The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[tom55]

Because they're right and you're wrong. Reality is reality and that's not my problem that you either choose to ignore it or refuse to accept it.
I'm sure the Baptist Church has a lot of things wrong as well. As I've already stated a few times it's because I study the Bible and you don't that's how come you're wrong and I'm right. What exactly is the problem with your understanding this? I don't see any fallacies in my statement but I do see an awful lot of denial and yours. Prove your point or move along.

Finally....the statement I have been waiting for. Honesty!! YOU are always right and everyone else is always wrong (unless they agree with you).

Thank you for being honest.

 

[StanJ]

So when you say, " ...I don't believe you're being honest..." your NOT calling me a liar? What do you mean by that statement? I feel like you are saying I am not being truthful in my sincerity and that my friend is still basically calling me a liar.... in my humble opinion.

I didn't say that in this post your quoting. You do this all the time. Quote me in context.

NO, the answer is not obvious. Can you PLEASE answer: How can I be wrong and you be right if we are both guided by the Holy Spirit?

It is very obvious and I've already answered you. Stop playing games as usual.

To answer your question, "Do I really have to explain this to you?" Yes, please explain it to me. I can cut and paste the "recollection of past events" that clearly showed that you were wrong in those discussions. But it sounds like you don't want to re-visit that painful paste so we won't.

It was a rhetorical question. You don't need to cut and paste all you need to do is press the quote button on the post where I said anything you want to dispute, and deal with it.

It's not a matter of IF you twisted the facts....You did twist the facts as I previously pointed out in some of our discussions on other threads. As far as the discussion on this thread your statements about the Emperor Constantine are verifiably not factual, however, since you have failed to accept any previous facts I have given you I will not waste my time on this subject either.

Well has you haven't proven this or anything else for that matter I'm not going to waste any more time on this until you decide to actually deal with it and not just make unfounded accusations.

 

[StanJ]

Finally....the statement I have been waiting for. Honesty!! YOU are always right and everyone else is always wrong (unless they agree with you).
Thank you for being honest.

Well this isn't what I said but in your typical equivocal fashion you misrepresent what I do. How can you continually do this and wonder why I don't think you're honest? I think you need to practice a lot more introspection before you come on here making all kinds of false and misleading accusations.
I won't address them anymore, I'll just report them.

 

[tom55]

Because they're right and you're wrong. Reality is reality and that's not my problem that you either choose to ignore it or refuse to accept it.
I'm sure the Baptist Church has a lot of things wrong as well. As I've already stated a few times it's because I study the Bible and you don't that's how come you're wrong and I'm right. What exactly is the problem with your understanding this? I don't see any fallacies in my statement but I do see an awful lot of denial and yours. Prove your point or move along.

So I will try again: According to StanJ, Tom55 is always wrong and "they" and StanJ are always right. Have I got it now?

So who is right if "they" say something that agrees with Tom55? It would seem all of a sudden "they" are wrong, even though you have already said they are right! So confusing!!

To answer your question, "What exactly is the problem with your understanding this?" Since I do study the bible I don't UNDERSTAND how you can say that I don't.

I don't UNDERSTAND how when I study the bible I am wrong in my interpretation and YOU are right? I don't understand how you can say you don't see any fallacies in your statements and that I am wrong and you are right? HOW do you KNOW your right?

Do you know what would be really nice? If you answered my questions. (but I know you won't or can't)

Love,

tom

 

[StanJ]

So I will try again: According to StanJ, Tom55 is always wrong and "they" and StanJ are always right. Have I got it now?

So who is right if "they" say something that agrees with Tom55? It would seem all of a sudden "they" are wrong, even though you have already said they are right! So confusing!!

To answer your question, "What exactly is the problem with your understanding this?" Since I do study the bible I don't UNDERSTAND how you can say that I don't.

I don't UNDERSTAND how when I study the bible I am wrong in my interpretation and YOU are right? I don't understand how you can say you don't see any fallacies in your statements and that I am wrong and you are right? HOW do you KNOW your right?

Do you know what would be really nice? If you answered my questions. (but I know you won't or can't)

Love,

tom

No Tom...even when you show the actual wording you still misquote me so I'm not surprised that you don't understand what the Bible says. There's no need for you to continually ask questions I've given you enough information so if you don't accept it refute it otherwise don't keep asking me to tell you again and again what was clear enough the first time.

 

[tom55]

No Tom...even when you show the actual wording you still misquote me so I'm not surprised that you don't understand what the Bible says. There's no need for you to continually ask questions I've given you enough information so if you don't accept it refute it otherwise don't keep asking me to tell you again and again what was clear enough the first time.

Well then, I will quote own prophetic statement: "Do you know what would be really nice? If you answered my questions. (but I know you won't or can't)"

I knew you couldn't answer my questions but I thought it would only be fair to give you one more chance. I knew you wouldn't answer my questions because you couldn't. You probably knew you couldn't answer my questions because it would reveal more of your fallacies and lack of logic in these matters we have discussed.

I look forward to a conversation/debate with you that you can logically articulate your position or refute mine. I have said this to you many times before in past discussions and it holds true for this one; you have confused me even more.

I still love you and hope you still love me.

Tom

 

[Phoneman777]

I took the time to watch A Lamp In The Dark. Please don't take this personal since what I am about to write is only my opinion of this "documentary" and that opinion is based on researching some of the claims they made in the "documentary". If you, or anyone who watched it, considers it an "excellent documentary" then they should sincerely re-evaluate their knowledge of Christian History and History in general. It was inaccurate, not completely truthful, a twisting of history and the truth with some flat out lies. It appeared to be written or designed to be an attack on our fellow Christian brothers and sisters (Catholics).

There is no legitimate scholar of History or Christian Hitstory that would recommend a person watch this "documentary".

I appreciate you're having watched it. I disagree fully with your conclusion that it is full of inaccuracies. You haven't cited any specific objections to its account of history, which I would love to hear. It is indisputable fact that the Catholic church oppressed those who refused to trust in anything but God alone for salvation, that she banned the owning or reading of the Bible by anyone except her priests, that she waged war against the Bible of the Protestants, and that she still to this day claims the adherence to the Bible alone is insufficient for salvation.

 

[StanJ]

Well then, I will quote own prophetic statement: "Do you know what would be really nice? If you answered my questions. (but I know you won't or can't)"
I knew you couldn't answer my questions but I thought it would only be fair to give you one more chance. I knew you wouldn't answer my questions because you couldn't. You probably knew you couldn't answer my questions because it would reveal more of your fallacies and lack of logic in these matters we have discussed.
I look forward to a conversation/debate with you that you can logically articulate your position or refute mine. I have said this to you many times before in past discussions and it holds true for this one; you have confused me even more.
I still love you and hope you still love me.
Tom

Yeh sorry but this is all the same bull pucky you deploy all the time.

View attachment 391

 

[StanJ]

Well then, I will quote own prophetic statement: "Do you know what would be really nice? If you answered my questions. (but I know you won't or can't)"
I knew you couldn't answer my questions but I thought it would only be fair to give you one more chance. I knew you wouldn't answer my questions because you couldn't. You probably knew you couldn't answer my questions because it would reveal more of your fallacies and lack of logic in these matters we have discussed.
I look forward to a conversation/debate with you that you can logically articulate your position or refute mine. I have said this to you many times before in past discussions and it holds true for this one; you have confused me even more.
I still love you and hope you still love me.
Tom

Yeh sorry but this is all the same bull pucky you deploy all the time.

View attachment 391

 

[OzSpen]

The Holy Spirit if you received His baptism. The rest comes down to studying as 2 Timothy 2:15 states.

Stan,

Are you saying that only those with a Pentecostal understanding of the baptism with the Holy Spirit can accurately interpret Scripture? You say the rest comes down to studying Scripture. Which of these 2 views is primary and which is secondary?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,
Are you saying that only those with a Pentecostal understanding of the baptism with the Holy Spirit can accurately interpret Scripture? You say the rest comes down to studying Scripture. Which of these 2 views is primary and which is secondary?
Oz

No, I'm saying that those who have actually received the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as depicted in Scriptures, have the promise that Jesus gave about being able to know his word. Do all succeed ~ No. Even with the Holy Spirit In Our Lives none of us are infallible. Everything starts with God, so obviously receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance and then studying the word of God becomes primary importance.

 

[OzSpen]

This is were I keep getting hung up or confused on my path forward.

WHO has the authority to reveal the truth and interpret scripture if scripture is the truth and God breathed?

Billy Graham? The Baptist? The RCC? The Methodist? The Orthodox Church? For the last several months I have been reading Christian History and I THINK it am really close to an answer!

Tom,

John 16:13 (NIV) states, 'But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come'.

Here is a problem you could face. The Holy Spirit's voice from Scripture can become mixed with the intuitions from your own human spirit. That's where I have found that a body of people in a local church can help you with consistent, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture.

Then there will be those who will claim that their experience with the Holy Spirit allows them a superior revelation to the one you have experienced. I would not be attending such a church with that elevated view of the Holy Spirit's gifts determining how the Spirit of truth is understood.

Just some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, I'm saying that those who have actually received the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as depicted in Scriptures, have the promise that Jesus gave about being able to know his word. Do all succeed ~ No. Even with the Holy Spirit In Our Lives none of us are infallible. Everything starts with God, so obviously receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance and then studying the word of God becomes primary importance.

Stan,

I expect that there could be people on this forum (and I'm one of them) who would not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Your view is thus encouraging at least two types of Christians: Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal, but the Pentecostals have the superior biblical experience of the Holy Spirit.

You can't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit of primary importance and studying the word of God as of primary importance. Primary means 'Of chief importance; principal' (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v primary). If receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance, that makes it of chief importance and studying the word of God becomes of secondary importance. Of course, the vice versa also applies.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit and studying the word of God cannot both be of primary importance - based on the definition of 'primary'.

I have addressed some of these issues in my articles:

• Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit

• Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, I'm saying that those who have actually received the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as depicted in Scriptures, have the promise that Jesus gave about being able to know his word. Do all succeed ~ No. Even with the Holy Spirit In Our Lives none of us are infallible. Everything starts with God, so obviously receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance and then studying the word of God becomes primary importance.

So, only those with your Pentecostal understanding of the baptism with the Holy Spirit are able to know his word. That's what you've said here.

I beg to differ - profoundly! One of the greatest biblical expositors of the 20th century who had a profound knowledge of the Word was the late D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. This year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of his home-call. Lloyd-Jones had a very different view to you of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. See, 'Lloyd-Jones on Baptism with the Holy Spirit'.

It was Lloyd-Jones who stated,

The evidence of the history of the church, establishes the fact that the baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts.... There are people today who say that the baptism with the Spirit is always accompanied by certain particular gifts. It seems to me that the answer of the Scripture is that that is not the case, that you may have a baptism with the Spirit, and a mighty baptism with the Spirit at that, with none of the gifts of tongues, miracles, or various other gifts. No one can dispute the baptism with the Spirit in the case of men like the brothers Wesley and Whitefield and many others, but none of these things happened in connection with them (Lloyd-Jones1985:53).

So am I to cast out Lloyd-Jones' biblical teaching in favour of your Pentecostal view? Lloyd Jones provides considerable biblical evidence to support his view in Lloyd-Jones (1985).

Oz

Works consulted
Lloyd-Jones, D M 1985. Prove All Things: The Sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

John 16:13 (NIV) states, 'But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come'.

Here is a problem you could face. The Holy Spirit's voice from Scripture can become mixed with the intuitions from your own human spirit. That's where I have found that a body of people in a local church can help you with consistent, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture.

Then there will be those who will claim that their experience with the Holy Spirit allows them a superior revelation to the one you have experienced. I would not be attending such a church with that elevated view of the Holy Spirit's gifts determining how the Spirit of truth is understood.

Just some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Oz

I agree with your statement "a body of people in a local church can help you with consistent, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture", however, what if I go to three different "local churches" and they all interpret Scripture different? Let's say on the issue of Baptism!

How do we discern who is 'claiming' they had an experience with the Holy Spirit to those who really had an experience with the Holy Spirit? I suspect the men of the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church and Joe's Church on the Rock (in rural mid-America) all would say the Holy Spirit guided them on the issue of Baptism but how do I know who is right?


I appreciate your thoughts!

 

[tom55]

I appreciate you're having watched it. I disagree fully with your conclusion that it is full of inaccuracies. You haven't cited any specific objections to its account of history, which I would love to hear. It is indisputable fact that the Catholic church oppressed those who refused to trust in anything but God alone for salvation, that she banned the owning or reading of the Bible by anyone except her priests, that she waged war against the Bible of the Protestants, and that she still to this day claims the adherence to the Bible alone is insufficient for salvation.

I have an interest in the truth that is why I took the time to research some of the claims that didn't sound right to me in this movie. I suspect if you have an interest in the truth you would do the same. If you are relying on ME to cite specific objections to this movie you would then have to research what I tell you so either way your going to have to seek for and do your own research for the truth.

Have you ever watched the "documentary" Loose Change: A film about September 11th? (don't waste your time if you haven't) It has bits of truth in it that are twisted into lies. If I was to buy A Lamp in the Dark I would put it on my shelf next to Loose Change and my comic books.

There is no legitimate scholar of History or Christian Hitstory that would recommend a person watch this "documentary".

 

[tom55]

Yeh sorry but this is all the same bull pucky you deploy all the time.

giphy.gif

I apologize. I may have asked too many questions at one time which confused the matter. I really only would like to have one question answered:

Why is it when I, Tom55, study the bible I am wrong in my interpretation and you are right?

(No bull pucky in that question)

 

[OzSpen]

I agree with your statement "a body of people in a local church can help you with consistent, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture", however, what if I go to three different "local churches" and they all interpret Scripture different? Let's say on the issue of Baptism!

How do we discern who is 'claiming' they had an experience with the Holy Spirit to those who really had an experience with the Holy Spirit? I suspect the men of the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church and Joe's Church on the Rock (in rural mid-America) all would say the Holy Spirit guided them on the issue of Baptism but how do I know who is right?


I appreciate your thoughts!

Tom,

I am not convinced there is any other way to determine the correct view of, say, baptism than a historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. We use the same principles when reading a local newspaper or in conversation with people.

The difficulty with OT and NT interpretation is that we are dealing with middle-eastern cultures and foreign languages that have been translated into English. I highly recommend taking a hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) course at a local theological college or an online course to understand the principles of hermeneutics. For the laity, Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart have written a terrific little book (265pp) on biblical interpretation, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 2nd ed 1993. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Knowing the biblical languages is a great help, but for most people that will not be achieved. Therefore, I recommend a comparison of several committee Bible translations of both dynamic equivalence (meaning for meaning) and formal equivalence (word for word) varieties.

I would use these formal equivalence (all available online):

• ESV
• NASB
• NRSV
• HCSB
• NKJV
• Lexham English Bible

These dynamic equivalence translations:

• NIV
• NLT
• NET
• ISV (only NT available at present)

As for discerning who has a genuine experience with the Holy Spirit after salvation, I would give up trying to discern as it is very subjective. That's why I concentrate on the principles of biblical interpretation to better understand Scripture and not on existential experiences with the Spirit and 'the Spirit told me so' dynamics. There is too much questionable or even fraudulent activity happening in the name of experiences of the Spirit. The genuine will become evident when Holy Spirit revival breaks out. I recommend you take a read of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things: The Sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications. Remember what Jesus said about the wheat and the weeds growing together until harvest time?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I apologize. I may have asked too many questions at one time which confused the matter. I really only would like to have one question answered:

Why is it when I, Tom55, study the bible I am wrong in my interpretation and you are right?

(No bull pucky in that question)

Tom,

That's why assertions made by you, Stan or me mean nothing. They have no meaning unless we demonstrate the biblical interpretation methods we are using to arrive at our conclusions. Could it be that neither you nor Stan is providing the evidence of how you arrived at your conclusion.

'The Holy Spirit directed me into the truth of my position' is of no value as we are dealing with existential views that cannot be tested. They are meaningless because of this existential limitation.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I am not convinced there is any other way to determine the correct view of, say, baptism than a historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. We use the same principles when reading a local newspaper or in conversation with people.

The difficulty with OT and NT interpretation is that we are dealing with middle-eastern cultures and foreign languages that have been translated into English. I highly recommend taking a hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) course at a local theological college or an online course to understand the principles of hermeneutics. For the laity, Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart have written a terrific little book (265pp) on biblical interpretation, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 2nd ed 1993. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Knowing the biblical languages is a great help, but for most people that will not be achieved. Therefore, I recommend a comparison of several committee Bible translations of both dynamic equivalence (meaning for meaning) and formal equivalence (word for word) varieties.

I would use these formal equivalence (all available online):

• ESV
• NASB
• NRSV
• HCSB
• NKJV
• Lexham English Bible

These dynamic equivalence translations:

• NIV
• NLT
• NET
• ISV (only NT available at present)

As for discerning who has a genuine experience with the Holy Spirit after salvation, I would give up trying to discern as it is very subjective. That's why I concentrate on the principles of biblical interpretation to better understand Scripture and not on existential experiences with the Spirit and 'the Spirit told me so' dynamics. There is too much questionable or even fraudulent activity happening in the name of experiences of the Spirit. The genuine will become evident when Holy Spirit revival breaks out. I recommend you take a read of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things: The Sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications. Remember what Jesus said about the wheat and the weeds growing together until harvest time?

As we know one denomination can use the "historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture" to teach their sheep that Baptism is symbolic. The other denomination says it actually does something (washes away sins) and is necessary for salvation.

If I go along the historical route to answer my question I come up with Ulrich Zwingli (500 years ago) who is credited with starting the "symbol" movement. However, when I go further back I find the Letter of Barnabas and Hermas Of Rome and Second Clement (all from 1900 years ago) who say the opposite. Lets say I read both their arguments and they both make sense to me, Tom55. Do the guys from 1900 years ago pre-empt the guys from 500 years ago?

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Protestant who lived during my lifetime. Wouldn't it be best to expand my knowledge and hear both sides of the argument? Who would you recommend on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle to read?

Thank you for your advise.