Is our Bible of 66 Books, the inerrant Word of God?

[Stranger]

If scripture is the final authority who has the right to properly interpret that scripture so that we know the truth in scripture?

You didn't answer my questions:

What did they get wrong?

If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong?

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught?

(1John 2:27) " But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. "

Scripture is the final authority as I said. Every believer has the Holy Spirit. That leads him to the truth.

If 'they' got it wrong, it was because they ignored the teaching of the Scripture, or were ignorant of the teaching of the Scripture.

What if's are like armpits. Everybody has one. Scripture is the key. Any more questions?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

(1John 2:27) " But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. "

Scripture is the final authority as I said. Every believer has the Holy Spirit. That leads him to the truth.

If 'they' got it wrong, it was because they ignored the teaching of the Scripture, or were ignorant of the teaching of the Scripture.

What if's are like armpits. Everybody has one. Scripture is the key. Any more questions?

Stranger

John isn't rejecting a living, teaching authority. Three verses earlier he instructed his readers to “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” AND “if what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). If John meant for Christians to follow only the testimony of the Spirit (which is what he refers to when he speaks of “the anointing” in verse 27) then he would be contradicting himself here in verse 24. The instruction to let what they’ve heard abide in them implies they received instruction from men.

As you know two chapters later John instructs his readers that listening to the apostles is the criterion for discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of error: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error”

Since the Holy Spirit led Calvin, Luther, Zwingili, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Mormons and others to "the truth" (which are all different truths) then by your logic the Holy Spirit is confused. Since we know the Holy Spirit is not confused then we must figure out who is preaching the Truth and has properly interpreted scripture. You have not told me who you believe that is.

You asked if I had any more questions. Since you haven't (couldn't?) answered my first three questions I will not waste my time asking anymore questions.

What did they get wrong? __________________(fill in the blank)

If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong? _______(fill in the blank)

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught? ___________________(fill in the blank)

 

[Stranger]

John isn't rejecting a living, teaching authority. Three verses earlier he instructed his readers to “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” AND “if what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). If John meant for Christians to follow only the testimony of the Spirit (which is what he refers to when he speaks of “the anointing” in verse 27) then he would be contradicting himself here in verse 24. The instruction to let what they’ve heard abide in them implies they received instruction from men.

As you know two chapters later John instructs his readers that listening to the apostles is the criterion for discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of error: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error”

Since the Holy Spirit led Calvin, Luther, Zwingili, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Mormons and others to "the truth" (which are all different truths) then by your logic the Holy Spirit is confused. Since we know the Holy Spirit is not confused then we must figure out who is preaching the Truth and has properly interpreted scripture. You have not told me who you believe that is.

You asked if I had any more questions. Since you haven't (couldn't?) answered my first three questions I will not waste my time asking anymore questions.

What did they get wrong? __________________(fill in the blank)

If you agree with them then they are right if you disagree with them they are wrong? _______(fill in the blank)

What if you agree with 25% of what Luther taught, 25% of what Calvin taught, 25% of what Zwingili taught and 25% of what the Catholic Church taught? ___________________(fill in the blank)

John 2:24 is a response to John 2:22. " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" The anointing in John 2:27 would never deny that Jesus is the Christ. And that is what they heard from the begining.

I answered your questions already. If they got it wrong it is because they ignored or were ignorant of the Scripture. Scripture is the final authority. What if's are like armpits. Everybody has one. Look to Scripture.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

John 2:24 is a response to John 2:22. " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" The anointing in John 2:27 would never deny that Jesus is the Christ. And that is what they heard from the begining.

I answered your questions already. If they got it wrong it is because they ignored or were ignorant of the Scripture. Scripture is the final authority. What if's are like armpits. Everybody has one. Look to Scripture.

Stranger

I see no answers to my questions. I see lots of dodging of my questions, but no answers.

Can you answer one simple question: If, as you have said MANY times, Scripture is the final authority WHO has the authority to properly interpret that scripture?

 

[Stranger]

I see no answers to my questions. I see lots of dodging of my questions, but no answers.

Can you answer one simple question: If, as you have said MANY times, Scripture is the final authority WHO has the authority to properly interpret that scripture?

Are you deaf? I showed you in 1John 2:27 that every believer has the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree? That believer does not need any teacher. Agreed? Every believer has the 'authority' to read and interpret the Scripture.

Do you want me to say it again? Every believer has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Do you want me to say it again?

Stanger

 

[tom55]

Are you deaf? I showed you in 1John 2:27 that every believer has the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree? That believer does not need any teacher. Agreed? Every believer has the 'authority' to read and interpret the Scripture.

Do you want me to say it again? Every believer has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Do you want me to say it again?

Stanger

Do I have to say it again: Since the Holy Spirit led Calvin, Luther, Zwingili, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Mormons, you, the gnostics, the Jews and others to "the truth" (which are all different truths) then by your logic the Holy Spirit is confused. Since we know the Holy Spirit is not confused then we must figure out who is preaching the Truth and has properly interpreted scripture.

That makes your answer illogical, unscriptural and not true.

 

[Stranger]

Do I have to say it again: Since the Holy Spirit led Calvin, Luther, Zwingili, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Mormons, you, the gnostics, the Jews and others to "the truth" (which are all different truths) then by your logic the Holy Spirit is confused. Since we know the Holy Spirit is not confused then we must figure out who is preaching the Truth and has properly interpreted scripture.

That makes your answer illogical, unscriptural and not true.

1. Scripture is the final authority.

2. Every believer has the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

3. That doesn't mean every believer knows every thing about the Bible.

4, Every believer knows what the Holy Spirit gives them to understand about God in the Bible.

5. Scripture is the final authority.

6. If the believer says something contrary to Scripture, then the believer is mistaken.

7. Because Scripture is the final authority.

8. When other believers point this out, then the believer can either show Scripture to prove otherwise, or recognize they are mistaken.

9. Either way, Scripture is the final authority.

10. The Holy Spirit is not confused. But there are those who seek to use the Scripture for their own ends. And the Holy Spirit then calls them on it.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

1. Scripture is the final authority.

2. Every believer has the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

3. That doesn't mean every believer knows every thing about the Bible.

4, Every believer knows what the Holy Spirit gives them to understand about God in the Bible.

5. Scripture is the final authority.

6. If the believer says something contrary to Scripture, then the believer is mistaken.

7. Because Scripture is the final authority.

8. When other believers point this out, then the believer can either show Scripture to prove otherwise, or recognize they are mistaken.

9. Either way, Scripture is the final authority.

10. The Holy Spirit is not confused. But there are those who seek to use the Scripture for their own ends. And the Holy Spirit then calls them on it.

Stranger

1. If Scripture is the final authority then who decides that scripture was properly interpreted when there are contrary interpretations?

2. If every believer has the Holy Spirit to lead them into all the truth then why are their so many contradictory truths?

3. As a believer I feel like I know everything about the bible. Who decides if I am right on a certain passage and you (another believer) are wrong?

4. If every believer "knows what the Holy Spirit gives them to understand about God in the Bible" then wouldn't they know when they are right or wrong about their interpretation of the bible?

6. Who decides when a believer has said something contrary to scripture? You? Me? The RCC? The Mormons? Calvin? Luther? Baptist?

8. Which "other believers" do YOU choose to "point out" that "they are mistaken"? Pentecostals? Lutherens? You? Me? Pat Robertson? Billy Graham?

10. Who is "seeking to use scripture to their own ends"? How do we know who they are? Joel Olstein? Phelps? Zwingli? The Reformers? The leaders of the Enlightenment?

None of your statements are logical and end in more questions.

 

[Stranger]

1. If Scripture is the final authority then who decides that scripture was properly interpreted when there are contrary interpretations?

2. If every believer has the Holy Spirit to lead them into all the truth then why are their so many contradictory truths?

3. As a believer I feel like I know everything about the bible. Who decides if I am right on a certain passage and you (another believer) are wrong?

4. If every believer "knows what the Holy Spirit gives them to understand about God in the Bible" then wouldn't they know when they are right or wrong about their interpretation of the bible?

6. Who decides when a believer has said something contrary to scripture? You? Me? The RCC? The Mormons? Calvin? Luther? Baptist?

8. Which "other believers" do YOU choose to "point out" that "they are mistaken"? Pentecostals? Lutherens? You? Me? Pat Robertson? Billy Graham?

10. Who is "seeking to use scripture to their own ends"? How do we know who they are? Joel Olstein? Phelps? Zwingli? The Reformers? The leaders of the Enlightenment?

None of your statements are logical and end in more questions.

1. Again, not 'who'. Scripture is the final authority.

2. There are no contradictory truths. Again, just because believers have the Holy Spirit doesn't mean they know everything about the Bible. They learn. Sometimes they are in error. It behooves other believers to show them where they are in error...according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the authority.

3. If you believe you know everything about the Bible....that tells me all I need to know. You begin in error.

4. God wants the learning process to take place. Which is why you don't know everything about the Bible. Line upon line, here a little and there a little. Studying to show thyself approved.

5. Scripture is the final authority. Shame you didn't want to say that. I know...you forgot.

6. Scripture decides, as it is shown to any in error, such as yourself.

7. As I said, Scripture is the final authority...as you ignore.

8. Believers are believers. If you can show me where I am wrong in Scripture, then I will say I am wrong. But...you must show me Scripture says I am wrong and not just you...or a group of others.

9. You see...Scripture is the final authority. You dislike that don't you.

10. Any who seek to use the Scripture for their own ends are those who are guilty. Especially those who do not see Scripture as the final authority. Remind you of anyone?


Questions are fine...fire away.

Stranger

 

[junobet]

1. Scripture is the final authority.

Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the final authority? When I read the Bibel I get the Impression it means to tell me that God is the final authority.

 

[junobet]

The Enlightenment is a product of the Reformation like the Reformation is a product of the Catholic Church. One preceded the other. If there had been no Catholic Church, there would have been no Reformation. The Reformation helped remove the restraints that the Catholic Church had upon western man.

[SIZE=medium]1.)[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Far be it from me to whitewash church-history – in its 2000 years of existence Christianity has erred terribly in many ways – but our shared history is not all bad. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2.)[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Exactly Stranger: the Reformation did help remove restraints that the Church had upon Western man. It so happens that the Protestant Church’s year of festivity celebrating 500 years of Reformation has just been heralded. [/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]In his speech the German President (who just happens to be a Protestant Pastor) pointed out how the Reformation brought a “fresh wind of freedom” which sparked ideas such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, inalienable human rights. [/SIZE]

But it did so by going back to the Bible, not away from it. Others later would come along, enjoying this restraint being removed, but they did not turn back to the Bible. They turned back to the Greek classics and Renaissance humanism. Reason, and not Revelation from God, was their religion. That is the Enlightenment. Not Christian, but secular. Thus so called Christian writers would still write about the Bible, but the Bible was to be subject to mans reason.

So, you see, you have two groups of people here. Those of the Enlightenment and those of the Reformation. One is Secular. One is Christian. Barth would be a product of the Enlightenment. Whereas people like Luthor and Huss, and others would be a product of the Reformation.

Yes the Enlightenment did affect America. But so did the Reformation. Those of the Reformation would affect it first as they were the first to come here. Later, when we were forming our new government, there were those of the Enlightenment thinking envolved. But so too were there those of Reformation faith. Over time the two still clash. We in the South are known as the " Bible Belt ". And rightfully so. We are those of the Reformation faith. Where as the North turned more to the Enlightened thinking. It is my opinion that the Southern States of America is the last bastion of Protestant faith in the world.

First of all: I don’t have a spelling-fetish, but please note that Lex Luthor is the arch-enemy of Superman. The guy who sparked the Reformation 499 years ago was called Martin Luther!

And no: neither Luther nor Calvin went ‘back to the Bible’ in the way you think they did. Classical Protestant views on the Bible are far from being as simplistic as the beliefs commonly held in the Bible-Belt. In fact they are theologically quite sophisticated.
Protestants, who have – contrary to you – read the Reformers and know what Luther meant by “Sola Scriptura”, don’t think “the Southern States of America is the last bastion of Protestant faith in the world”. They see modern day fundamentalism as a terrible aberration:

“The Protestant principle, in a word, is the consciousness that God, who is the living subject of Christian faith, must not be equated with anything less than God. (…) If God is sovereign, nothing else must be regarded as sovereign, including our ideas of God. (…)
But this protest against things that are less than God seeking power and authority for themselves immediately raises a question: What about the Bible? Does not classical Protestantism uphold the ultimacy of the Bible? Isn’t the chief methodological teaching of the Reformation, its so-called formal principle—sola scriptura [by scripture alone]—in fact the great exception to the rule? While popes and councils and majority church opinion are put aside by the unconditional sovereignty of God does not the Reformation regard the Bible as the very ‘Word of God’, and thus as the one authority that in effect qualifies the Protestant principle? Does this Protestant elevation of Scripture not even in effect nullify the insistence that God alone is ultimate, confining as it does our conception of God to the biblical testimony to God?
If we want to answer this question strictly through reference to the main Reformers, I think we would have to say no: the theology of scripture that informs the thought of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin—to mention only the three primary figures of the Reformation’s main stream—does not allow for the creation of a “paper pope” out of the biblical canon. Whatever may have become of Calvinism, Calvin himself was not about to jeopardize his primary affirmation, soli Deo gloria ( his very motto!), by flirting with bibliolatry! Like Zwingli before him, Calvin was trained in the humanist school. Ad fontes!—Back to the sources. This humanist cry was also the cry of the French and Swiss reformers. Knowledge of the original sources is paramount for the cleansing of the movements that claim to be based upon them. As for Luther, who was not humanistically trained, his treatment of the Bible seems almost sacriligious to the true-believing Bible-belter. He was fond of quoting the popular saying of the time, “The Bible has a wax nose”; you can twist it to whatever may be your preference in . . . noses! Not the letter, but only the divine Spirit, acting upon the letter of scripture, can establish the practical authority of the Bible in the church. But it is just this refusal of the Reformers to let even their adored and indispensable Bible usurp the sole authority and glory of God that seems to me to have been all but lost in contemporary Protestantism, and more particularly in North America and some of the newer churches in the developing world (some African situations, for instance).”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Hall_BarthOnBible.pdf

What I find particularly weird is your disdain for for the Greek Classics. Most of the New Testament was written by Hellenized Jews! I keep having to point out here that the Bible itself shows that Paul was so versed in Greek literature and philosophy that he could effortlessly quote it when explaining the Gospel to the people in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). So you see from its very beginnings Christianity has made use of the best philosophy of the day to formulate its theology. Christian faith goes beyond reason, not against it. The doctrine of the Trinity that you and I believe in is just one example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

 

[Stranger]

Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the final authority? When I read the Bibel I get the Impression it means to tell me that God is the final authority.

Matt.4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written...."

Matt. 4:7 " Jesus said unto him, It is written again..."

Matt. 4:10 " Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written...."

2 Tim. 3:16-17 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

God is the final authority and If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be the final authority.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

God is the final authority and If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be the final authority.

Oh so teh bible is God???? Here in lies teh problem so many have raised up the bible to be an idol, and replaced teh living word Jesus, with a book. Now can you tell me which of the 70 or so biles is teh truth since they are all different and very few agree with one another. If they where the word of God, would we not only need one, since there is only one truth.

And it says in the bible a little bit that so mnay christians refuse to see,

He spoke tha tto the Jews, but even christians refuse to go to Him who is the truth.

Or is it that people are afraid of what other christians might think, it only matters what God thinks.

 

[Stranger]

[SIZE=medium]1.)[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Far be it from me to whitewash church-history – in its 2000 years of existence Christianity has erred terribly in many ways – but our shared history is not all bad. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2.)[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Exactly Stranger: the Reformation did help remove restraints that the Church had upon Western man. It so happens that the Protestant Church’s year of festivity celebrating 500 years of Reformation has just been heralded. [/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]In his speech the German President (who just happens to be a Protestant Pastor) pointed out how the Reformation brought a “fresh wind of freedom” which sparked ideas such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, inalienable human rights. [/SIZE]


First of all: I don’t have a spelling-fetish, but please note that Lex Luthor is the arch-enemy of Superman. The guy who sparked the Reformation 499 years ago was called Martin Luther!

And no: neither Luther nor Calvin went ‘back to the Bible’ in the way you think they did. Classical Protestant views on the Bible are far from being as simplistic as the beliefs commonly held in the Bible-Belt. In fact they are theologically quite sophisticated.
Protestants, who have – contrary to you – read the Reformers and know what Luther meant by “Sola Scriptura”, don’t think “the Southern States of America is the last bastion of Protestant faith in the world”. They see modern day fundamentalism as a terrible aberration:

“The Protestant principle, in a word, is the consciousness that God, who is the living subject of Christian faith, must not be equated with anything less than God. (…) If God is sovereign, nothing else must be regarded as sovereign, including our ideas of God. (…)
But this protest against things that are less than God seeking power and authority for themselves immediately raises a question: What about the Bible? Does not classical Protestantism uphold the ultimacy of the Bible? Isn’t the chief methodological teaching of the Reformation, its so-called formal principle—sola scriptura [by scripture alone]—in fact the great exception to the rule? While popes and councils and majority church opinion are put aside by the unconditional sovereignty of God does not the Reformation regard the Bible as the very ‘Word of God’, and thus as the one authority that in effect qualifies the Protestant principle? Does this Protestant elevation of Scripture not even in effect nullify the insistence that God alone is ultimate, confining as it does our conception of God to the biblical testimony to God?
If we want to answer this question strictly through reference to the main Reformers, I think we would have to say no: the theology of scripture that informs the thought of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin—to mention only the three primary figures of the Reformation’s main stream—does not allow for the creation of a “paper pope” out of the biblical canon. Whatever may have become of Calvinism, Calvin himself was not about to jeopardize his primary affirmation, soli Deo gloria ( his very motto!), by flirting with bibliolatry! Like Zwingli before him, Calvin was trained in the humanist school. Ad fontes!—Back to the sources. This humanist cry was also the cry of the French and Swiss reformers. Knowledge of the original sources is paramount for the cleansing of the movements that claim to be based upon them. As for Luther, who was not humanistically trained, his treatment of the Bible seems almost sacriligious to the true-believing Bible-belter. He was fond of quoting the popular saying of the time, “The Bible has a wax nose”; you can twist it to whatever may be your preference in . . . noses! Not the letter, but only the divine Spirit, acting upon the letter of scripture, can establish the practical authority of the Bible in the church. But it is just this refusal of the Reformers to let even their adored and indispensable Bible usurp the sole authority and glory of God that seems to me to have been all but lost in contemporary Protestantism, and more particularly in North America and some of the newer churches in the developing world (some African situations, for instance).”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Hall_BarthOnBible.pdf

What I find particularly weird is your disdain for for the Greek Classics. Most of the New Testament was written by Hellenized Jews! I keep having to point out here that the Bible itself shows that Paul was so versed in Greek literature and philosophy that he could effortlessly quote it when explaining the Gospel to the people in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). So you see from its very beginnings Christianity has made use of the best philosophy of the day to formulate its theology. Christian faith goes beyond reason, not against it. The doctrine of the Trinity that you and I believe in is just one example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

Sorry for the misspelling.

As I said, the Reformation was a movement back to the Bible. The Enlightenment was a movement back to Renaissance humanism. The Enlightenment produced men who subjected the Bible to human reason. The Reformation produced men who believed the Bible is the Word of God and it is the authority.

I have no problem with Greek classics. I have a problem when ones love of them takes them away from believing what the Bible says. Which is what happened with those of the Enlightenment thinking.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

The Reformation produced men who believed the Bible is the Word of God and it is the authority.

And all Jesus desired where men who believed Him.

Or as it says in the bible

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Since the word of God brings life which teh bible does not , how can it be the word of God, it only leads you the one who is life,Jesus.

Or as He said to a firend of mine,

" I speak to everyman, but very few will listen".

My sheep hear my voice??

 

[tom55]

1. Again, not 'who'. Scripture is the final authority.

2. There are no contradictory truths. Again, just because believers have the Holy Spirit doesn't mean they know everything about the Bible. They learn. Sometimes they are in error. It behooves other believers to show them where they are in error...according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the authority.

3. If you believe you know everything about the Bible....that tells me all I need to know. You begin in error.

4. God wants the learning process to take place. Which is why you don't know everything about the Bible. Line upon line, here a little and there a little. Studying to show thyself approved.

5. Scripture is the final authority. Shame you didn't want to say that. I know...you forgot.

6. Scripture decides, as it is shown to any in error, such as yourself.

7. As I said, Scripture is the final authority...as you ignore.

8. Believers are believers. If you can show me where I am wrong in Scripture, then I will say I am wrong. But...you must show me Scripture says I am wrong and not just you...or a group of others.

9. You see...Scripture is the final authority. You dislike that don't you.

10. Any who seek to use the Scripture for their own ends are those who are guilty. Especially those who do not see Scripture as the final authority. Remind you of anyone?


Questions are fine...fire away.

Stranger

1. Scripture are words. WHO has the authority to properly interpret those words? Words can't interpret themselves. Men interpret words.

2. There are contradictory Truths in Christianity. The Catholic Church interprets scripture different than the Baptist. The Baptist different than the Mormons. The Mormons different than the Lutherans. They all CONTRADICT each other in their interpretation of the Truth of Scripture AND they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If Scripture is the Truth then which one denomination has the Truth? How do we know when they are "sometimes in error" and how do we know when they got it right? If 51% believe baptism is necessary for salvation and 49% believe the opposite is true does the majority win? When the 51% shows the 49% "where they are in error...according to the Scriptures" who has the authority to call them heretical? (heretical defined: holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted). Since Christianity DOES NOT do that then that makes your theory wrong. If your theory were true then we should all be believing and practicing the same Truth based on the majority vote. Those who don't accept the majority vote would not be true Christians according to your theory.

3. According to your theory no one has the authority to make the final decision if I am in error in my beliefs. According to your theory you could tell me I am in error in what I believe. By using your own theory YOU might be wrong in telling me I am wrong. What you have articulated and what you believe is called a circular argument.

4. How can you tell me or anyone else they "don't know everything about the Bible"? Based on your own theory you could be in error in your statement (circular argument). By your own admittance I may get some things right and I may get some things wrong. How do you know I got this one wrong? How do you know you got it right? Based on your own theory you CAN'T know.

6. Scripture are words. Someone has to interpret, discern and properly teach what those words mean. Based on your own theory you could be wrong that Scripture is the final authority especially since Scripture doesn't even say that it is the final authority.

7. Scripture does not say it is the final authority. And even if you did quote a passage from scripture that makes YOU believe it says it is the final authority based on your own theory you could be wrong and I could be right. So who decides if you are right and I am wrong? If your answer is scripture decides then you have produced another circular argument.

8. According to your own theory a believer could be right or they could be wrong. I would contend if a person who is believing and practicing the wrong thing then they are not a true Christian. According to your theory no one has the authority to decide if they are believing and practicing the wrong thing. If you say that scripture is the final authority to decide if they are practicing/believing the wrong thing then you have produced a circular argument.

10. Who decides when someone is using "Scripture for their own ends"? YOU? "Scripture as the final authority" is a circular argument. If I interpret scripture one way, you a different way, the Mormons a different way, the Lutherans a different way, the Baptist a different way it all ends in with no one knowing or having the truth. You asked me if those who do not see Scripture as the final authority reminds me of anyone? Yes it does. It reminds me of the majority of Christians who do not believe what you believe. By now you should realize you are in the minority on this theory. Based on your own theory you should stop believing that Scripture is the final authority. By now you should realize that YOU don't even accept scripture as the final authority. You accept yourself as the final authority.

Your theory makes no sense. It is a circular argument.

 

[Stranger]

1. Scripture are words. WHO has the authority to properly interpret those words? Words can't interpret themselves. Men interpret words.

2. There are contradictory Truths in Christianity. The Catholic Church interprets scripture different than the Baptist. The Baptist different than the Mormons. The Mormons different than the Lutherans. They all CONTRADICT each other in their interpretation of the Truth of Scripture AND they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If Scripture is the Truth then which one denomination has the Truth? How do we know when they are "sometimes in error" and how do we know when they got it right? If 51% believe baptism is necessary for salvation and 49% believe the opposite is true does the majority win? When the 51% shows the 49% "where they are in error...according to the Scriptures" who has the authority to call them heretical? (heretical defined: holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted). Since Christianity DOES NOT do that then that makes your theory wrong. If your theory were true then we should all be believing and practicing the same Truth based on the majority vote. Those who don't accept the majority vote would not be true Christians according to your theory.

3. According to your theory no one has the authority to make the final decision if I am in error in my beliefs. According to your theory you could tell me I am in error in what I believe. By using your own theory YOU might be wrong in telling me I am wrong. What you have articulated and what you believe is called a circular argument.

4. How can you tell me or anyone else they "don't know everything about the Bible"? Based on your own theory you could be in error in your statement (circular argument). By your own admittance I may get some things right and I may get some things wrong. How do you know I got this one wrong? How do you know you got it right? Based on your own theory you CAN'T know.

6. Scripture are words. Someone has to interpret, discern and properly teach what those words mean. Based on your own theory you could be wrong that Scripture is the final authority especially since Scripture doesn't even say that it is the final authority.

7. Scripture does not say it is the final authority. And even if you did quote a passage from scripture that makes YOU believe it says it is the final authority based on your own theory you could be wrong and I could be right. So who decides if you are right and I am wrong? If your answer is scripture decides then you have produced another circular argument.

8. According to your own theory a believer could be right or they could be wrong. I would contend if a person who is believing and practicing the wrong thing then they are not a true Christian. According to your theory no one has the authority to decide if they are believing and practicing the wrong thing. If you say that scripture is the final authority to decide if they are practicing/believing the wrong thing then you have produced a circular argument.

10. Who decides when someone is using "Scripture for their own ends"? YOU? "Scripture as the final authority" is a circular argument. If I interpret scripture one way, you a different way, the Mormons a different way, the Lutherans a different way, the Baptist a different way it all ends in with no one knowing or having the truth. You asked me if those who do not see Scripture as the final authority reminds me of anyone? Yes it does. It reminds me of the majority of Christians who do not believe what you believe. By now you should realize you are in the minority on this theory. Based on your own theory you should stop believing that Scripture is the final authority. By now you should realize that YOU don't even accept scripture as the final authority. You accept yourself as the final authority.

Your theory makes no sense. It is a circular argument.

1. Scripture is words that are inspired by God.

2. Truth is not contradictory. If it has the appearance of contradiction it is only because we don't yet understand what is being said. You check what others say by the Bible. I'm not concerned with percentages.

3. Indeed, I check what anyone says by the Bible.

4. No one knows everything about the Bible. Just because we don't know it all, doesn't discount what we know. We build on it.

5. Scripture is the final authority.

6. Scripture is words inspired by God. If Scripture is just words, why bother interpreting them? "It is written".

7. "It is written" That's what Scripture says. I believe it.

8. Scripture is the final authority. If it goes against what you say, I believe it. If you show me in Scripture where I am wrong, then I would believe you.

9. "It is written"

10. I've never been concerned with being in the majority. Thus I will continue to believe that Scripture is the final authority. "It is written" By now it should be realized that your concern is more in who tells you what to believe than what the Bible says.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

1. Scripture is words that are inspired by God.

2. Truth is not contradictory. If it has the appearance of contradiction it is only because we don't yet understand what is being said. You check what others say by the Bible. I'm not concerned with percentages.

3. Indeed, I check what anyone says by the Bible.

4. No one knows everything about the Bible. Just because we don't know it all, doesn't discount what we know. We build on it.

5. Scripture is the final authority.

6. Scripture is words inspired by God. If Scripture is just words, why bother interpreting them? "It is written".

7. "It is written" That's what Scripture says. I believe it.

8. Scripture is the final authority. If it goes against what you say, I believe it. If you show me in Scripture where I am wrong, then I would believe you.

9. "It is written"

10. I've never been concerned with being in the majority. Thus I will continue to believe that Scripture is the final authority. "It is written" By now it should be realized that your concern is more in who tells you what to believe than what the Bible says.

Stranger

When you say "it is written" we still have to interpret what it is. Your interpretation of it could be different than mine and my interpretation of it different than the Mormons. You are still presenting a circular argument.

You said: "It behooves other believers to show them where they are in error...according to the Scriptures."

If 51 believers show 49 other believers they are in error according to Scripture then, according to your theory, the 51 would be right and the 49 wrong or in error. According to your theory the majority rules. If the majority rules we should all be preaching the same truth. So why aren't we all preaching the same Truth?

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. How do we fulfill this text from Scripture? According to your theory majority rules.

Scripture does not support your theory. Scripture says: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

One cannot just create his own religion and follow “Jesus” according to his own interpretation of scripture without there being eternal consequences (treated as a gentile or tax collector) . What we believe is based on the decision of The Church. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable church that has a recognizable leadership with universal authority. Jesus used the word church twice in the gospels (both in Matthew). He said, “I will build my Church”. He didn’t say churches nor did he imply it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups. The Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem acted as The Church when they made a binding decision upon all Christians. Jesus said, Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Those MEN, the leaders of The Church at the time, interpreted scripture and made all Christians bound by their decision and their decision was bound in heaven.

So which Church do we "tell it to" that has the final authority? Which Church gets to decide who is a gentile or tax collector? Which Church has the authority to bind or loosen? Baptist? Catholic? Mormon? Lutheran? Berean?

 

[StanJ]

Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the final authority? When I read the Bibel I get the Impression it means to tell me that God is the final authority.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

God will never reveal anything to any man that contradicts what His written word says, so obviously his written word is the final say.

 

[Stranger]

When you say "it is written" we still have to interpret what it is. Your interpretation of it could be different than mine and my interpretation of it different than the Mormons. You are still presenting a circular argument.

You said: "It behooves other believers to show them where they are in error...according to the Scriptures."

If 51 believers show 49 other believers they are in error according to Scripture then, according to your theory, the 51 would be right and the 49 wrong or in error. According to your theory the majority rules. If the majority rules we should all be preaching the same truth. So why aren't we all preaching the same Truth?

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. How do we fulfill this text from Scripture? According to your theory majority rules.

Scripture does not support your theory. Scripture says: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

One cannot just create his own religion and follow “Jesus” according to his own interpretation of scripture without there being eternal consequences (treated as a gentile or tax collector) . What we believe is based on the decision of The Church. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable church that has a recognizable leadership with universal authority. Jesus used the word church twice in the gospels (both in Matthew). He said, “I will build my Church”. He didn’t say churches nor did he imply it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups. The Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem acted as The Church when they made a binding decision upon all Christians. Jesus said, Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Those MEN, the leaders of The Church at the time, interpreted scripture and made all Christians bound by their decision and their decision was bound in heaven.

So which Church do we "tell it to" that has the final authority? Which Church gets to decide who is a gentile or tax collector? Which Church has the authority to bind or loosen? Baptist? Catholic? Mormon? Lutheran? Berean?

1John 2:20 " But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."

1John 2:27 " But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

You seem to forget the Holy Spirit in the believers life and his turning to and understanding Scripture. I don't care about percentages. Give the believer a Bible, he has the Holy Spirit. That is all he needs. In the process of growing in knowledge of the Scriptures others are helping and directing, fine. But still it is the Bible that is the final authority. And I'm quite willing to trust the Holy Spirit in leading His people into the truth of the Scripture.

I never said majority rules, you did. I keep telling you I'm not worried about majority.

If one or more comes teaching false doctrine, then the believers have no choice but divide. Or, are you saying we should accept false doctrine for the sake of no division? The Scripture you gave is 1Cor. 1:10.

You fail to identify your verses. Give them and I will answer your questions.

Stranger