you insist on being like Peter, then Peter was married, why doesn't the RCC give free choice for priests to marry, since you follow Peter who was married?

I follow Jesus THE Christ, Peter won't get me in Heaven or any of the apostles, they would all tell me to go to Jesus, not Mary or any other politically correct saint of the day named by another man for political reasons in a certain area of the earth...

And Peter moved in great power, where is the teaching of receiving the Holy Spirit? Where is it? If every catholic (I see you never mention Christians, only catholic which only means universal), there would be massive revivals in church services etc.

I went to a service by a cardinal in my city and the Holy Spirit led me to go where there were about 40 priests, bishops and a cardinal.

In all of these priests, only 3 among them had the Holy Spirit, so your theory is wrong, I love the RCC and all but... How can you say every catholic have the HS when most of the priests don't even have it themselves?

Go to any spirit filled church and you will see the difference big time. You might even get the Holy Spirit yourself, and then you might show the gifts of the Holy Spirit... :yes

 

[glorydaz]

I know how you like to read that one verse and ignore the entire point Paul is making in Romans.

The problem, of course, is that verse is entirely fatal to the view you are promoting. Why you think you can dismiss Paul's clear claim that eternal life is given based on good works is entirely a mystery to me.

Now to address the text you bring up.

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The important distinction is this: Even though Romans 2 does clearly connect the giving of eternal life to the actual "good works" we do, this does not mean that Paul is saying that moral self-effort is the source of those good works. As is so clear from Romans 8 - another place where Paul affirms that it is not what you believe but how you live that determines whether you inherit life - it is the Holy Spirit that is the drivng engine behind the good works that our lives produce.

So what Paul is saying in Titus is simply this: The good works that do save us are not to be credit to us - they are produced as the result of the regenerative effect of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I have given an actual argument here, gd, an actual case as to how this text of yours fits into a model where Paul embraces ultimate justification by good works. Please tell us how the Romans 2 text fits into your model - explain to us why Paul would write something in Romans 2 that, if you are right, he really does not believe after all.

It isn't that Paul is writing something he doesn't believe, it's that you are misinterpreting who Paul is speaking to and what he is saying. You can't read chapter two with understanding if you don't take chapter one and three into consideration. In fact, he goes on to make his point clear up through chapter 5 vs. 21. Paul takes great pains to say that Jews and Gentiles are all judged the same way. He goes into detail that there is none righteous...no, not one. The Jews who attempted to obey the law would perish just as the Gentiles would without the law.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So whether it be a Jew seeking after eternal life by obeying the law, or a Gentile seeking eternal life by following the dictates of his good conscience by doing good deeds...they will all perish.
It's a question of how we're justified before God....JUSTIFIED FREELY BY GRACE.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

See how Paul says, "Therefore we conclude..." THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. This is the law of Moses for the Jews or the eternal law of God through one's conscience for the Gentiles.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

A man can strive his whole life long...keeping the law or doing good deeds but unless he is justified by faith, he strives in vain. For it is sin that keeps us from God and eternal life. We don't gain that with our works, nor our striving, but our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore it does matter what we believe. Christ's righteousness needs to be imputed to us, and the only way we get that is by grace through faith. Not by works lest any man should boast.

 

[glorydaz]

I trust you realize that your "answer" is a patent and obvious evasion. You simply do not answer my question.

Any reader with a lick of sense will know that all sorts of people will claim to be led by the Spirit and yet reach entirely different conclusions.

I trust you realize I don't care that you think my answer is an "obvious evasion" or not. I'll answer your question, but I do hate to be rude. Mr. Wright is full of false doctrine...I can tell by what you post that comes from him. There is only one truth, and the reader must be the judge of that. We are saved by grace through faith...not by anything else. Period...end of story. To add anything else to the work of the cross is great error.

 

[glorydaz]

You assume when someone comes to salvation they get the Holy Spirit, this is false and sadly most catholics will resurrect at the 2nd resurrection and won't enter Heaven because they did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is error...of course we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That's because it wasn't until Pentecost that the Spirit came with power and sealed the believers...they were all saved by grace through faith before that time.

The apostles believed in Jesus long before they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As for Peter upon whom the church would be built, He was referring to the faith of Peter.

Go to any spirit filled church and you will see the difference big time. You might even get the Holy Spirit yourself, and then you might show the gifts of the Holy Spirit... :yes

True, there is a difference. You see a bunch of immature Christians performing in the flesh at the expense of going on into maturity. ;)

 

[truthlover]

Drew wrote,

" I believe that Romans has been largely misunderstood throughout the centuries for a number of reasons, including not understanding the socio-political context, but also because we do not understand's Paul's status as a highly educated Pharisee with deep knowledge of the Old Testament. I think Paul's argument in Romans is exceedingly complex and subtle and has been basically missed by most. If we do not account for the subtlety of the mind of a trained Pharisee, we may misinterpret."

2 Peter3:16 (NKJV) also stresses the difficulty of understanding Paul's writings, pointing to being "untaught" and "unstable" as key factors in this vulnerability. I encourage all to ask the Lord personally what the Spirit means by "untaught." And "unstable." I heard John 8:31-32, "If you abide in My word, you are my disciples indeed, And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

 

[truthlover]

francisdesales commented,

"You asked Jesus???

How do you know He answered this? Because it suits your already-held convictions? This is not exactly a very good response, since I could say the opposite, that Jesus told ME that you are wrong..."[/color]

Well, I have worKed to believe in Him, as He commanded, testing the Spirit that was leading me into all truth, giving me as requested ears to hear, so, as His sheep, I could indeed hear His voice. Over the years, I have asked Him what to pray for, where I would see the hand of the Lord in the land of the living, lest I despair and doubt Him. He has told me many things to pray for, and when I obeyed,saw amazing answers. This confirmed that I was getting something beyond my own convictions. Many years of leaning on my own convictions, and falling on my face, is what led me to seek God in the first place.

Did you, in honesty, ask Him to speak to you about what I reported.Testing the spirit appropriately? If so, and He told you that I was wrong, I would have to go back and ask some more. But, I have reported this to other prophets, who judged it to contain much good.

I thought "start from scratch" sounded more like me than Jesus, so I raised a question about it. He said that the last days were like those of Noah, where starting from scratch well describes His agenda.

Now, I have had rather more hope for the RCC as a church than most others, being deeply impressed by its fruit in producing remarkable "saints." If it weren't for Zefferelli, St. Francis, and Brother Son, Sister Moon, and the ministry of Ralph Martin, I might not even be a believer. The gospel is founded on authority, which understanding is better preserved there than anywhere. But, the barn is too decrepit. God has decided to tear down and rebuild, not restore.

 

[chestertonrules]

Mr. Wright is full of false doctrine .

According to what authority?

Your infallible interpretation? Do you believe you interpretation is infallible?

 

[francisdesales]

I didn't say show off Padre Pio like a circus act, those are your words. But they could have brought him to all catholic churches to IMPART HIS GIFT TO OTHERS. And they didn't.

What happened was God's will, since God gave Padre Pio those gifts. I don't see "showing off" the man with the stigmata is "imparting his gifts to others". If someone wanted other gifts, they knew where to find him.

Perhaps I am of a different mind set on such things, I am naturally skeptical about "miraculous gifts", and am MUCH more likely to believe them as true IF the person with said gifts do not parade them around, like many of these so-called "faith healers" looking for attention or money. Call me cynical. To me, I don't believe God gives such gifts to make a person proud. Thus, you'll find the best saints are the ones who remain "hidden" from the circus acts.

You assume when someone comes to salvation they get the Holy Spirit, this is false and sadly most catholics will resurrect at the 2nd resurrection and won't enter Heaven because they did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

How exactly do you propose that ANYONE "comes to salvation" WITHOUT the Holy Spirit? By their OWN will and works??? Sounds like work salvation to me. Maybe I'll sick some of my Proestant brothers on you... ;)

The apostles believed in Jesus long before they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As for Peter upon whom the church would be built, He was referring to the faith of Peter.

WHO said the Holy Spirit wasn't active in the lives of the Apostles in a more muted and common fashion? Doesn't Scriptures say "no one can say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit"? Did not Peter and the other apostles make this affirmation BEFORE Pentecost?

Pentecost marked the beginning of a NEW means by which the Spirit was given to mankind, not the FIRST time. The OT is full of citations about the Spirit of God...

As to the faith of Peter, note carefully that Simon is now called "Peter", not his faith. Clearly, you misunderstand WHAT Jesus is calling "Peter", based upon your denominational interpretation that refuses to hear the Word of God. Jesus is calling SIMON "Peter", not his reaction or faith in Jesus! Note carefully that Paul calls the man Simon "Cephas", another form of "rock", rather than Simon's faith.

If you insist on being like Peter, then Peter was married, why doesn't the RCC give free choice for priests to marry, since you follow Peter who was married?

We don't "follow" Peter in all ways, that's just silly. For starters, it is quite unlikely I will be crucified upside down...

Celibacy predates Christianity. Whenever a priest offered sacrifice, they remained chaste to remain purified in the presence of the Lord. Since Catholics re-presents Christ's sacrifice daily, and Christ said "those to who it has been given", they remain totally dedicated to God - FOLLOWING JESUS CHRIST...

I follow Jesus THE Christ, Peter won't get me in Heaven or any of the apostles, they would all tell me to go to Jesus, not Mary or any other politically correct saint of the day named by another man for political reasons in a certain area of the earth...

Sounds like you have some other issues, with that rant...

And Peter moved in great power, where is the teaching of receiving the Holy Spirit? Where is it? If every catholic (I see you never mention Christians, only catholic which only means universal), there would be massive revivals in church services etc.

The Church was Catholic and always will be. it is open to people of all races, genders, and social positions. This was Jesus' will, that His Church be Catholic.

As to "where is the teaching of the Spirit", you can read about it on the Vatican website, or the Catholic Catechism.

I went to a service by a cardinal in my city and the Holy Spirit led me to go where there were about 40 priests, bishops and a cardinal.

In all of these priests, only 3 among them had the Holy Spirit, so your theory is wrong, I love the RCC and all but... How can you say every catholic have the HS when most of the priests don't even have it themselves?

What a joke. What, do you have some special "Spirit vision" that you know who has the Holy Spirit??? Please. You are not in a position to judge whether someone has the Holy Spirit within them by watching them for an hour or so.

Let's look at the Scriptures, shall we?

What does Acts and John say about how one knows we have the Spirit? Do they say they must do great deeds, raise the dead, etc??? No, it says we know someone has the Spirit within them when they "obey the commandments". If these men are obeying the commandments, they have the Spirit working in them. If they aren't working miracles, that is God's will.

You are too busy looking for the incredible miracles, rather than simple faith in Jesus Christ. This is a huge mistake in the spiritual world. That is clear by your comments on St. Pio and these bishops and priests...

Go to any spirit filled church and you will see the difference big time. You might even get the Holy Spirit yourself, and then you might show the gifts of the Holy Spirit... :yes

Any more comments like that and you can speak to some of my Moderator friends here...

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales commented,

"You asked Jesus???

How do you know He answered this? Because it suits your already-held convictions? This is not exactly a very good response, since I could say the opposite, that Jesus told ME that you are wrong..."

Well, I have worKed to believe in Him, as He commanded, testing the Spirit that was leading me into all truth, giving me as requested ears to hear, so, as His sheep, I could indeed hear His voice. Over the years, I have asked Him what to pray for, where I would see the hand of the Lord in the land of the living, lest I despair and doubt Him. He has told me many things to pray for, and when I obeyed,saw amazing answers. This confirmed that I was getting something beyond my own convictions. Many years of leaning on my own convictions, and falling on my face, is what led me to seek God in the first place.

As I have. As I said before, such things (the Spirit leading us, etc.) is limited to our own personal walks.

How should I treat my wife, my kids, in situation "x"?
How should I act towards someone at work who proposes abortion as a good alternative?
What sort of ministry should I seek to serve the Lord in?
What gifts has God given me?

In other words, the Spirit allows us to test (discern) our own walk. The Spirit has ALREADY TOLD US that Catholic doctrines are true, thousands of years ago. Thus, any "change of mind" is coming from the Christian, not the Spirit of God. Since God's Spirit has ALREADY revealed His teachings doctrinally to the Church, I don't buy into the Spirit changing His mind. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the individual Christian who "speaks with Jesus about the Trinity"

This is why I could NEVER imagine that you could be "speaking to Jesus" on particular topics.

Did you, in honesty, ask Him to speak to you about what I reported.Testing the spirit appropriately? If so, and He told you that I was wrong, I would have to go back and ask some more. But, I have reported this to other prophets, who judged it to contain much good.

I "tested the Spirit" long ago on this subject. The Spirit has always been with the Church, which is why she is the foundation of the truth. Not because of smart men, but because of God HIMSELF. Thus, I cannot fathom how this Spirit, leading the Church as an entire organization (not unrelated, independent believers) could now change His mind and tell person "x" something different. You are a long line of people I have run across who make such claims - and I am not convinced by any of them that they are speaking to Jesus on THAT specific manner. Are they walking in faith in Christ? Sure. Are they filled with the Spirit? Certainly. Are they wrong about particulars that disagree with the pillar and foundation of the truth? Of course. Holy people can be misled.

I thought "start from scratch" sounded more like me than Jesus, so I raised a question about it. He said that the last days were like those of Noah, where starting from scratch well describes His agenda.

I think "starting from scratch" is your addition and is not found in the Word of God. The idea is "TRANSFORMED", not "start over".

Now, I have had rather more hope for the RCC as a church than most others, being deeply impressed by its fruit in producing remarkable "saints." If it weren't for Zefferelli, St. Francis, and Brother Son, Sister Moon, and the ministry of Ralph Martin, I might not even be a believer. The gospel is founded on authority, which understanding is better preserved there than anywhere. But, the barn is too decrepit. God has decided to tear down and rebuild, not restore.

You are exaggerating the "decrepitness" of the barn, I think.

Too many people expect the Bride to be perfectly holy ALREADY, but we know that the human condition, even of the saved, can never make that happen here on earth. Thus, we will be TRANSFORMED, the saved members of the Church and all her sins will be washed away, all of our attachments and propensity to do evil. This will not happen until we go to meet our Savior at the end of time.

Perhaps you are being misled by the press that focuses on only the negatives, blowing them out of proportion. There are countless good people in the Church, and one should not be turned aside because there is a Judas among us. How far would the Church have gotten if people would have concentrated on the 8% failure rate of the original 12 that Jesus selected? There will always be a few people who are false to the Lord, even some in high positions of authority. Perhaps that is why Paul wrote Timothy on the specifics of WHO could be a bishop? Maybe past experience showed them that certain types were not meant for ministry? At any rate, do not be overly concerned about a few bad people. Be assured of Christ's presence within the Church and have faith in the Spirit of God.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Mr. Wright is full of false doctrine...I can tell by what you post that comes from him. There is only one truth, and the reader must be the judge of that. We are saved by grace through faith...not by anything else. Period...end of story. To add anything else to the work of the cross is great error.

You are begging the question. I trust that you realize that the reader is not going to simply take it on your "say-so" that NT Wright's interpretation of the scriptures is incorrect. You need to make an actual case.

Now I am happy to re-enggage the relevant scriptural arguments. And, of course, you entirely misrepresent the position of Wright when you suggest that it denies "grace through faith".

 

[Drew]

It isn't that Paul is writing something he doesn't believe, it's that you are misinterpreting who Paul is speaking to and what he is saying. You can't read chapter two with understanding if you don't take chapter one and three into consideration. In fact, he goes on to make his point clear up through chapter 5 vs. 21. Paul takes great pains to say that Jews and Gentiles are all judged the same way. He goes into detail that there is none righteous...no, not one. The Jews who attempted to obey the law would perish just as the Gentiles would without the law.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So whether it be a Jew seeking after eternal life by obeying the law, or a Gentile seeking eternal life by following the dictates of his good conscience by doing good deeds...they will all perish.

Yes, Paul he writes what he writes in Romans 3 about how no one "does good". But it is clear from context that in this material from Romans 3 that you post, Paul is talking about the state of the person apart from the power of Christ.

For some reason, and in direct contradiction to Romans 2 and 8, you seem to read as though it was a statement that applies to the believer - that the believer cannot do good.

How you can hold such a position is a profound mystery - although many do. You do realize, do you not, that the New Testament, not least the book of Romans are literally riddled with statements about how the Christian has been freed from the state of the person described in Romans 3. Here is just one such text:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,…

And there are many more. It really amazes me that people use Romans 3 to deny the possibility that Christians can do good works (and therefore have the possibility of being saved by those works as Romans 2 so clearly shows.

In all candor, what can you possibly be thinking?

 

[Ahuli]

.
Christianity today is made up of a myriad of distinct denominations with distinct interpretations of the Bible. There are as many methods of Bible interpretation. So Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation? And if not, how can we determine which interpretation is correct?

JamesG

It is "denominationalism" which hampers correct bible interpretation. Pre-conceived ideas, that people read into scripture and fly with it. This makes the work of the Holy Spirit very difficult.