When Beliefs Conflict

[The Light]

Ok, let me rephrase what I wrote...

Why couldn't the Protestant reformers see the illogicalness and self-refuting / self-contradiction of sola Scriptura? ........... 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.

To me, Sola Scriptura in effect says that the ecclesiastic body that is the church has no authority unless what it pushes is in lock step with what is written. When there is a conflict, go with scripture, and where scripture is silent, believers are unbound by doctrine no matter what their respective denomination promotes.

If we do not subscribe to the above then I have some questions:
Is Sola Scriptura a reasonable stance to take?
Should believers be believers in what the scriptures say more than they believe what their church practices?
Are the scriptures too antiquated to keep up with an evolving would and are churches better suited to be promoters of doctrine than the biblical texts?

As it relates to my understanding of your point that the scriptures came from the church, I must say that I am not sure that's accurate. The full text of scripture likely had been pinned by the mid to late 1st century. The official ecclesiastical Catholic model got its legs no earlier than the 2nd century well after the scriptures were all already in circulation. Over the centuries the church did play a huge part in determining the writings that would have staying power as official canon, but those writings still predate the church itself.

 

[tdidymas]

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

I'm unclear as to what "this topic" you are talking about. The thread we are in, or the semantical issue?

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.

And yet, you are trying to correct me...
And who decides what 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.

Sorry you are so sensitive about the subject of teaching. But do you realize that when you say that teaching is "not proper for a forum" that you are trying to teach something?

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

IMO that's a relatively shallow way of discussing a Biblical subject. It seems like you just want to offer suggestions and let the other decide how they want to interpret it. I don't see the Bible teaching that kind of learning, as it is very authoritative. And perhaps this is where our paths diverge?

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?

To extrapolate something to an extreme like this is a strategy to avoid consideration that you might be wrong about something. Namely the "every verse" idea. I already stated above that my expertise is soteriology, and not echatology for example. So then, why would you exaggerate your point?

King Agrippa said to Paul "would you try to persuade me to be a Christian in such a short time?" and Paul replied "I would that everyone who hears me be as I am, except for these chains."

So then, do you experience such a blessing from God that you want to persuade people to believe as you do? If so, then yes, you have a burden of proof to show how you interpret the scripture. It's what the whole idea of hermeneutics, exegesis, contextual meaning, etc. is all about.

If you don't care to persuade people, then I can see why you think that merely sharing or offering suggestions to people is the way to go, as it's much nicer.

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.

Actually, my opinions and interpretations of scripture has changed many times in the past 43 years, and I have observed the opinions of others changing as well. It's part of fellowship. Eph. 4:13 "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ."

IMO it's an absolutely absolute fact that we're not there yet, so I'll keep trying.

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?

It depends on what you mean by "the church." In my study of church history and the doctrines of the faith, I don't agree with your assessment of this matter.

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.

It appears to me that you are the one with the attitude (from where I'm looking). And it takes two to tango. I certainly don't want to argue in the way I think you mean it here, and I'm sure you don't either.

And with that, I think this discussion should end.

I'm in perfect agreement, if there is no way for me to influence you.
TD

 

[The Light]

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....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.

AN issue I see here does involve semantics, but even moreso it seems to involve a level of defensiveness that can cloud our ability to evaluate and subsequently change when change for the better may be in order.

Opinions should be malleable, but facts, not so much. A starting point for discussion should be based on an agreement about what the facts are. Without that, all we will do is talk at each other as opposed to helping each other build on the good and reduce the error that we each can bring to the table.

 

[Anto9us2]

Great. Let's all agree on what the facts are.

And let's get a TEST for who can TEACH ginnied up quick, before I get too senile.

 

[Boaz]

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

I certainly don't believe the Bible is merely making suggestions. I know it is the ultimate and true authority. I came by my cynicism, as you call it, with good reason. I just think we need to be careful about how we go about telling people they are wrong and we are right when it comes sticky interpretations. And whatever the disagreement may be, our approach should come from a place of love, not arrogance and pride. Not saying that is your approach because I have no idea what your approach is.

 

[RevSRE]

Hello everyone,
I just retired. I am 70 years old, I was saved at 7 but I grew up in a Christian Home.

This is what I think I have learned. Bible study, Theology, Doctrine, And Beliefs can be expressed in one statement.

Live my life so others see JESUS in me, Every Day all the way, until then!

I think I now understand all of this discussion is about ME YIELDED to JESUS. Different people may have different experiences, BUT, when JESUS is LORD there is only one obedience. I often come to this forum BECAUSE of diversity of thought. Yes, it gets a little pointed and opinionated at times but the power of the discussion is the power of of learning from others to be far more than just what I see.

If we seek to KNOW GOD FIRST, foremost, and always we are in a position to see what God would say and knowing GOD we may know Truth.

There are a few points I will not yield or give at all on, they have to do with salvation, worship, and obeying GOD.

• The inerrancy of the Bible (in the original text)
• The virgin birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
• Jesus Christ is LORD, God raised Him from the dead.

Put knowing GOD FIRST AND FOREMOST and living in HIM and for HIM, make Fellowship with GOD your hearts desire, a new creature old sinful things past away and forgotten, all become new in the family of GOD. AND I believe all the rest of these "arguments" will take care of themselves if we give them to Jesus.

But that is only my opinion!

 

[tdidymas]

I certainly don't believe the Bible is merely making suggestions. I know it is the ultimate and true authority. I came by my cynicism, as you call it, with good reason. I just think we need to be careful about how we go about telling people they are wrong and we are right when it comes sticky interpretations. And whatever the disagreement may be, our approach should come from a place of love, not arrogance and pride. Not saying that is your approach because I have no idea what your approach is.

I do agree. I do my best not to say "you're wrong," but rather explain from scripture why my interpretation best fits the context. I'm not perfect, just like everyone else, so I do make mistakes in this area, and have in the past. I'm trying to get better, and this is partly what I meant by mentioning improvement of teaching skills. I probably should have said "communication skills", as in hind sight it seemed to light a firecracker.

I did recently tell someone that what they said was wrong, and qualified it from what the scripture clearly said. I don't consider this that kind of mistake, though, because there is a big difference between saying "that's wrong" and "you're wrong." I do consider that perhaps I should be a bit more sensitive to other peoples' feelings about the word "wrong" since it apparently tends to flare hostility. Personally I'm someone insensitive to the word because I've been wrong so many times in the past, I learned to say that I was wrong, and just move on.

It reminds me of a coffee cup someone had that said "I've never made a mistake. Once I thought I did, but I was wrong."
TD

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm unclear as to what "this topic" you are talking about. The thread we are in, or the semantical issue?


And yet, you are trying to correct me...
And who decides what is an "absolutely absolute fact"?


Sorry you are so sensitive about the subject of teaching. But do you realize that when you say that teaching is "not proper for a forum" that you are trying to teach something?


IMO that's a relatively shallow way of discussing a Biblical subject. It seems like you just want to offer suggestions and let the other decide how they want to interpret it. I don't see the Bible teaching that kind of learning, as it is very authoritative. And perhaps this is where our paths diverge?


To extrapolate something to an extreme like this is a strategy to avoid consideration that you might be wrong about something. Namely the "every verse" idea. I already stated above that my expertise is soteriology, and not echatology for example. So then, why would you exaggerate your point?

King Agrippa said to Paul "would you try to persuade me to be a Christian in such a short time?" and Paul replied "I would that everyone who hears me be as I am, except for these chains."

So then, do you experience such a blessing from God that you want to persuade people to believe as you do? If so, then yes, you have a burden of proof to show how you interpret the scripture. It's what the whole idea of hermeneutics, exegesis, contextual meaning, etc. is all about.

If you don't care to persuade people, then I can see why you think that merely sharing or offering suggestions to people is the way to go, as it's much nicer.


Actually, my opinions and interpretations of scripture has changed many times in the past 43 years, and I have observed the opinions of others changing as well. It's part of fellowship. Eph. 4:13 "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ."

IMO it's an absolutely absolute fact that we're not there yet, so I'll keep trying.


It depends on what you mean by "the church." In my study of church history and the doctrines of the faith, I don't agree with your assessment of this matter.


It appears to me that you are the one with the attitude (from where I'm looking). And it takes two to tango. I certainly don't want to argue in the way I think you mean it here, and I'm sure you don't either.


I'm in perfect agreement, if there is no way for me to influence you.
TD

I've given up on persuading persons.
I find that the best way to witness is just to proclaim my experiences and what I believe. Maybe ask a couple of questions and then leave it to the Holy Spirit.

One tills, one plants, one waters,
but God causes the growth.

We each have our own way.
No problem.

And yes, I DO believe it's important to be nice.
Jesus was nice. Except when He was very mad at something.

 

[GodsGrace]

AN issue I see here does involve semantics, but even moreso it seems to involve a level of defensiveness that can cloud our ability to evaluate and subsequently change when change for the better may be in order.

Opinions should be malleable, but facts, not so much. A starting point for discussion should be based on an agreement about what the facts are. Without that, all we will do is talk at each other as opposed to helping each other build on the good and reduce the error that we each can bring to the table.

What are the facts?
Is the reformed church correct?
Can we lose our salvation?

Do YOU suppose we can come to an agreement on the above?

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Tessa,

When do YOU think the church Jesus trained the Apostles for began?

You know, I had never considered this till I was at bible study one time and the question was brought up.

 

[daninthelionsden]

Hi Tessa,

When do YOU think the church Jesus trained the Apostles for began?

You know, I had never considered this till I was at bible study one time and the question was brought up.

Wouldn't Pentecost have been the first worship service? Thus church?

 

[Walpole]

To me, Sola Scriptura in effect says that the ecclesiastic body that is the church has no authority unless what it pushes is in lock step with what is written. When there is a conflict, go with scripture, and where scripture is silent, believers are unbound by doctrine no matter what their respective denomination promotes.

If we do not subscribe to the above then I have some questions:
Is Sola Scriptura a reasonable stance to take?
Should believers be believers in what the scriptures say more than they believe what their church practices?
Are the scriptures too antiquated to keep up with an evolving would and are churches better suited to be promoters of doctrine than the biblical texts?

As it relates to my understanding of your point that the scriptures came from the church, I must say that I am not sure that's accurate. The full text of scripture likely had been pinned by the mid to late 1st century. The official ecclesiastical Catholic model got its legs no earlier than the 2nd century well after the scriptures were all already in circulation. Over the centuries the church did play a huge part in determining the writings that would have staying power as official canon, but those writings still predate the church itself.

Don't you find the fact that sola Scriptura is not found or taught in the Scriptures a problem?

Is sola Scriptura reasonable? No, because it is self-refuting; it does not meet it's own definition since it is absent from Scripture. Furthermore, history demonstrates it does not resolve the problem it was invented to solve: doctrinal disagreements.

When the progenitors of this doctrine first began, they rapidly began dividing because this doctrine they built their religion around is not able to resolve any doctrinal disagreements. Thus by the end of the 16th century (the century in which the Protestant religions began), there were already over 300 different sects. Because Protestantism does not have a living authority to resolve exegetical disagreements, the fruit of this doctrine has been continual division, with the ultimate authority resting not in the Scriptures alone to decide what is or is not the faith, but rather in the subjective interpretation of the Scriptures by each individual adherent.

 

[The Light]

What are the facts?

That which can be objectively proven is acceptable as fact.

Is the reformed church correct?

Which one, and to what are the reformed churches being compared? My answer would be no, but that would be my answer as it relates to ANY church or sect.

Can we lose our salvation?

What is salvation from? Please specify.

Do YOU suppose we can come to an agreement on the above?

Perhaps eventually. I'm willing to give it a try.

 

[The Light]

Hi Tessa,

When do YOU think the church Jesus trained the Apostles for began?

Great question. According to the gospels and Acts, I think it's safe to say that it was established by the risen Jesus in the mid 1st century either at or just prior to the Feast of Weeks.
As far as the language chosen, "trained for" is interesting verbiage.

 

[GodsGrace]

That which can be objectively proven is acceptable as fact.


Which one, and to what are the reformed churches being compared? My answer would be no, but that would be my answer as it relates to ANY church or sect.


What is salvation from? Please specify.

Perhaps eventually. I'm willing to give it a try.

I didn't mean to debate these two different beliefs as held by different churches.

My point is that the differing denomination's theologians believe they each have the correct answer to my questions even though the answers are different, and, I might add, to very important questions.

All of us believe we have the objective truth.
I was just trying to show that this could be problematic for the church; but, alas, there is no solution that I can think of.

 

[GodsGrace]

Great question. According to the gospels and Acts, I think it's safe to say that it was established by the risen Jesus in the mid 1st century either at or just prior to the Feast of Weeks.
As far as the language chosen, "trained for" is interesting verbiage.

Ooops...I answered the other member regarding the wrong thread!!
There is another thread I started regarding when the church began.
You could check it out.
It's in Christian Histories (maybe Bible Study)

When Did The Church Begin?

• Thread started by wondering
• Start date Mar 5, 2018
• Tags None

 

[GodsGrace]

Great question. According to the gospels and Acts, I think it's safe to say that it was established by the risen Jesus in the mid 1st century either at or just prior to the Feast of Weeks.
As far as the language chosen, "trained for" is interesting verbiage.

Please go to the other thread and explain what the TWo Weeks is.
Thanks!

 

[Tessa]

Hi wondering
I always think of the church starring when Jesus chose His first apostle and said "follow Me."

 

[Boaz]

I do agree. I do my best not to say "you're wrong," but rather explain from scripture why my interpretation best fits the context. I'm not perfect, just like everyone else, so I do make mistakes in this area, and have in the past. I'm trying to get better, and this is partly what I meant by mentioning improvement of teaching skills. I probably should have said "communication skills", as in hind sight it seemed to light a firecracker.

I did recently tell someone that what they said was wrong, and qualified it from what the scripture clearly said. I don't consider this that kind of mistake, though, because there is a big difference between saying "that's wrong" and "you're wrong." I do consider that perhaps I should be a bit more sensitive to other peoples' feelings about the word "wrong" since it apparently tends to flare hostility. Personally I'm someone insensitive to the word because I've been wrong so many times in the past, I learned to say that I was wrong, and just move on.

It reminds me of a coffee cup someone had that said "I've never made a mistake. Once I thought I did, but I was wrong."
TD

I have noticed a strange thing. You don't actually have to say "you're wrong, " or "that's wrong" for people to recognise that is what you are telling them. And there is really no difference between you're wrong and that's wrong. There are some things in the Bible, things like behaviors, attitudes, sins that are non negotiable and if asked should be addressed, in a kind way. The basic doctrines of Christianity are also non negotiable but there is a way to DISCUSS these things without stepping all over a person's beliefs, or them. Other things like baptism and it's meaning, free will or not, things of this sort it is important to remember that for the most part people have firmly established beliefs, ones they back up with scripture, and it is no one's job to take a stance that the other should be corrected and their mind changed. Those differences do not affect persons salvation. They don't need to be TAUGHT by someone that "that's wrong." And maybe when you suggest teaching you are only referring to the first things mentioned and not the latter. That is unclear in your posts. What it SOUNDS like is that You consider yourself to have authoritative interpretation and those who disagree,for their own good, must be corrected. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. Just saying, that's what it SOUNDS like. I say these things as one who adheres to Reformed Theology, which I gather from a previous post by Wondering, you are too.

 

[Boaz]

I have noticed a strange thing. You don't actually have to say "you're wrong, " or "that's wrong" for people to recognise that is what you are telling them. And there is really no difference between you're wrong and that's wrong. There are some things in the Bible, things like behaviors, attitudes, sins that are non negotiable and if asked should be addressed, in a kind way. The basic doctrines of Christianity are also non negotiable but there is a way to DISCUSS these things without stepping all over a person's beliefs, or them. Other things like baptism and it's meaning, free will or not, things of this sort it is important to remember that for the most part people have firmly established beliefs, ones they back up with scripture, and it is no one's job to take a stance that the other should be corrected and their mind changed. Those differences do not affect persons salvation. They don't need to be TAUGHT by someone that "that's wrong." And maybe when you suggest teaching you are only referring to the first things mentioned and not the latter. That is unclear in your posts. What it SOUNDS like is that You consider yourself to have authoritative interpretation and those who disagree,for their own good, must be corrected. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. Just saying, that's what it SOUNDS like. I say these things as one who adheres to Reformed Theology, which I gather from a previous post by Wondering, you are too.

That last post is to TD