CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

500 years ago Martin Luther had all the traditions and pedigree. Everything was all figured out for him, but he was still racked with guilt at being incapable of working out his salvation and presenting such a putrid offering to God when he came to Him.

It was only when he stripped this away and read God's Word was he able to see what had been hidden under years of corrosion and corruption - God's unmerited grace that is bestowed unto sinners.

Luther didn't have it all figured out for him though. There were reformers working within the Church also. Luther is just remembered more among Protestants

It's too simplistic to look at it from an I believe xxx you believe yyy. xxx and yyy are contradictory therefore one must be wrong.

Take the Eucharist for example and ask the question "Is it the body and blood of Christ?"

Now, if we were to undertake answering such a question. All the Logic and all the Scripture etc. We could prove I am right. However, we could also prove you are right.

Who decides?

For the Orthodox/Catholic, it is the appeal to the Church and its tradition that decides the matter. It's just that easy.
For the Protestant, it is left to endless back and forth Even for Luther vs later interpretations. Calvin and his belief in the ever virginity of Mary are another example.

Two right conclusions from the same dataset. I can make an "ironclad" case for it from just scripture, just as you can make an "ironclad" case for it.

However, the year is now 150 AD. Prove it from your bible.

The year is no 60 AD. Prove it from your bible.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

My parents were saved in their 20's from pretty rough lives. I was two or three. Been in IFB churches since then. Went to a Southern Baptist College for two years. I would say I'm on the more liberal side of IFB's as far as music and such things. I couldn't care less what it says on your sign. As we've discussed, I'm not a Baptist Bride guy. I listen to a variety of podcasts and such, Reformed Baptists, Calvinists, etc.

 

[HoughMade]

...I would say I'm on the more liberal side of IFB's as far as music and such things...

Liberal for IFB on music and such....Gaithers?

Wait...not with Guy Penrod's hair.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Liberal for IFB on music and such....Gaithers?

Wait...not with Guy Penrod's hair.

I grew up on Southern Gospel but not so much anymore. Bethel Music, Rend Collective, Hillsong, Kari Jobe, David Crowder, Vertical Church Band, All Sons and Daughters, etc.

 

[Woobie]

Out of curiosity, how do you determine what to take literally and what to maybe not take literally?

The believer will have the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and is aided by diligent study.

But it usually isn't that complicated. Do you have trouble differentiating between the times Christ is speaking in parables and when He is not? So is the rest of scripture.

The Bible was meant to be understood enough by a sinner to accept Christ. It is simple enough to nurish a Christian who has little to no education, secular or religious. Yet it is so complex and so rich that a lifetime of study can not unlock a full understanding of it. Where people get in trouble is they try to get into the meatier stuff without first understanding the basics.

To borrow a metaphor from Shrek, the Bible is like an onion. It all tastes the same, it's all good for you, it can be a bit pungent to human sensibilities, but it is made up of many layers. And anyone can eat it. So just because a passage literally means one thing, does not mean it does not carry another or even several other metaphorical or symbolic meanings.

Take for instance the sacrifices and feasts under under the old covenant. They were all meant to be observed literally. But the meaning behind them was richer, and part of the new covenant.

 

[Woobie]

Luther didn't have it all figured out for him though. There were reformers working within the Church also. Luther is just remembered more among Protestants

It's too simplistic to look at it from an I believe xxx you believe yyy. xxx and yyy are contradictory therefore one must be wrong.

Take the Eucharist for example and ask the question "Is it the body and blood of Christ?"

Now, if we were to undertake answering such a question. All the Logic and all the Scripture etc. We could prove I am right. However, we could also prove you are right.

Who decides?

For the Orthodox/Catholic, it is the appeal to the Church and its tradition that decides the matter. It's just that easy.
For the Protestant, it is left to endless back and forth Even for Luther vs later interpretations. Calvin and his belief in the ever virginity of Mary are another example.

Two right conclusions from the same dataset. I can make an "ironclad" case for it from just scripture, just as you can make an "ironclad" case for it.

However, the year is now 150 AD. Prove it from your bible.

The year is no 60 AD. Prove it from your bible.

I can not be convinced of the truth trough tradition. An appeal to tradition is just that, and not a basis for belief. If you can prove it through scripture, then that is perfect. If your proof requires the beliefs of someone older than you, then you're playing spiritual telephone.

 

[foszoe]

Take for instance the sacrifices and feasts under under the old covenant. They were all meant to be observed literally. But the meaning behind them was richer, and part of the new covenant.

This is what I am aiming for when I mean the literal reading may miss the deeper more theological meaning.

An example. Baptism as the new circumcision. The rite of circumcision marked one as a Jew under the old covenant. The rite of Baptism under the new is a fulfillment of circumcision for it marks the believer as a member of the Body of Christ.

Nowadays though, to the most literalist and Sola Scriptura descendants, Baptism is just an outward symbol of an inward experience or some such formula. The connection that the early Church made with circumcision, as evidenced in its early writings, is lost to the modern day Protestant. A richness of meaning found only in tradition, however much scriptural support there may be, is gone.

 

[rvb]

I eschew the use of the word "literal" now days for a couple of reasons.1.It's a lightning rod. It sets up a belief that you're a "literalist" and don't think about what you're reading. They might assume you're "KJV only" too.
2.Not everything can be taken literally. Here's an overly simplistic example: Is Satan a lion, a serpent, a wolf, a dragon.... And if he's a lion, and God is a lion...
3.Much of scripture is Hebrew poetry and should be interpreted as such and not interpreted as historical and scientific fact, i.e. the creation story. That's another reason I avoid "literal" - it lumps me in with Young Earthers. In that case, they've misinterpreted text as being a scientific treaties for a race of people that had no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

Yea, I agree there is a lot that cannot be taken "literally." Jesus was not an actual vine, nor were the disciples literal branches. Was each day of creation one 24hr period as we know it (doubt it if the Sun/Moon weren't created until Day 4) or is one day to God literally = 1000 yrs... or are we to understand that God is timeless and so is His timeline as revealed? Are we literally eating/drinking Christ's flesh/blood as we celebrate the last supper, or are we duplicating the act in remembrance of his sacrifice?
But that I don't take parts "literally" doesn't mean I ignore the message and deny the Truth within.

For example, ask a literalist "Which thief blessed Christ?"
...
Now, I will not say a literalist can't explain away all "contradictions", perhaps they can. I am saying that to the majority of Christians these "contradictions" just don't matter so when an atheist or scholar comes up with a "new" one, its usually been covered by the Church in the 1st 4 centuries. There are no gotchas left in the text.

I don't think scripture explains those types of 'contradictions' away, but I think there are explanations. It may have been an issue of what part of the timeline each author witnessed/described. There is no proof of "error" in those descriptions, only inconsequential details. So I agree they just don't matter, except to those looking for gotchas..

-rvb

 

[foszoe]

I can not be convinced of the truth trough tradition. An appeal to tradition is just that, and not a basis for belief. If you can prove it through scripture, then that is perfect. If your proof requires the beliefs of someone older than you, then you're playing spiritual telephone.

You skipped the main point so I will ask again. You are in the year 65 AD. Prove what you believe based on the bible alone. The short answer is you can't so you must appeal to some other authority, if you are Catholic or Orthodox, that authority is the Church. If you are Sola Scriptura, you can't appeal to the Church so you must postulate another answer, an extrabiblical answer.

 

[foszoe]

I don't think scripture explains those types of 'contradictions' away, but I think there are explanations. It may have been an issue of what part of the timeline each author witnessed/described. There is no proof of "error" in those descriptions, only inconsequential details. So I agree they just don't matter, except to those looking for gotchas..

-rvb

For some though, there can be no contradiction even in the most inconsequential details. Those who believe in such a way, not all, but many, read the Bible in a Koranic method. For example, if the Bible says a day, it means a literal 24 hour day. It can't be 23 or 25 hours it is 24 hours. That's an extreme example but its not extremely hard to come across that point of view in today's religious landscape.

 

[JettaKnight]

Take the Eucharist for example and ask the question "Is it the body and blood of Christ?"

Now, if we were to undertake answering such a question. All the Logic and all the Scripture etc. We could prove I am right. However, we could also prove you are right.

Who decides?

A third party.

We go to the mall, set up a table, and ask "is this grape juice (or wine) and a cracker or is it blood and flesh?"

In other words, there are plenty of issues where reasoning and logic can be the decider.

However, the year is now 150 AD. Prove it from your bible.

The year is no 60 AD. Prove it from your bible.

But the early church did have scripture that laid out Christianity. Jesus was repeatedly disappointed in those that ignored scripture and, by extension, him.

In addition the early church had the Holy Spirit as described in Acts. He provided the insight and guidance at that critical time.




As for Mary, if she a perpetual virgin, then she was a sinner for refusing to know (in a biblical sense) her husband, Joseph.




brought to you by my cold today.

 

[JettaKnight]

Liberal for IFB on music and such....Gaithers?

Wait...not with Guy Penrod's hair.

Man, I wish I didn't look that up. I had to watch those Gaither family ...things... specials.... whatever... on TV when I was child and teenager. It's only through the Grace of Jesus that I didn't rebel and go goth.


Speaking of appearances of Christian artist...

I grew up on Southern Gospel but not so much anymore. Bethel Music, Rend Collective, Hillsong, Kari Jobe, David Crowder, Vertical Church Band, All Sons and Daughters, etc.

I recognized that name as the author of some truly awful lyrics, so I thought I'd Google him to see..


Good golly, how many years was he chained to a radiator in some deep woods cabin?!

 

[HoughMade]

I grew up on Southern Gospel but not so much anymore. Bethel Music, Rend Collective, Hillsong, Kari Jobe, David Crowder, Vertical Church Band, All Sons and Daughters, etc.

All good!

 

[2A_Tom]

I am thinking more particularly of questions such as the following:

Did dinosaurs roam the earth with human beings??

What does your bible say, My Bible is silent on the subject so I consider it unimportant in the scheme of eterniry

its related questionHow old is the Earth?

Again I am not concerned. That won't get you or me to Heaven.

And any of several questions to which the answers can be found in Josh McDowell books

You seem to want to chase rabies.

The point is you believe in works to gain favor to get to heaven, whereas I believe 1 John 5:13, the Romans Road (which you disparaged in a previous post) and Ephesians 2: 8-10.

 

[2A_Tom]

You skipped the main point so I will ask again. You are in the year 65 AD. Prove what you believe based on the bible alone. The short answer is you can't so you must appeal to some other authority, if you are Catholic or Orthodox, that authority is the Church. If you are Sola Scriptura, you can't appeal to the Church so you must postulate another answer, an extrabiblical answer.

did you actually ever read The Acts of the Apostles or just what you get in your Sunday readings. Everything you are asking is covered.

 

[Woobie]

You skipped the main point so I will ask again. You are in the year 65 AD. Prove what you believe based on the bible alone. The short answer is you can't so you must appeal to some other authority, if you are Catholic or Orthodox, that authority is the Church. If you are Sola Scriptura, you can't appeal to the Church so you must postulate another answer, an extrabiblical answer.

If I were in the year 65 AD, I would be getting my information from the same place I am now.

 

[Woobie]

This is what I am aiming for when I mean the literal reading may miss the deeper more theological meaning.

An example. Baptism as the new circumcision. The rite of circumcision marked one as a Jew under the old covenant. The rite of Baptism under the new is a fulfillment of circumcision for it marks the believer as a member of the Body of Christ.

Nowadays though, to the most literalist and Sola Scriptura descendants, Baptism is just an outward symbol of an inward experience or some such formula. The connection that the early Church made with circumcision, as evidenced in its early writings, is lost to the modern day Protestant. A richness of meaning found only in tradition, however much scriptural support there may be, is gone.

Circumcision was an identification, just as baptism is. It wasn't the outward circumcision that truly mattered, but the inward one. Just like baptism.

 

[T.Lex]

did you actually ever read The Acts of the Apostles or just what you get in your Sunday readings.

See? This thread is full of laughs!

 

[2A_Tom]

See? This thread is full of laughs!

Honestly, do you read your bible?

I have not seen a single scripture reference posted by an RC or GO member. I am sorry if I missed your posts, but all I have seen is questioning what some think the Bible says. Not giving any authoritative references at all.

I went to the trouble of annotating a creed with scripture references, which no one actually read, or they would have questioned why they didn't match in many cases.

 

[foszoe]

A third party.

We go to the mall, set up a table, and ask "is this grape juice (or wine) and a cracker or is it blood and flesh?"

In other words, there are plenty of issues where reasoning and logic can be the decider.

I am going to ask a lot of questions They are meant to be rhetorical, thought questions. I don't expect answers.

Would it matter if we asked believers? Would you rest your salvation on reasoning and logic?

But the early church did have scripture that laid out Christianity. Jesus was repeatedly disappointed in those that ignored scripture and, by extension, him.

In addition the early church had the Holy Spirit as described in Acts. He provided the insight and guidance at that critical time.

Was he disappointed in those who ignored scripture or those who misinterpreted scripture? Was this the scripture of the Saduccees, ie the Torah, or the scripture of the Pharisees, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets? Which one was the Scripture? How do you know? I would guess it would be those books that Jesus quoted. What about the books he didn't quote? Why are they scripture?

Are you leaving the door open that at some point the Holy Spirit left the Church? If so when? How is that scripturally defended using only the scriptures available to the average Christian at the time? What makes such a belief necessary?

The earliest Church, began in 33 AD, at Pentecost. What scriptures were available then? How were they known to be scripture? The only scriptures available would be OT, would that be the LXX in use by most of the Jewish world in diaspora or only the Hebrew form? Or was it Aramaic? Why was the LXX allowed to be read as authoritative and could be read in the synagogues without any other reading while the Aramaic could only be read in addition to the Hebrew? Why should we consider that time period to be any more critical than now?

When Paul wrote his letters were they Gospels or were they mostly corrective errors? Most were written prior to the Gospels so who taught these churches what to believe? Why could the Holy Spirit provide the insight and guidance then but not now? How is that backed up scripturally?

I found the answers of Protestantism to be lacking to several of these questions with several of them using eisegetical interpretations of the Bible, ie this is what we have been taught to believe and these are the scriptures which support that.

As for Mary, if she a perpetual virgin, then she was a sinner for refusing to know (in a biblical sense) her husband, Joseph.

brought to you by my cold today.

Was she married to Joseph or betrothed? Is there a difference? Were there dedicated virgins in service of the Jewish temple?