When Beliefs Conflict

[GodsGrace]

I personally believe each christian has a specific and unique viewpoint of the Kingdom and a little piece of Truth revealed only to them to share with the rest of the Body. Conflict easily arises when that person's little piece of revelation is rejected out of hand and rudely so. Or the person with their little piece of insight cannot accept such a small input and due to ego/pride simply must feel they know more than they actually do.

Good point.
I've learned some eschatology from this forum.
I just dislike the idea that we're here to teach..
although we certainly learn.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Although I understand that if someone is learning...someone is teaching....I think the attitude changes in a person when they think they are teaching others.

If someone is given the authority to teach, and some gather to learn from that person, then teaching is legitimate. But who chose any one particular person on this forum to teach? We have members here that are either biblical scholars or know enough to be one; but when on this forum it causes a problem if they think they're here to teach...they're here to share their ideas just like the rest of us. Why? Because when they get push back they become upset because they're not used to this. So I think it's important to understand this difference.

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.

Perfect! So do you get upset when someone disagrees with something you're sure about?

And WHO gave you permission to teach here?
I've taught kids our faith...with permission from the priest in charge.

If we put out some information no one knew...it IS a form of teaching...but it's not "official".

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

Anyone CANNOT check out what you say with the bible as reference. Why? Because we don't all agree on doctrine or what some verses mean.

And just to make clear....I don't think the bible should be the only source of learning. I think we need to learn from those who know more than us and are teaching with the blessing of the church of the person's choice.

AND...I've always like your posts, BTW.
And the above does not mean I cannot learn from you.

 

[tdidymas]

Although I understand that if someone is learning...someone is teaching....I think the attitude changes in a person when they think they are teaching others.

You might observe a change of attitude in some, but that's not a universal truth. It appears that you think I had a wrong attitude, since you said that you were disturbed by my saying it sharpens our teaching skills. I do wonder, then, if you have been hurt by some self-appointed teachers?

If someone is given the authority to teach, and some gather to learn from that person, then teaching is legitimate. But who chose any one particular person on this forum to teach? We have members here that are either biblical scholars or know enough to be one; but when on this forum it causes a problem if they think they're here to teach...they're here to share their ideas just like the rest of us. Why? Because when they get push back they become upset because they're not used to this. So I think it's important to understand this difference.

Well, I didn't say or imply that I'm "the one" to teach on this forum. In the context of my conversation, I am using "teaching" in a more general sense, that is, whenever someone asserts something as truth, they are teaching, unless they do it with some qualification like "I thought..."

Perfect! So do you get upset when someone disagrees with something you're sure about?

No. Like I said earlier, if someone doesn't agree, it's their prerogative, just as it was the pharisees' to reject Jesus' teaching, and just as it was the judaizers' to reject Paul's teaching, and just as it is the Christian's prerogative (and duty) to reject the ideas of false teachers and atheists.

And WHO gave you permission to teach here?

Like I said earlier, I have a spiritual gift, which I take as permission from God to teach His word anywhere and everywhere I go. If the moderators deem me a false teacher, they have the authority to block me from entry, so as long as I am still here, it is implied permission.

I've taught kids our faith...with permission from the priest in charge.

So I take it you are Roman Catholic (or some Catholic denomination)? I'm of the Reformed persuasion, so I don't cater to the RC heirarchy. However, I have not only permission, but active support from the elders of my church to teach scripture, as well as the leaders of the prison ministry organization I am a member of, and the prison chaplains. I'd say that's plenty of authority that I'm accountable to.

If we put out some information no one knew...it IS a form of teaching...but it's not "official".

Ok, I see the connotation you hold on the term, but I don't use it that way. I'm only teaching "officially" when I am filling the role of main speaker at an assembly. Like I said before, my agenda is to learn as well as teach here in this forum. If I assert something about what the Bible says, I'm teaching. Those who read it can either accept or reject it, as they judge it, and they certainly will.

Anyone CANNOT check out what you say with the bible as reference. Why? Because we don't all agree on doctrine or what some verses mean.

The Bible is available to everyone, so anyone certainly can check out what I say, since I try to make sure they know the references, or at least the context so that they can find it with a cursory search. I'm wondering then, if you jumped to a false conclusion when you say "because we don't all agree..." which says to me you thought I was saying they had to agree, which I wasn't. I merely said "check it out" to see if what I say fits the context of the scripture.

In fact, many people have said they don't agree with my interpretation of the passage. I don't disfellowship them just because they don't see it the way I do. I may think they have a wrong interpretation, or wrong idea as it appears obvious to me, but it doesn't mean I think they are not a Christian or some idiot. We all have some misunderstandings due to various factors and influences. Furthermore, the original apostles themselves had to have council meetings to hash out doctrines to counter the false teaching of the day. So how can anyone think understanding of the scripture is easy, so as to pass off something someone else says in an instant?

My point is, that the real question to ask is, why aren't people willing to study the scripture carefully to see if what is being said is true or false? It means they would need to show by detailed explanation why they disagree with what is said, which takes time and effort.

And just to make clear....I don't think the bible should be the only source of learning. I think we need to learn from those who know more than us and are teaching with the blessing of the church of the person's choice.

I don't use the Bible exclusively as a learning tool. However, I do use it exclusively as a reference tool. I believe that something as important as the salvation of the soul has to have an absolute reference, as Paul wrote "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." and nowhere does it say that traditions or other writings are inspired of God. But then, that's another discussion... But I do listen to what others have to say, and then evaluate it by my "absolute reference" tool.

Just to let you know why: in the past when I was young, I took what others said, hook, line, and sinker. But in my subsequent Bible studies, I discovered that many of those things I learned from others, and believed, were wrong. So then I've learned by study and experience to be suspicious of anything anyone says regarding my personal salvation and the nature of my relationship with God. Even if someone I highly respect says or writes something that I don't already know the Bible teaches, I check it out, because my personal relationship with God (and what I believe about Him) is my responsibility, not someone else's.

AND...I've always like your posts, BTW.
And the above does not mean I cannot learn from you.

I appreciate your encouragement.
TD

 

[Christ_empowered]

ok. in a book on social theory i read a long time ago, there was a picture of a sculpture...one huge picture of the NYC skyline, but in front of it was a screen with people shapes cut out of it. so...

one could walk up to the sculpture (or see it in a book, LOL) and your view from each person cut out would be different. but...its still the -same- picture you're looking at.

if i remember correctly, the author used the sculpture to illustrate the concept of 'social location,' the idea that our 'place' in society affects how we view the world around us. and so...

just as my 'social location' as an 'uppity mental patient' (LOL...long story...) affects my view of the community and really whole world I'm in...

so, too, do all of us (I think) have a different 'spiritual location,' and that shapes how we perceive God and faith, etc.

 

[GodsGrace]

You might observe a change of attitude in some, but that's not a universal truth. It appears that you think I had a wrong attitude, since you said that you were disturbed by my saying it sharpens our teaching skills. I do wonder, then, if you have been hurt by some self-appointed teachers?

Hey TM,
This discussion has gone way over what intended.
My only point is that we should share and not "teach". It's an attitude...that's all. When we put an idea forward we are, in effect, teaching...but that should not be what we come here for. We shouldn't wake up in the morning and think...'let me go teach some stuff on the forum'.

I didn't mean YOU personally when using that word regarding attitude...sorry about that...I meant the inclusive you. No English word for that---we should use the word "one" instead.

I haven't been hurt by any teacher. Please don't read more than what I say into my statements.

Well, I didn't say or imply that I'm "the one" to teach on this forum. In the context of my conversation, I am using "teaching" in a more general sense, that is, whenever someone asserts something as truth, they are teaching, unless they do it with some qualification like "I thought..."

Again, didn't mean you personally.

No. Like I said earlier, if someone doesn't agree, it's their prerogative, just as it was the pharisees' to reject Jesus' teaching, and just as it was the judaizers' to reject Paul's teaching, and just as it is the Christian's prerogative (and duty) to reject the ideas of false teachers and atheists.

Agreed.

Like I said earlier, I have a spiritual gift, which I take as permission from God to teach His word anywhere and everywhere I go. If the moderators deem me a false teacher, they have the authority to block me from entry, so as long as I am still here, it is implied permission.

So I take it you are Roman Catholic (or some Catholic denomination)? I'm of the Reformed persuasion, so I don't cater to the RC heirarchy. However, I have not only permission, but active support from the elders of my church to teach scripture, as well as the leaders of the prison ministry organization I am a member of, and the prison chaplains. I'd say that's plenty of authority that I'm accountable to.

I used to be catholic. Converted to Protestantism in the 70's after studying the doctrinal beliefs of each and decided with which one I agree more since both have their pros and cons.

I taught catechism in the CC because that's what's here where I live and they needed help and I knew the priest. That's all. I could teach the kids (of course) and their parents...but not all the adults in all the parish. You're much more active than I was.

Ok, I see the connotation you hold on the term, but I don't use it that way. I'm only teaching "officially" when I am filling the role of main speaker at an assembly. Like I said before, my agenda is to learn as well as teach here in this forum. If I assert something about what the Bible says, I'm teaching. Those who read it can either accept or reject it, as they judge it, and they certainly will.

ok

The Bible is available to everyone, so anyone certainly can check out what I say, since I try to make sure they know the references, or at least the context so that they can find it with a cursory search. I'm wondering then, if you jumped to a false conclusion when you say "because we don't all agree..." which says to me you thought I was saying they had to agree, which I wasn't. I merely said "check it out" to see if what I say fits the context of the scripture.

No. I never thought that you were saying we had to agree with you. You and I have spoken about the reformed doctrine but always very civilly.

In fact, many people have said they don't agree with my interpretation of the passage. I don't disfellowship them just because they don't see it the way I do. I may think they have a wrong interpretation, or wrong idea as it appears obvious to me, but it doesn't mean I think they are not a Christian or some idiot. We all have some misunderstandings due to various factors and influences. Furthermore, the original apostles themselves had to have council meetings to hash out doctrines to counter the false teaching of the day. So how can anyone think understanding of the scripture is easy, so as to pass off something someone else says in an instant?

100% in agreement.

My point is, that the real question to ask is, why aren't people willing to study the scripture carefully to see if what is being said is true or false? It means they would need to show by detailed explanation why they disagree with what is said, which takes time and effort.

I think that at some point in our lives we really know pretty well what we believe BECAUSE we've studied it. Because I don't agree with someone does not mean that I did not study the scripture; but some may do this, as you've said.

I don't use the Bible exclusively as a learning tool. However, I do use it exclusively as a reference tool. I believe that something as important as the salvation of the soul has to have an absolute reference, as Paul wrote "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." and nowhere does it say that traditions or other writings are inspired of God. But then, that's another discussion... But I do listen to what others have to say, and then evaluate it by my "absolute reference" tool.

Here we do encounter a problem because persons that read the N.T. come to different conclusions...and I mean theologians who have studied the bible for years. Some scripture does sound reformed....and some scripture refers to free will --- how to know for sure?? Each of us believes they are right.

As to Tradition....I do believe Tradition is important.
And other writings are not inspired?
Was Augustine inspired? Then why believe HIM and not everyone else that disagreed with him?
Was Luther inspired? Or Wesley for that matter?
I dislike this about our faith --- but to do otherwise would mean to become Islamic.

Just to let you know why: in the past when I was young, I took what others said, hook, line, and sinker. But in my subsequent Bible studies, I discovered that many of those things I learned from others, and believed, were wrong. So then I've learned by study and experience to be suspicious of anything anyone says regarding my personal salvation and the nature of my relationship with God. Even if someone I highly respect says or writes something that I don't already know the Bible teaches, I check it out, because my personal relationship with God (and what I believe about Him) is my responsibility, not someone else's.

Agreed. I never take anything hook, line and sinker.

I appreciate your encouragement.
TD

I appreciate your civility.

 

[Anto9us2]

CE, I cannot quite picture the exact shape cut out for you as an "uppity mental patient" lol

Neither am I sure of my own 'spiritual location'

But yeah, we all be different

 

[tdidymas]

(Just continuing with the questions)

Here we do encounter a problem because persons that read the N.T. come to different conclusions...and I mean theologians who have studied the bible for years. Some scripture does sound reformed....and some scripture refers to free will --- how to know for sure?? Each of us believes they are right.

This is partly what the forum is used for, and discussions with people we know. Since each person is responsible for his own understanding, we have to trust that God is leading us to it, otherwise we can't be "sure" of anything. But in my experience, the more I discuss and study, the surer I get on what the scripture means by what it says, at least in my area of expertise which is soteriology.

As to Tradition....I do believe Tradition is important.
And other writings are not inspired?
Was Augustine inspired? Then why believe HIM and not everyone else that disagreed with him?
Was Luther inspired? Or Wesley for that matter?
I dislike this about our faith --- but to do otherwise would mean to become Islamic.

It isn't that tradition is not important, but that it, like anything else, should be tested by the word of God.

No, I don't believe any other writings are inspired of God. They might be "inspirational" insomuch as they agree with the Bible or offer an insight that we never saw before. But if authors aren't getting their idea from scripture, or if they are conveying something they think is in scripture (like "reading between the lines"), but actually isn't there, then such things are to be rejected.

Therefore, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, etc. are mere men like myself, so I don't believe THEM. Like I said before, I evaluate what they wrote against God's word. That is, everything is referenced by the sole authority (the Bible) as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I do not agree with everything they wrote.

But I do love Luther's famous quote: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me."

Or the "authority" of anyone else, for that matter. I'm subject to accountability, but I am not obligated to believe anything anyone says that I believe is contrary to the Bible. I certainly respect great men of faith like those you mentioned and a few contemporaries. Yet I evaluate all they say by scripture.
TD

 

[Christ_empowered]

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

 

[GodsGrace]

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

Why is Sola Scriptura difficult?
What else would make it easier?
And what IS the narrow way?

 

[GodsGrace]

(Just continuing with the questions)

This is partly what the forum is used for, and discussions with people we know. Since each person is responsible for his own understanding, we have to trust that God is leading us to it, otherwise we can't be "sure" of anything. But in my experience, the more I discuss and study, the surer I get on what the scripture means by what it says, at least in my area of expertise which is soteriology.


It isn't that tradition is not important, but that it, like anything else, should be tested by the word of God.

No, I don't believe any other writings are inspired of God. They might be "inspirational" insomuch as they agree with the Bible or offer an insight that we never saw before. But if authors aren't getting their idea from scripture, or if they are conveying something they think is in scripture (like "reading between the lines"), but actually isn't there, then such things are to be rejected.

Therefore, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, etc. are mere men like myself, so I don't believe THEM. Like I said before, I evaluate what they wrote against God's word. That is, everything is referenced by the sole authority (the Bible) as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I do not agree with everything they wrote.

But I do love Luther's famous quote: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me."

Or the "authority" of anyone else, for that matter. I'm subject to accountability, but I am not obligated to believe anything anyone says that I believe is contrary to the Bible. I certainly respect great men of faith like those you mentioned and a few contemporaries. Yet I evaluate all they say by scripture.
TD

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??

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.

 

[JohnDB]

Why is Sola Scriptura difficult?
What else would make it easier?
And what IS the narrow way?

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

 

[GodsGrace]

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

I happen to agree with you 100%.
The bible needs to be studied but not by ourselves...there's just too much to know that normal folk do NOT know.

I do believe that scripture should be our authority...
but hermeneutics are definitely needed to understand the bible.

It's also good to remember that the O.T. is 4,000 years old. I think we sometimes lose sight of this. It was a whole different world....humans were being sacrificed back then,,,,Hebrews sacrificed only animals...a giant leap for mankind.

They most surely understood God and perceived Him in a different way before Jesus was born...the same God,,,but seen in a more primitive way.

 

[The Light]

Point number 4 [U]tdidymas[/U] makes is one I'd say most of us believe on the surface, but, it does open a Pandora's box of subjectivity as was pointed out earlier If 2 people claim to be led by the Spirit on an issue and they disagree, either one of them is wrong or they both are. Humility is having to admit that MY take on what the Spirit is revealing may be no more than a self-derived notion that I FEEL is Spirit based. We may do well to hold our feet to the fire and make better efforts to get past what we think/feel/believe and instead bring these elements of our personal faith under the microscope as best we can to see if they are in FULL harmony with scripture.

 

[The Light]

If someone is given the authority to teach, and some gather to learn from that person, then teaching is legitimate. But who chose any one particular person on this forum to teach?

And WHO gave you permission to teach here?
I've taught kids our faith...with permission from the priest in charge.

If we put out some information no one knew...it IS a form of teaching...but it's not "official".

Why is "official" a thing? What entity can grant 'legitimate' authority IYO? It seems that one of the biggest sources of division is the idea of the leity being separated from the clergy.

Anyone CANNOT check out what you say with the bible as reference. Why? Because we don't all agree on doctrine or what some verses mean.

This is problematic indeed. Do you have any ideas on how we might overcome this hurdle as a unified body?

And just to make clear....I don't think the bible should be the only source of learning. I think we need to learn from those who know more than us and are teaching with the blessing of the church of the person's choice.

Life is a great teacher, but as it relates to the Lord's Way, if would seem that looking outside of the accepted revelation that is the Bible is dangerous. Shouldn't the teachings of the church, (whatever church), be founded upon the Bible and not opposed to its revelation? Shouldn't glaring differences between what the Bible sys and what is promoted or taught by a religious body be pointed out? Since when did pointing out error become a sin in and of itself? We all need correction and reproof from time to time and that loving reproof should be accepted whether it's from a [pastor or even a babe in Christ.

 

[The Light]

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 Scriptora in light of the text's direct audience's culture, time period, linguistic nuances would still seem to be the most solid approach. Granted, some past cultural nuances will allude our modern understanding and when that occurs we should freely admit it and be silent, but, when we have a grasp of the context based on all of the relevant data, applying "what does the Bible say" would seem to always be a winning formula if indeed we are all standing on the same premise that it is God's Word.

 

[JohnDB]

Sola Scriptora in light of the text's direct audience's culture, time period, linguistic nuances would still seem to be the most solid approach. Granted, some past cultural nuances will allude our modern understanding and when that occurs we should freely admit it and be silent, but, when we have a grasp of the context based on all of the relevant data, applying "what does the Bible say" would seem to always be a winning formula if indeed we are all standing on the same premise that it is God's Word.

Primarily scripture is what I am advocating.
God gave us brains and not using them would be a sin.
Of course scriptures are inspired...they are the preeminent source for wisdom. All I'm advocating for is good and full hermeneutic principles being adhered to.
Sola Scriptora sounds good on the surface...but it just isn't feasible.

 

[The Light]

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

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.

 

[The Light]

Primarily scripture is what I am advocating.
God gave us brains and not using them would be a sin.
Of course scriptures are inspired...they are the preeminent source for wisdom. All I'm advocating for is good and full hermeneutic principles being adhered to.
Sola Scriptora sounds good on the surface...but it just isn't feasible.

Good points. What do you believe the potentially dangerous line that can be crossed is when applying interpretive techniques?

 

[JohnDB]

Good points. What do you believe the potentially dangerous line that can be crossed is when applying interpretive techniques?

Sorry, I was interrupted by the dentist who was doing a root canal in my mouth.

A dangerous line is not doing your homework.
I have seen and witnessed those who claim to be experts in Ancient Near East Anthropology by submitting articles on the subject of behaviors when they are actually experts in Ancient North American or South American tribes. As if they were anything alike...and of course they are the ones with the most outlandish claims of what behavior the passage is referring to as well.

Another danger is of course Eisogesis...Looking for reports to further a particular ideology/theology from contorting the meaning of the scripture.
I have found this to be especially true in most denominational literature and subsequent theologies. I could really elaborate on this subject with a short 470 page summary briefly outlining the different things that various churches do...and not even begin to be a complete listing. Most of which covers ordinances, ceremonies, and practices. But...time is short. I seriously doubt that you would take the time to read nor do I really want to gear up to go over a bunch of them.

Another danger is following the crowd with "Christian Political Correctness" and marketing strategies. And there really are such things. There are notes in most people's modern bibles concerning various New Testament passages that have become iconic. "Born Again" is a reference to a discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus. And Absolutely incorrect and those who buy into this expression are missing out on a beautiful truth that John's Gospel is trying to show. John obviously thought it important enough to tell us about....maybe we ought to ignore what is commonly believed and search out the truth for ourselves.

"The things not discussed" is another dangerous thing to be avoided. There are literally thousands of pages of scriptures that are never discussed in your average church. I can think of several reasons for this. Mostly because of the coarse nature of the subject in the scriptures when looked at objectively. Paul and God both seem to love sarcasm and strong irony in their teachings. Then we have those people who can't seem to see it. As if Paul wasn't such an ornery guy that he didn't stir up several riots over religious issues. When in your lifetime have you seen a riot over a religious issue?...many other reasons yes...of course. But Religion? That takes some kind of orneriness. None of these guys were all that pious and talking like some kind of stoned hippy guru. They were ordinary guys...one of the working class people. Paul was the most educated and the most obnoxious of them all. The truth is there in the scriptures if we wish to look.
And by that I mean that every single word, every geneology, every little thing written there is very important. even when it talks about Peter running....its important. Its not "skip over" stuff. There is a lesson there to be learned if we simply look.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why is "official" a thing? What entity can grant 'legitimate' authority IYO? It seems that one of the biggest sources of division is the idea of the leity being separated from the clergy.

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.

This is problematic indeed. Do you have any ideas on how we might overcome this hurdle as a unified body?

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.

Life is a great teacher, but as it relates to the Lord's Way, if would seem that looking outside of the accepted revelation that is the Bible is dangerous. Shouldn't the teachings of the church, (whatever church), be founded upon the Bible and not opposed to its revelation? Shouldn't glaring differences between what the Bible sys and what is promoted or taught by a religious body be pointed out? Since when did pointing out error become a sin in and of itself? We all need correction and reproof from time to time and that loving reproof should be accepted whether it's from a [pastor or even a babe in Christ.

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).