When Beliefs Conflict

[GodsGrace]

Wondering, I'd just like to say that you bring a great perspective to this discussion. Your words are thought provoking and I believe will be a source of growth that will benefit many.
Your point above is the issue, ain't it? I don't know how to totally rectify this, but we might do well to eliminate a portion of the differences if we approach scripture by:

1. Realizing that we each bring biases and preconceptions that color our understanding.
- We should be mindful of what our preconceptions are and make an effert to see information presented to us without bringing those biases into the mix. (That is a tough task).
2. Make sure we don't quote mine scripture.
- this practice often serves to lift a text from the overall narritive context in which it resides. Remember that a quote pulled from context can result in a distorted meaning.

I agree...but I don't think this will work.
Even without our own preconceptions at work we get differing opinions. The Word cannot be an opinion,,,it should be an objective truth. Jesus said we would know the truth...He meant about satan and sin...but wouldn't knowing ALL the truth help us in how to be saved? Could some of us be wrong? I don't believe doctrine saves --- but could some doctrine lead to being on the wrong path?

Of course context matters, and when a verse is pulled out of context most members would know that.

 

[Boaz]

Why do you find this disturbing? Do you realize that the idea you are conveying here shows that you are trying to teach something? Every time someone enters a debate, they are trying to teach ideas or doctrine or something that they believe others should know about and believe as they do. And how can anyone learn truth unless someone is teaching it? The Bible says that the scripture "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." and so when people are misled or taught wrong ideas, which we all have been there, someone needs to give meaning of scripture so that correction of ideas, and thus faith, can occur.

In fact, I am a Bible teacher, and I have the spiritual gift of teaching, as many people have told me. I felt called to teach the Bible many years ago, and I've had a lifetime of learning and teaching experience. And I'm still a student, so I can learn as well. So in effect, I am here to teach, and also to learn.

Incidentally, the pharisees also asked about Jesus' credentials, since he didn't learn under any rabbi. The Bible is my reference, and anyone can check out whatever I say by the scripture references I give to support it, to make sure that I'm not taking anything out of context. If anyone wants to prejudge what I say, it's their prerogative. But the challenge is to study the scripture deeper to see what the apostles and prophets believed.
TD

TDIDYMUS

You state that any time someone enters a conversation they are trying to teach ideas or doctrines. That is not true. That presumes the person entering the debate thinks they are right and those who disagree must be set straight. And according to what you said that would be everybody so-------you see how well that would work out. There are some who approach a debate in the way you suggested, and they are very difficult to deal with, they do not listen, all their efforts go towards making the "lesser" change to agree with them. But there are others who it is a delight to have discussions with on our differences and the things we agree on. Which for the most part exceed the differences.
I am Reformed and I realize that is a sticky subject. I never enter a discussion with the idea of teaching my beliefs. I may state them if it is applicable to the situation but I always make clear I am only saying that is MY belief. I am happy to answer questions about my beliefs. I may correct a misstatement made about Reformed Theology. I never try to change anyone's mind. That isn't any of my business. So no, not everyone enters a debate planning to teach. I enter them because the topic is interesting and hoping for pleasant and fruitful discourse.

 

[Walpole]

sola scriptura is difficult, but i think (right now...) probably the best course of action to get on and stay on the narrow way.

Sorry to be captain obvious, but sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture. Therefore, it is self-refuting.

 

[Boaz]

The entity that could grant authority for anyone to teach is the church to which the person belongs.

Can anyone from the A of G church teach, or does it require some kind of study and authority from that church? Ditto for any other church.

The laity has always been separate from the clergy.
Jesus trained the disciples He wanted to send out. And Paul waited 3 years before teaching and he received the authority of the Apostles.

I don't have a problem with this.




You're speaking about how we could all agree on scripture in the N.T.

The only way we could become a unified body would be to give absolute power to a group of persons in a hierarchal system to which we would all have to adhere. This has already been tried; it would be the Catholic Church as we know it today. It didn't work very well, did it?

But neither did Protestantism, or the reformation. Just look at what we have today.

To say nothing of the fact that Protestants not only believe in Sola Scriptura, they believe in Solo Scriptura, or eisegesis. This most definitely does not unify.

So, I guess my answer is No. I don't know the solution. One would have been for the writers of the N.T. to be more specific -- but back then they had no idea we'd come to such differing understandings of what was written.



Agreed.
But my learning should come from a church; it COULD be from a babe in Christ - but when one has to learn to then teach...it's usually universities they go to.

Of course teaching should be founded upon the bible and nothing else.

So let me ask you:
We have differing opinions on matters:
Eternal salvation vs. the opposite
Augustine vs. Arminius

Just to name two of the biggies....how do YOU check to see which is correct? (not meaning to get into those discussions since one is prohibited).

W

The way I have finally come to view the unity issue, since the church is miles and miles from complete agreement, and since it no surprise to Jesus that we are in that shape, it must mean some other kind of unity. Other than all of us agreeing on all things. In order for a person to be a true Christian, according to the way the Bible outlines it, it requires belief in a few crucial doctrines. That Jesus is Son of God, son of man. His diety. The virgin birth. The trinity. The holy life, death and resurrection. His substitutionary death to satisfy the wrath of God against those who believe. In these things I believe there is unity. The unity is in Christ, the invisible Church. From our position as humans, as members of His body, out responsibility to one another and Jesus, is love.

 

[GodsGrace]

W

The way I have finally come to view the unity issue, since the church is miles and miles from complete agreement, and since it no surprise to Jesus that we are in that shape, it must mean some other kind of unity. Other than all of us agreeing on all things. In order for a person to be a true Christian, according to the way the Bible outlines it, it requires belief in a few crucial doctrines. That Jesus is Son of God, son of man. His diety. The virgin birth. The trinity. The holy life, death and resurrection. His substitutionary death to satisfy the wrath of God against those who believe. In these things I believe there is unity. The unity is in Christ, the invisible Church. From our position as humans, as members of His body, out responsibility to one another and Jesus, is love.

At some point I began to wonder about my beliefs...and I didn't get to them easily. I asked myself how we could be sure of anything if so many ideas could be had from the N.T.

In the end, yes, I agree with you. There is a list of items we must agree upon in order to be called Christian...perhaps the rest is just idle talk?

But is believing the host is Christ's body idle talk?
If we really need to confess to someone, is that idle talk?

Must say good night but please reply.

 

[Boaz]

Sola Scriptora which is Latin for "solely scripture" is not a good practice.
Hermeneutics is a blend of Art and Science.

Even reading is a science.
Anthropology, history, geography, topography, geology, horticulture, agriculture and etc are sciences...can't really understand scriptures without these sciences. But Sola Scriptora does away with these things.

Then there are the arts...how can we understand what poetry is without someone teaching us?
Irony?
Symbolism?

I can go on

Sola scripture does not mean that is our only source of information. It was used to express that the Bible alone is the authority for church doctrine. Not also Popes or Priests or any human.

 

[Boaz]

At some point I began to wonder about my beliefs...and I didn't get to them easily. I asked myself how we could be sure of anything if so many ideas could be had from the N.T.

In the end, yes, I agree with you. There is a list of items we must agree upon in order to be called Christian...perhaps the rest is just idle talk?

But is believing the host is Christ's body idle talk?
If we really need to confess to someone, is that idle talk?

Must say good night but please reply.

It's not that everything else is idle talk, it isn't. But we don't have to all agree on them. We still have unity in Christ which is the "life or death" unity we need. Lol. The rest is all part of growing and learning and we make up our own minds.

 

[Walpole]

Sola scripture does not mean that is our only source of information. It was used to express that the Bible alone is the authority for church doctrine. Not also Popes or Priests or any human.

The Church never subscribed to sola Scriptura. The Church pre-dates the Scriptures so logically she cannot bind herself to that which was not yet even written. Remember the Scriptures were born from the Church and thus are written in the context of her tradition.

Furthermore, sola Scriptura is not taught in the Scriptures, thus it is self-refuting. The doctrine was an invention of Protestantism.

 

[Boaz]

The Church never subscribed to sola Scriptura. The Church pre-dates the Scriptures so logically she cannot bind herself to that which was not yet even written. Remember the Scriptures were born from the Church and thus are written in the context of her tradition.

Furthermore, sola Scriptura is not taught in the Scriptures, thus it is self-refuting. The doctrine was an invention of Protestantism.

The Reformers during the reformation coined the phrase sola scripture or used it, maybe it was even before them. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not suggesting it is part of the NT. Of course it wasn't. The Reformers used it to come against the authority the Catholic was usurping away from Scripture. They were making up their own rules, many corrupt, giving their own ideas an authority over Scripture. The Reformers were attempting to root this out of the church. They said church doctrine, traditions etc. were to be from scripture ALONE, not scripture plus the Pope or Pope without scripture. It isn't an invention, it's an expression.

 

[JohnDB]

The Reformers during the reformation coined the phrase sola scripture or used it, maybe it was even before them. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not suggesting it is part of the NT. Of course it wasn't. The Reformers used it to come against the authority the Catholic was usurping away from Scripture. They were making up their own rules, many corrupt, giving their own ideas an authority over Scripture. The Reformers were attempting to root this out of the church. They said church doctrine, traditions etc. were to be from scripture ALONE, not scripture plus the Pope or Pope without scripture. It isn't an invention, it's an expression.

Where I understand what you are saying and meaning by it...
The Calvinists with the Geneva Bible most certainly included their interpretation and conclusions of the meanings they deduced.

They were called "glosses" originally...we, today, call these study notes.
Many of the "glosses" were wrong in interpretation of the scriptures (by modern hermeneutics) but that really didn't matter to the Calvinists of Geneva. Where the proliferation of scriptures was awesome... telling people inaccurate meanings wasn't so good. The whole time they were claiming "Sola Scriptora" but then wrote the dictionary to suit themselves.
I'm Not claiming that Calvinists were any worse or better than anyone else at the time this was happening. Just that they weren't without their own measure of hypocrisy.

People have claimed "Sola Scriptora" but no one has actually meant it at any point in history. Today, for those of us who know, it's simply another term for interpreting scriptures in a particular fashion to prove the doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Walpole]

The Reformers during the reformation coined the phrase sola scripture or used it, maybe it was even before them. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not suggesting it is part of the NT. Of course it wasn't. The Reformers used it to come against the authority the Catholic was usurping away from Scripture. They were making up their own rules, many corrupt, giving their own ideas an authority over Scripture. The Reformers were attempting to root this out of the church. They said church doctrine, traditions etc. were to be from scripture ALONE, not scripture plus the Pope or Pope without scripture. It isn't an invention, it's an expression.

Do you not see the illogicalness of your assertion? The Scriptures do not state doctrine, traditions, etc. were to be from Scripture ALONE. Hence that doctrine (that all doctrine, traditions, etc. are to come from Scripture alone) contradicts itself and is therefore self-refuting.

To be logical and noncontradictory, you would need to re-write it to state:

"Church doctrine, traditions, etc. are to be from Scripture alone, except for this doctrine."

 

[Boaz]

Where I understand what you are saying and meaning by it...
The Calvinists with the Geneva Bible most certainly included their interpretation and conclusions of the meanings they deduced.

They were called "glosses" originally...we, today, call these study notes.
Many of the "glosses" were wrong in interpretation of the scriptures (by modern hermeneutics) but that really didn't matter to the Calvinists of Geneva. Where the proliferation of scriptures was awesome... telling people inaccurate meanings wasn't so good. The whole time they were claiming "Sola Scriptora" but then wrote the dictionary to suit themselves.
I'm Not claiming that Calvinists were any worse or better than anyone else at the time this was happening. Just that they weren't without their own measure of hypocrisy.

People have claimed "Sola Scriptora" but no one has actually meant it at any point in history. Today, for those of us who know, it's simply another term for interpreting scriptures in a particular fashion to prove the doctrines of Calvinism.

Not really but never mind.

 

[Boaz]

Do you not see the illogicalness of your assertion? The Scriptures do not state doctrine, traditions, etc. were to be from Scripture ALONE. Hence that doctrine (that all doctrine, traditions, etc. are to come from Scripture alone) contradicts itself and is therefore self-refuting.

To be logical and noncontradictory, you would need to re-write it to state:

"Church doctrine, traditions, etc. are to be from Scripture alone, except for this doctrine."

Wal
I wasn't actually making an assertion. I was explaining the manner in which the phrase we are discussing WAS USED! Why are you trying to start an argument, calling me illogical, about sola scriptura? This started out as a thread about getting along and being respectful. BACK TO TOPIC.

 

[Walpole]

Wal
I wasn't actually making an assertion. I was explaining the manner in which the phrase we are discussing WAS USED! Why are you trying to start an argument, calling me illogical, about sola scriptura? This started out as a thread about getting along and being respectful. BACK TO TOPIC.

Ok, let me rephrase what I wrote...

Why couldn't the Protestant reformers see the illogicalness and self-refuting / self-contradiction of sola Scriptura? I think you answer that question in your previous post. The Reformers had to supplant the authority of the Church with something. That something was the Church's Scriptures. Not only was their doctrine self-refuting, but history demonstrates it is also untenable because almost immediately after the genesis of Protestantism, it began rapidly dividing because this doctrine they built their religion around is not able to resolve any doctrinal disagreements. By the end of the 16th century, there were already nearly 300 different sects.

 

[tdidymas]

TDIDYMUS

You state that any time someone enters a conversation they are trying to teach ideas or doctrines. That is not true. That presumes the person entering the debate thinks they are right and those who disagree must be set straight. And according to what you said that would be everybody so-------you see how well that would work out. There are some who approach a debate in the way you suggested, and they are very difficult to deal with, they do not listen, all their efforts go towards making the "lesser" change to agree with them. But there are others who it is a delight to have discussions with on our differences and the things we agree on. Which for the most part exceed the differences.
I am Reformed and I realize that is a sticky subject. I never enter a discussion with the idea of teaching my beliefs. I may state them if it is applicable to the situation but I always make clear I am only saying that is MY belief. I am happy to answer questions about my beliefs. I may correct a misstatement made about Reformed Theology. I never try to change anyone's mind. That isn't any of my business. So no, not everyone enters a debate planning to teach. I enter them because the topic is interesting and hoping for pleasant and fruitful discourse.

It sounds to me like you think "teaching" is a tyrannical form of communication, like some colonial schoolmaster who whacks a child if they don't agree with the instructor - as a figure of speech, of course. I get that the other poster thinks the same way.

Such is typical of semantics that cause misunderstandings. I get that this part of the discussion on teaching began with a semantical misunderstanding. I made the mistake of engaging in that semantical discussion instead of simply conceding to the terminology asserted - "sharing."

Incidentally, I'm not satisfied with disagreements on a shallow level. If I think someone has misunderstood the context of scripture, then I offer explanation to help them understand it more clearly. So do you think that is teaching, or sharing?

Quite frankly, I was tempted to erase my response and let it all go, because it seems ridiculous having to talk about this minuscule issue (it seemed to me). Yet, semantics really is an important issue, since it has majorly split churches in the past.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Good morning TD,
I agree with your first paragraph....we are each responsible for our own beliefs. I like to say that doctrine does not save us...Jesus does and our belief in God Almighty. By grace, through faith.
But you are reformed...I'm not...who's right? I also like soteriology and am convinced we choose God and not the other way around. How could we both be right??

Before I was a Christian, I was a hater of God and had no desire or plan to ever become a Christian. But one day God spoke to me and showed me my end. I had no choice but to submit myself to Christ, since the alternative was an unbearable horror. Therefore, God chose me and not the other way around. And if my reading of scripture shows harmony between it and my experience, then how could you say I'm wrong about it? The burden of proof would be on you to show it.

Everything is tested by the word of God. In the beginning the Fathers were pure and taught what the Apostles taught. Then more and more began to be added till today the catholic church is not even recognizable as the first church. So, yes, I agree with you about Tradition too.

Augustine got his idea about Original Sin from scripture....he just focused too much on the Sin Nature and not enough on the purity of children's actions. Pure in the sense of lacking sin.
He also, in my opinion, misunderstood about predestination and did later change his mind. He changed his mind so much I don't even like to quote him anymore. He did end up believing in free will but the reformists took his idea and developed it. By saying that Augustine was not so much inspired by God as his own ideas...I do believe the Fathers before him taught concepts to which we should adhere.

It does disturb me that we could read the same verse and come up with two different interpretations...but now I'm repeating.

It also disturbs me that people can read different things into scripture, and that's exactly what I try to correct in this forum, as well as in my ministry. And if someone is bull-headed and refuses to even consider my explanations, I am grieved, but not angry.

Nevertheless, I do admit that some of what I believe is outside of the Bible, and certainly that has influence on how I read it, just as it would anyone. Part of Biblical interpretation is the understanding of culture and language in Bible times, and many other factors.

And it also disturbs me that so much has been added to traditional ideas and practices not just in the Catholic circles, but also among Protestants and Orthodox.
TD

 

[daninthelionsden]

Once the Tribulation starts in earnest, none of these side issues will matter one iota. It won't be because of side issues, you will be giving up your life.

 

[Boaz]

It sounds to me like you think "teaching" is a tyrannical form of communication, like some colonial schoolmaster who whacks a child if they don't agree with the instructor - as a figure of speech, of course. I get that the other poster thinks the same way.

Such is typical of semantics that cause misunderstandings. I get that this part of the discussion on teaching began with a semantical misunderstanding. I made the mistake of engaging in that semantical discussion instead of simply conceding to the terminology asserted - "sharing."

Incidentally, I'm not satisfied with disagreements on a shallow level. If I think someone has misunderstood the context of scripture, then I offer explanation to help them understand it more clearly. So do you think that is teaching, or sharing?

Quite frankly, I was tempted to erase my response and let it all go, because it seems ridiculous having to talk about this minuscule issue (it seemed to me). Yet, semantics really is an important issue, since it has majorly split churches in the past.
TD

TD
I wasn't and don't think teaching is a tyrannical form of communication. I was referring to it, because that was the impression I got from your statement, of an attitude or approach to a topic. "I will teach these misinformed people the right way." That type of attitude. If I misinterpreted what you meant I apologize.
R

 

[GodsGrace]

Before I was a Christian, I was a hater of God and had no desire or plan to ever become a Christian. But one day God spoke to me and showed me my end. I had no choice but to submit myself to Christ, since the alternative was an unbearable horror. Therefore, God chose me and not the other way around. And if my reading of scripture shows harmony between it and my experience, then how could you say I'm wrong about it? The burden of proof would be on you to show it.


It also disturbs me that people can read different things into scripture, and that's exactly what I try to correct in this forum, as well as in my ministry. And if someone is bull-headed and refuses to even consider my explanations, I am grieved, but not angry.

Nevertheless, I do admit that some of what I believe is outside of the Bible, and certainly that has influence on how I read it, just as it would anyone. Part of Biblical interpretation is the understanding of culture and language in Bible times, and many other factors.

And it also disturbs me that so much has been added to traditional ideas and practices not just in the Catholic circles, but also among Protestants and Orthodox.
TD

I read your post no. 55 to Reformed05 and this is not an unimportant topic.

Right above you state the some can read different things into scripture and you said "that's exactly what I try to correct in this forum".
Alas...it is not up to YOU to correct what anyone says unless it is an absolutely absolute fact.

Reformed05 is correct and you're confirming my belief as to teaching and how it's not proper for a forum.

I tell you how I interpret a verse....you tell me how YOU understand it...and pretty much it should be left at that.

Why would the burden of proof be on ME if I think you're wrong about your interpretation? Do you think you're absolutely right about every verse in the bible?

The burden of proof would be on both of us...but my point is that we shouldn't have to prove anything....we each have our opinion and it will not change.

You see God choosing you in the bible...
I see me choosing God.
The church agreed with me for 1,500 years but because you think YOU are right, I have to prove myself?

You see....an argument would ensue and we shouldn't be arguing with each other. The fact that you want to teach creates this attitude in you.

And with that, I think this discussion should end.

 

[tdidymas]

TD
I wasn't and don't think teaching is a tyrannical form of communication. I was referring to it, because that was the impression I got from your statement, of an attitude or approach to a topic. "I will teach these misinformed people the right way." That type of attitude. If I misinterpreted what you meant I apologize.
R

I'm here to help, not to push an agenda. The "I will teach these misinformed people the right way" interpretation of what I said is IMO rather cynical. However, I'm open to feedback, since we all could use some improvement in the way we communicate with each other.

There has to be some balance between assertive debating and merely offering suggestions. I don't think the Bible is merely offering suggestions as to what we can choose to believe, since it is authoritative.
TD