The Bible Doesn't Say Anything

[Douglas Summers]

The actual problem is in defining what you are seeing as a "problem." Is it critical to any Christian to have the "correct" view of Hell, Eternal Security or Water Baptism? No. The true Christian essentials - the doctrines on which salvation actually hinges - can be stated in such broad, simple terms that virtually no one claiming to be a follower of Christ would disagree with them. The fact that there are multiple views of Eternal Security is not a "problem" at all but enriches one's understanding if one takes the time and effort (as few do) to inform himself about those views.

I remember vividly thinking years ago that I would nail down the correct understanding of the Atonement once and for all. All I learned was: you can't. There are multiple perspectives on the Atonement, all valid and all held by scholars of equal standing. If you recognize and accept this, your understanding of the Atonement becomes broader, deeper and richer. The essential doctrine is that Christ's life, death and resurrection somehow allow us to be reconciled to God. "How it works" is, if not completely irrelevant, certainly very secondary.

There is one "reality" and one "problem." The reality is that God has not laid out any of these doctrines in a way that is entirely clear or free from ambiguity. He has left them open to multiple interpretations and understandings by sincere and intelligent believers acting in good faith. Obviously, God being God, this had to have been what He intended.

It is correct that "we" (or at least "some of us") are the problem, but not in the way you're suggesting. The problem is not that we impose our different interpretations on a biblical passage. The problems are that (1) because we cannot live with the notion of a God who deals in ambiguity and mystery, we delude ourselves that there is a single "correct" interpretation waiting to be discovered, and (2) because we ourselves cannot live with ambiguity and mystery, we are psychologically compelled to insist that our interpretation is the correct one and to shout down anyone who has a different interpretation.

But this is your teachings...with no Scriptures. The Gospel is Spiritual and is not explainable by just carnal thought. Spiritual understanding is supernatural (not of this world of men). Really. The born again believer is not subject to carnal or the Adamic nature of criticism, (1 Tim. 4:1-16) thou we get plenty of it. (2 Cor. 6:1-10) Being born again does not fit the mold of Adam. God gave us a new man, He never changed the old man, but we are on the potters wheel being made into a new vessel. (Gal. 5:16-26) (Rom. 9:14-24) (John 1:913) (1 Tim. 3:16) There are correct doctrines and there is also a carnal desire to please God that is not doctrine, but neither is it wrong to do so. The thankful soul in man may do many things to show his love and praise of God, but that is between him and God. But you can not make those personal things a doctrine, or condemn others if they do not honor God in the same way Therein lies part of the problem. (Rom. 14:1-23)

 

[Runner]

But this is your teachings...with no Scriptures. The Gospel is Spiritual and is not explainable by just carnal thought. Spiritual understanding is supernatural (not of this world of men). Really. The born again believer is not subject to carnal or the Adamic nature of criticism, (1 Tim. 4:1-16) thou we get plenty of it. (2 Cor. 6:1-10) Being born again does not fit the mold of Adam. God gave us a new man, He never changed the old man, but we are on the potters wheel being made into a new vessel. (Gal. 5:16-26) (Rom. 9:14-24) (John 1:913) (1 Tim. 3:16) There are correct doctrines and there is also a carnal desire to please God that is not doctrine, but neither is it wrong to do so. The thankful soul in man may do many things to show his love and praise of God, but that is between him and God. But you can not make those personal things a doctrine, or condemn others if they do not honor God in the same way Therein lies part of the problem. (Rom. 14:1-23)

Those aren't my "teachings." They are my "observations." I do indeed allow myself the luxury of experiencing, observing, reflecting and speaking "with no Scriptures." The rules for this forum specifically state that no citation of Scripture is necessary, and it would scarcely make any sense in the context of a post where the entire point is that almost any passage of Scripture one does cite is subject to umpteen varying interpretations by believers who all (including me) believe they are indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit. Other than that, I'm not sure what point you are making. Is it that anyone who doesn't cite Scripture - i.e., me - is operating "carnally" and speaking from his "Adamic nature"? It sounds as though you are distinguishing "born again believers" ("we") from those carnal folks like moi who dare to think and speak without citing Scripture.

 

[Jim Parker]

No he didn't.
Tertullian was raised a Roman pagan, spoke and wrote in Latin and lived and worked in Africa more than 100 years and 2,000 mile WALK removed from the original Jewish culture of the original church teachings (Scripture)
He learned Koine Greek just like a lot of people still do today.

Koine Greek was spoken throughout the empire. It was the language of commerce.
The OT was translated into Greek around 200 BC because most Jews didn't speak the ancient Hebrew but they did speak Greek.
The culture of the empire was Greco-Roman.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Those aren't my "teachings." They are my "observations." I do indeed allow myself the luxury of experiencing, observing, reflecting and speaking "with no Scriptures." The rules for this forum specifically state that no citation of Scripture is necessary, and it would scarcely make any sense in the context of a post where the entire point is that almost any passage of Scripture one does cite is subject to umpteen varying interpretations by believers who all (including me) believe they are indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit. Other than that, I'm not sure what point you are making. Is it that anyone who doesn't cite Scripture - i.e., me - is operating "carnally" and speaking from his "Adamic nature"? It sounds as though you are distinguishing "born again believers" ("we") from those carnal folks like moi who dare to think and speak without citing Scripture.

None of what you just posted related to what I was saying? You should know if you have received the Holy , it is not a supposition. I have felt no fellowship Spirit from your post. I'm sorry you did not get anything better out of my post but criticism. I wish you clarity on the doctrines of Christ. This is not meant to be criticism. There is hardly any true fellowship in the visible church. It is in a sad shape of affairs.

 

[Jim Parker]

There is one "reality" and one "problem." The reality is that God has not laid out any of these doctrines in a way that is entirely clear or free from ambiguity. He has left them open to multiple interpretations and understandings by sincere and intelligent believers acting in good faith. Obviously, God being God, this had to have been what He intended.

Nonsense.
There is an ancient word which referred to varieties of opinions: heresies.
MAN makes the truth ambiguous, not God.
MAN introduces confusion, not God.
Go back to what the early church agreed upon.

 

[Corn Pop]

Its only been the last 100 years through the education system people have learnt to read, in some nations people dont read because they dont get taught, but they can speak fluent language, the nations are still living under the stone age. No wonder for 1900 years Christians were being misled until they could read the New Testament for themselves. Well for many its 2000 years because they still dont read the scriptures for themselves.

 

[Jim Parker]

Its only been the last 100 years through the education system people have learnt to read,

Maybe in Kiwiland.
We've been reading fort a long time here.

 

[ezra]

i have tried keeping up with this thread and the farther it goes the less it makes sense

Tertullian was raised a Roman pagan, spoke and wrote in Latin and lived and worked in Africa more than 100 years and 2,000 mile WALK removed from the original Jewish culture of the original church teachings (Scripture)
He learned Koine Greek just like a lot of people still do today.

to me it really does not matter who or what Tertullian was. i have my bible i have my online sources .to aid me .i look up what words mean.. how about just using the kiss method keep it simple stupid (not directed at any one } . a lady sunday said you put it at a level i can understand .so i told her i had to do it that way so i could understand

 

[Runner]

Nonsense.
There is an ancient word which referred to varieties of opinions: heresies.
MAN makes the truth ambiguous, not God.
MAN introduces confusion, not God.
Go back to what the early church agreed upon.

You are welcome to disagree, but this scarcely makes my observations "nonsense."
The New Testament itself makes abundantly clear that there were serious differences and divisions within the earliest Christian communities as to what it all meant.
The various councils were held precisely because there were massive differences in understanding as to what it all meant.
The "early church" agreed on very little, which is why the councils arrived at creeds through a process of negotiation that often hinged more on political power than accurate interpretation,
The various heresies included some interpretations and understandings that were entirely reasonable and others that were unrecognizable as anything Jesus was talking about; those that were entirely reasonable were weeded out with the others through a process that often hinged more on political power than merit.
Since the canon has been settled, literally hundreds of thousands of books and tens of millions of words have been written by theologians and other scholars and leaders of the highest caliber, all sincere believers, sharply disagreeing over key passages and doctrines. Do you seriously contend that this state of affairs exists only because "man introduces confusion"?
The Bible is indeed vague and ambiguous in many passages and in regard to many doctrines. You can say that the Bible is not ambiguous and confusing, that only man makes it so, but this is patently not true. As a lawyer, I deal almost daily with the issue as to whether a particular statute or contract provision is or is not vague and ambiguous (because different rules of interpretation apply if it is). I know vague and ambiguous when I see it, as do tens of thousands of Bible scholars with better credentials than mine. To pretend the Bible is entirely clear, that every passage and book has but one meaning that would shine through if only man would get out of the way, is indeed "nonsense."
Often, of course, the confusion is attributable to man, just as a plaintiff will attempt to twist the plain language of a statute to suit his purposes. But not always. Often the ambiguity and confusion is real.
God intended the Bible for humans. God knew that humans would be reading it. God did not intend for humans to get out of the way. If God had intended the Bible to be entirely clear and unambiguous, free from all doubt and confusion, so clear that no child could fail to grasp the meaning of every passage, that's how the Bible would be. It is not. Ergo, God apparently did not intend for it to be entirely clear and unambiguous. I do not see this as a massive problem and am not clear as to why folks like you do. Pretending that it is entirely clear and unambiguous - this I do see as a problem, because it ignores the reality and because the supposedly clear and unambiguous meaning always comes down to my interpretation while everyone who disagrees with mine is a fool or worse.
Why should I "go back to what the early church agreed upon"? Why should I not take into consideration the views of Marcion, Pelagius, Calvin, Billy Graham or anyone else in deciding for myself what it all means? The early church had too many divisions and differences to be viewed as a monolithic entity. I have high regard for the Apostolic Fathers, but they are not the last word on anything - for me, anyway.
I am not suggesting the Bible is some hopeless disaster. As I've stated, I believe that the real Christian essentials are pretty clear and could be summarized in a couple of typewritten pages that any child could grasp. But the details that Christians love to argue about are fodder for debate precisely because the Bible is vague and ambiguous in regard to them.

 

[Runner]

None of what you just posted related to what I was saying? You should know if you have received the Holy , it is not a supposition. I have felt no fellowship Spirit from your post. I'm sorry you did not get anything better out of my post but criticism. I wish you clarity on the doctrines of Christ. This is not meant to be criticism. There is hardly any true fellowship in the visible church. It is in a sad shape of affairs.

I'm truly not debating with you, or avoiding fellowship with you, I simply don't understand what point you were making. You started your post by saying, "But this is your teachings...with no Scriptures. The Gospel is Spiritual and is not explainable by just carnal thought." I logically assumed that sentence #2 flowed from sentence #1. Even now, having re-read your post at least six times, I'm having difficulty following it.

If you're saying that there is a supernatural dimension to reading and understanding Scripture, meaning the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this I certainly agree with. But three sincere believers who pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit are often led to three very different interpretations of Bible passages. So this is a bit of a conundrum. Part of the reason is surely because they each bring their own human dimension to the reading of Scripture as well - their individual hopes, fears, prejudices and whatnot. If this is what you're saying, I agree with this as well - but bringing our human dimension to the reading of Scripture is unavoidable. God obviously knew this.

You ended by saying, "But you can not make those personal things a doctrine, or condemn others if they do not honor God in the same way. Therein lies part of the problem." If I understand this correctly, it meshes with what I've been saying. We can disagree (or maybe we don't) as to whether some Bible passages actually are ambiguous and subject to two or more equally valid interpretations. But even if we say that Bible passages are never ambiguous and there is only one correct interpretation, the fact remains that the correct interpretation may become muddled by the human dimension we inevitably bring to the reading and understanding of Scripture. If this is what you're saying, I agree with this as well. If you're further saying that in our dealings with others we should humbly acknowledge that our interpretation of Scripture may be muddled and should not insist that everyone who has a different interpretation is wrong, this is exactly what I've been saying.

The big question would then be, "Since we all inevitably bring a human dimension to the reading and understanding of Scripture, how do we recognize the interpretation that ISN'T muddled and that actually conforms to what God intended?" Since I believe many passages and doctrines are ambiguous, I believe God intended those passages and doctrines to have whatever meaning an individual believer derives from prayerfully reading the passages, studying quality resources, and reflecting upon what he has read. In other words, an ambiguous passage or doctrine (in my opinion) could have multiple valid interpretations. If one insists there is only one correct interpretation, then it becomes a challenge as to how one identifies that interpretation in the face of competing interpretations that are widely held by other sincere Christians.

 

[Jim Parker]

The New Testament itself makes abundantly clear that there were serious differences and divisions within the earliest Christian communities as to what it all meant.

Baloney

The various councils were held precisely because there were massive differences in understanding as to what it all meant.

The councils were held to deal with heresy.

The various heresies included some interpretations and understandings that were entirely reasonable

Yes, many heresies are "reasonable" but God's revelation trumps mans reason.

Since the canon has been settled, literally hundreds of thousands of books and tens of millions of words have been written by theologians and other scholars and leaders of the highest caliber, all sincere believers, sharply disagreeing over key passages and doctrines. Do you seriously contend that this state of affairs exists only because "man introduces confusion"?

Yes

 

[Corn Pop]

The bible doesn't speak to me because it was not written for me or to me. The old testament was for the people under the law, the house of Israel. People say its important but Its not important to me because the scripture were not given to me by God.

And Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Jesus was speaking to the house of Israel, he come to the lost sheep Israel, and to fullfill the law.

 

[Douglas Summers]

But three sincere believers who pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit are often led to three very different interpretations of Bible passages.

This is no so with the born again believer, this is only true to the religious. When I accepted the Gods calling and election, immediately after I followed Him in baptism, I was in the Spirit. It was as if I would float up to the ceiling (I was 16 at the time). It was a Sunday on April 1st. A fools day to the world, but the beginning of life for me. It was not the baptism in water that gave me regeneration, it was the fact that I was answering the call of God and the act of following after Him. Those who get baptized to be saved have a self righteous self willed act that has become a work instead of a calling to follow Christ, led by the Spirit. Those who get baptized to be saved have never met the Lord. Salvation is a supernatural act, not a self willed one. As I was led by the Spirit and became aware that the principles of this world were not of God, I did not fit in anymore. It was not that I did not have friends, but I had more grace, sadness, and love for people (and no, I was not perfect). But the one thing that all born again believers have is unity in Christ by His Spirit....not in the vanity of their mind. My calling and election is pastor/teacher, not self willed, but a gift of the Holy Spirit, that He Himself manifest himself through that gift. I went to church one Sunday and the pastor did not show up. The Holy Spirit called me up and I preached as He led. I'am not a speaker on my own and would be terrified to speak in public, it was the Spirit manifesting itself, I was the vessel. We should be supporting and uplifting each other in the work of Christ. Study (Eph. 4:1-32) My time here is short, not much fellowship in the visible church because they will not humble themselves before the Lord (The Church of Laodicea)

 

[Jim Parker]

To pretend the Bible is entirely clear, that every passage and book has but one meaning that would shine through if only man would get out of the way, is indeed "nonsense."

I did not say that the Bible is entirely clear or that every passage has but one meaning.

Often the ambiguity and confusion is real.

Which is why there were 7 great councils assembled to deal with the heretical views arising from confusion.
HOWEVER, the "confusion" consistently arose because of people's tendency to introduce neo-platonist/Gnostic concepts into Christian doctrine. That is how the Trinity got clarified; by dealing with heretical (hererodox) views which inserted those concepte which were foreign to the scriptures and the teaching of the apostles.

If God had intended the Bible to be entirely clear and unambiguous, free from all doubt and confusion, so clear that no child could fail to grasp the meaning of every passage, that's how the Bible would be. It is not. Ergo, God apparently did not intend for it to be entirely clear and unambiguous.

Ah! The counselor is testifying for God.

Why should I "go back to what the early church agreed upon"?

Because they were several orders of magnitude better informed on the issues than you and I are.

Why should I not take into consideration the views of Marcion, Pelagius,

Because they were wrong.

I have high regard for the Apostolic Fathers, but they are not the last word on anything - for me, anyway.

Then perhaps your opinion of your personal opinion is a bit over-inflated.

But the details that Christians love to argue about are fodder for debate precisely because the Bible is vague and ambiguous in regard to them.

I have found that the things that Christians love to argue about are very often the things that the early church fathers had already dealt with and settled but of which the modern self-anointed apologist is dismally ignorant.
The fact that someone has an opinion does not render that opinion legitimate.
Much of the disagreement I encounter has been based in ignorance of orthodox theology, poor reading comprehension skills, less than average facility with the English language (while insisting on reading scripture in the Late Middle English of the KJV) and a lack of appreciation of literature. (Which the Bible is)

Another contributing factor, IMHO, is the rebellious attitude of humans to being told the facts when those facts are contrary to the individual's tastes.

But, go ahead, reinvent the square wheel.

iakov the fool

 

[Corn Pop]

Many are misled.

 

[Corn Pop]

Why do people think this verse is relevant to them when Paul said unto the church of the Thessalonians in the 1st century. Were you in the Thessalonian church who Paul was speaking to in the 1st century?, no?, well then no scripture is about you or speaking to you.

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"

I believe Paul that they were caught up as Paul said they would be while they were alive and remained.

 

[Runner]

Because they were several orders of magnitude better informed on the issues than you and I are.

But your suggestion was that I should go back to the early church fathers as providing the definitive understanding. This is what I decline to do. I do go back to the early writings because they have great value and help inform my own understanding. Given the scholarship over the past several hundred years, I doubt seriously that the early church was better informed about anything than studious Christians are today. That would be like saying that we should go back to the 1965 books on the JFK assassination as definitive simply because the authors were closer to the event, when in fact what is known today dwarfs what was known then.

Because they were wrong.

Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. I will inform myself about their positions and decide for myself. Why should I pretend that they didn't exist because some council decided they were heretics? Even if they were wrong and were indeed heretics, consideration of their views makes for a better-informed Christian.

Then perhaps your opinion of your personal opinion is a bit over-inflated.

I realized a long time ago that the only beliefs that would have sustaining meaning for me would be those that I developed for myself and in which I genuinely believed. I want (and have) a set of beliefs in which I really believe, ones that will allow me to stare life and death in the face without flinching. I will inform myself about others' beliefs, but ultimately only those beliefs that are based on my own experiences, observations, studies and intuition can have sustaining meaning for me. Again, your comment seems to suggest that I should default to the writings as the Apostolic Fathers as though they were in some sense definitive, something that I am simply unwilling to do. "I believe this because it is what the early church taught" is not, for me, a sufficient basis for genuine, sustaining belief.

You appear to be a "follower," willing to default to the judgment of others whom you regard as authoritative. I am and always have been the ultimate anti-follower. My post #65 on this thread, http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/why-do-you-believe.64691/page-4#post-1363639, explains where I am coming from as well as I can. Perhaps my opinion of my beliefs strikes you as "over-inflated," but it happens to be inflated just right for me. The point you seem to miss is that the beliefs of someone such as myself are not merely personal beliefs in some toweringly arrogant sense, but rather beliefs that have been arrived at after wide experience, extensive observation, intense study and a great deal of prayer and reflection. At the end of that process, I do not merely say "These are the beliefs I hold" (and certainly not "These are the beliefs you should hold") but rather "These are the only beliefs I can hold and remain true to myself."

 

[Jim Parker]

But your suggestion was that I should go back to the early church fathers as providing the definitive understanding. This is what I decline to do. I do go back to the early writings because they have great value and help inform my own understanding.

Well, good luck with your own understanding.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I used to think I knew a lot until I started learning stuff. Then I realized that the more I learn, the less I know.

 

[OzSpen]

i have tried keeping up with this thread and the farther it goes the less it makes sense to me it really does not matter who or what Tertullian was. i have my bible i have my online sources .to aid me .i look up what words mean.. how about just using the kiss method keep it simple stupid (not directed at any one } . a lady sunday said you put it at a level i can understand .so i told her i had to do it that way so i could understand

Please try using the KISS principle with:

• 1 Tim 2:15 (ESV), 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control';
• 1 Cor 15:29 (ESV), 'Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?'
• Paul told the women in Corinth, 'As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says' (1 Cor 14:33b-34 ESV). Women are to be silent but what does 1 Cor 11:5 state? 'But every wife [a woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven' (ESV). So women are told to 'keep silent in the churches' but wives (who are women) can prophesy. Try prophesying in the church when women are silent!
• The KISS principle breaks down when there are difficult passages to interpret. Instead of KISS, I recommend, 'Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NLT).

Oz