UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE-THE HOLY SPIRIT/SCHOLARS

[Lilac]

Hello Hopeful, sorry, good to meet.

 

[Lilac]

This brings up a question. Was the reformation wrong by going against those whose work was preaching and teaching?

No I don't think so.
Back in the 16th century there was a lot of things wrong with the established church. Luther (who was a human being, and in no ways perfect) but he wanted to change this within his church, and they refused to accept the judgements he so rightly made against their practises.

 

[Lilac]

The reformation was wrong, period.
It taught against everything the early church taught...that would be those that learned from the Apostles, and those that learned from them, etc. And so on.

The church taught nothing of the reformed doctrine until Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc.

It did not teach what the Apostles taught.

you mean, according to Acts? Should we drop all we have learned, and go back to how the early church lived? How did the early church live? Is it possible now, in our digital, man-made world? Like, let's build a framework we can apply to in real life, now.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

You stated: "If this is so, then we do we not all believe the same truth?" Would you please translate that question so I understand? There are some added words in the sentence that confuse me.

Sorry 'bout that Oz. I misspelled a word and it was too late to fix it when I realized. Made a couple of mistakes....I'm always in such a hurry these days.

Of John 16:13, Ellicott's commentary states:

He is called the Spirit of Truth, because part of His special office is to bring truth home to the hearts of men [people], to carry it from the material to the moral sphere, to make it something more than a collection of signs seen or heard--a living power in living men [people].​

We don't have the same "truth" because our human nature too easily interferes with what God tells us so that we "hear" a combination of God and us.

Yes,,, sometimes I think someone reads scripture and understands something their own way and just go with that instead of finding out what "traditional" Christianity believes. I DO believe that we should agree more on everything..although we do agree on the basics.
Even theologians disagree. Even you, after all the studying and reading, are able to come to a conclusion that may not be agreed to
100%.

I think that part of the problem is that the writers of the N.T. thought they were leaving enough information...
and maybe they thought that the information would be passed down from one generation to the next without it being changed.
Unfortunately this did not happen. The first church made a lot of changes to the first teachings of the new church,,,and then the reformation changed those teachings again.

I agree with the verses you provided to illustrate that our faith needs to be taught. First Corinthians 12 teaches us that some are given the gift of teachers (see also Eph 4; Rom 12). In my part of the world, too many preachers/teachers don't seem to me to have the gift of teaching. They don't do their homework and want to "rely on the Holy Spirit's leading" when they enter the pulpit. As a result I've heard some atrocious preaching over the years.

I believe if it's taught we will have more homogeneous ideologies and doctrine.
I used to prepare my lessons for catechism...I always believed the kids would get more out of a ONE HOUR (!) lesson in this way.
The Holy Spirit can help us...but we need to cooperate.

As you suggested, there is the added problem of teachers reading their own ideas into Scripture, which is eisegesis. The better approach is obtaining the meaning from the text, which is exegesis. The etymology (origin) of this word is the Greek preposition, ek (out of) as a prefix to hēgéomai, “I lead, guide”. So, exegesis is obtaining the meaning of a document, including the Bible, based on what the text states.

By contrast, eisegesis is from the Greek, eis = into + hēgéomai, “I lead, guide.” When preachers read their own views into the biblical text, they are engaging in eisegesis. Many of the worst cases of eisegesis I hear today are with allegorical interpretation. It was a problem in the early church as well with Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Oz

Agreed.
To say nothing of the fact that people sought gods back then. They even had a different god for different necessities.
Today we feel like we're too intelligent to believe in a god.

 

[GodsGrace]

No I don't think so.
Back in the 16th century there was a lot of things wrong with the established church. Luther (who was a human being, and in no ways perfect) but he wanted to change this within his church, and they refused to accept the judgements he so rightly made against their practises.

Hi Lilac...the above is for WIP.

I agree with what you've said. I also believe the reformation was necessary because the established church was no longer following the teachings of Jesus and also had too much power in the secular world.

I didn't mean that the reformation was wrong....
I meant that reformed theology is wrong...you may disagree.

 

[Christ_empowered]

i was an rc sproul fan. then, i read something he wrote, about people wanting to 'live off the government,' etc. ugh. oh, and the scandals in his ministries, after his passing. -sad-

ravi zecarias? probably misspelled. after his death, confirmation of rumors (once denied) of all sorts of wrong doing. Biblically, he wasn't qualified. He got fame and fortune in the here and now. happens.

i thought, maybe the rcc? guidance, structure, The Magisterium. what is there -not- to love? sex scandals. massive pay outs. "practicing Catholics" ranging from the right of Attila the Hun to the left of Lenin, all claiming godliness. oh, and a "mental health professional" who would taunt me, divulge my HIV+ status round town...he's a "devout Catholic," too. not so much. next?!?!

Pentecostals. that was short lived, lol. beneath that 'come as you are, Jesus loves you and so do we' veneer is...some serious mean-spirited junk, all around. so...who, what church, then?

I'm falling out of love with TULIP, etc., not just because Sproul proved to be a let down, but...wow. I just don't know. More and more, I"m trying to focus on -my salvation- , as in... 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling" kind of focus...

and follow my (well intentioned, Pentecostal) cousin's advice: "get your eyes fixed on Christ, and Him Crucified."

 

[Lilac]

and follow my (well intentioned, Pentecostal) cousin's advice: "get your eyes fixed on Christ, and Him Crucified."

Yeh well, I guess, we all fall short, denominations, bible scholars, preachers, teachers. The one human being and/ or congregation who claims to know it all, has lost my attention the moment he/ she displays such behaviour lol
Seen a lot, in different countries, too. Various expressions and explanations of faith, denominations. tried a lot, too.
amazing. Most of the time interesting, unfortunately sometimes very deceiving without me recognizing it at first.
Latter can be very damaging. Just saying.
I do believe it to be productive to have some kind of connection with a local assembly, even for prayer, fellowship, or if I need something ugh. And to give, of course haha I mean, not money in particular.
Keeps me warm in winters days (read: also darkish days) to know I can call someone, or regularly listen to a well meant thought through sermon from a pastor who most of the time claims to be correct from a theological point of view, and who truly shows to love the people in his church. And, of course, music and worship. Our senior pastor always tells us to read the word ourselves and check whether what he preaches is true. So that's me.

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, that is why it says 1. Thess 5...
so in a way, I believe what Oz wrote, in another thread: we need to search and test what the preacher tells us is it true? Can we trust what is being 'preached' to us?

We can, if the preacher has the same Spirit we have.

 

[Lilac]

We can, if the preacher has the same Spirit we have.

? just starting to learn that I need to study scripture as well myself in order to find answers, not only rely on them for their doctrine?

 

[for_his_glory]

My own personal approach to learning truth is by first praying and seeking the Holy Spirit to open my Spiritual eyes and ears to truly listen to what He gives me in all truths. I had to get to a place where I shut out everything I ever learned from the pulpit and make a fresh new beginning of learning, not being taught by man, but by the Spirit alone.

I'm not infallible, but the words of God are as what He gave to His Prophets and Apostles to write. I'm not much into man's commentaries or the various doctrines that come out of any denomination or non-denomination. I'm more interested in what Jesus has already taught. If we let the anointing of the Holy Spirit teach us, and if we are truly listening to the Spirit of God and not rushing through, then that which is a mystery to the carnal logical mind is revealed within the Spiritual through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As Christ taught His Disciples then so will He teach us.

We can learn much from each other, but we also need to be testing the spirits that are teaching us as each one of us will stand before Christ to give an account of what we taught others. I have yet not seen the Holy Spirit correct me by using others if my mind is not in connection with the Holy Spirit as I do miss things at times, but I do study to show myself approved of God, not by man. We are always learning and it's when we allow the Holy Spirit teach us then is when we will come into all truths God wants us to learn.

I'm not saying all of this to show I am perfect (far from it) or puff-upped (just being me), or act like I know everything, this is just my own personal approach to studying the word of God.

 

[tdidymas]

Canon exists in the CC but I don't believe it exists in Protestantism. I may be wrong.
Although, I just say, that the two denominations I'm familiar with are very similar in doctrine.
This is comforting to me.

Canon means standard, which is the 66 books of the Bible we have today. So yes, Protestants believe in the canon.

The reformation was necessary...
However, if we want to be intellectually honest, we'll have to admit that nothing like what was believed at the reformation was ever taught before...beginning with the Apostles. Why would this be unless what was taught at the reformation was wrong?

I'm glad we can agree on some things. But you've got the wrong idea about the reformation. All the leaders of the reformation studied Augustine (4th Century), and much of what they taught came from his writings. To qualify that statement, it wasn't just Augustine's ideas, but those ideas as they saw the NT teaching them.

 

[GodsGrace]

Because not everyone has the Holy Ghost.
There are many false Christians, ordained from the start to weaken and misguide us.

The church has been supplied by God with apostles, evangelist, teachers, and prophets. (Eph 4:11)
Heed them, and their life-styles.

Those who really want to learn from God will be taught by God, or His representatives.

But we don't agree on something (can't remember what it is right now)...
does this mean one of us does not have the Holy Spirit !
I don't believe this is so.

I do, instead, believe that we are to learn from those that more than we do.
As long as we can reconcile this with scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

you mean, according to Acts? Should we drop all we have learned, and go back to how the early church lived? How did the early church live? Is it possible now, in our digital, man-made world? Like, let's build a framework we can apply to in real life, now.

Goodness no Lilac...
I'm speaking about the early church....
the time after Acts.
In the book of Acts the Apostles were still alive.
They passed on their knowledge to others, and so on and so on.

The early church is the period in which the church (small c) Jesus left was being
formed by those who knew Him and those that knew the next generation.

Most theologians, including myself (except I'm not a theologian) believe the early
church ended at the council of Nicea in 325 AD. This is because the church got involved
with state matters and began to lose its way.

Actually, we should be living as the early church believed.
The church does not change, God does not change, even in this digital man-made world.

 

[JLB]

Because not everyone has the Holy Ghost.
There are many false Christians, ordained from the start to weaken and misguide us.

Amen sir!



JLB



PS — God bless the great people of Arizona.

 

[GodsGrace]

i was an rc sproul fan. then, i read something he wrote, about people wanting to 'live off the government,' etc. ugh. oh, and the scandals in his ministries, after his passing. -sad-

ravi zecarias? probably misspelled. after his death, confirmation of rumors (once denied) of all sorts of wrong doing. Biblically, he wasn't qualified. He got fame and fortune in the here and now. happens.

i thought, maybe the rcc? guidance, structure, The Magisterium. what is there -not- to love? sex scandals. massive pay outs. "practicing Catholics" ranging from the right of Attila the Hun to the left of Lenin, all claiming godliness. oh, and a "mental health professional" who would taunt me, divulge my HIV+ status round town...he's a "devout Catholic," too. not so much. next?!?!

Pentecostals. that was short lived, lol. beneath that 'come as you are, Jesus loves you and so do we' veneer is...some serious mean-spirited junk, all around. so...who, what church, then?

I'm falling out of love with TULIP, etc., not just because Sproul proved to be a let down, but...wow. I just don't know. More and more, I"m trying to focus on -my salvation- , as in... 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling" kind of focus...

and follow my (well intentioned, Pentecostal) cousin's advice: "get your eyes fixed on Christ, and Him Crucified."

That's what I've learned to do CE.
Keep my eyes on Jesus.
He's the only one that won't let us down.
Ravi Zacharias....what a disappointment....
once of the best apologists in the world.

Let's not look to man, but to the good Lord Himself for guidance.
I read some on these threads that have some odd ideas doctrinally...
but most of them are harmless...some are not.
I've run out of ideas for us.
This is why Jesus said Christianity would be a small club...
not too many care to join and the examples they see is one of the reasons.

 

[GodsGrace]

Canon means standard, which is the 66 books of the Bible we have today. So yes, Protestants believe in the canon.

I'm glad we can agree on some things. But you've got the wrong idea about the reformation. All the leaders of the reformation studied Augustine (4th Century), and much of what they taught came from his writings. To qualify that statement, it wasn't just Augustine's ideas, but those ideas as they saw the NT teaching them.

OK with the canon then.
Scripture is canon....

I don't have the wrong idea about the reformation.
Augustine is the only Early Church Father that had the idea of predesetination....
No one before him taught this and he came along much later than the Early Church...about 400 AD.
And he was a manechean for about 10 years and brought his gnostic beliefs with him.

Who are "THEY" and "THEM" in your last sentence?
There were no they and them....there was only HE,,,Augustine.
BTW,,,even the CC doesn't agree with him.

 

[Hopeful]

But we don't agree on something (can't remember what it is right now)...
does this mean one of us does not have the Holy Spirit !
I don't believe this is so.

I do, instead, believe that we are to learn from those that more than we do.
As long as we can reconcile this with scripture.

If the scriptures shown cannot convince a person that a message is from God, nothing will.
We can disagree till the end of time about "chocolate vs vanilla" without one of us being without the Spirit.
But in matters associated with Godliness and salvation, we should be on the same page.
I recall some different scriptures regarding being of one mind.
We cannot preach contrasting messages and both be of the same mind, or Spirit.

 

[GodsGrace]

If the scriptures shown cannot convince a person that a message is from God, nothing will.
We can disagree till the end of time about "chocolate vs vanilla" without one of us being without the Spirit.
But in matters associated with Godliness and salvation, we should be on the same page.
I recall some different scriptures regarding being of one mind.
We cannot preach contrasting messages and both be of the same mind, or Spirit.

I agree.
In matters regarding the salvation of our soul, we should definitely be of one mind.
But instead some message are directly opposed to one another.
How would one know which person is correct?
Take OSAS for instance. I believe this can affect a person's soul because some believe
they can live as they want to and it will not affect their salvation.
This is obviously wrong.
Are they listening to a teacher that does not have the Holy Spirit?

 

[tigger 2]

Wondering wrote:

"Most theologians, including myself (except I'm not a theologian) believe the early
church ended at the council of Nicea in 325 AD. This is because the church got involved
with state matters and began to lose its way."

And what was the major change as enforced by the Roman Emperor at that Council?

 

[Lilac]

My own personal approach to learning truth is by first praying and seeking the Holy Spirit to open my Spiritual eyes and ears to truly listen to what He gives me in all truths. I had to get to a place where I shut out everything I ever learned from the pulpit and make a fresh new beginning of learning, not being taught by man, but by the Spirit alone.

It's good if you can do it like this. I also believe it necessary sometimes to have a bible teacher/ preacher to address passages. But if I read the bible myself, I would encounter passages and understanding certain things that I did not before.
So I guess for me it's good to do both. As I also have partial impairment in my brains, I don't always understand everything someone tries to say. I would 'zone out' and only hear parts of it.