The "Yeah, but..." school of doctrine - Bible versus Bible

[St. SteVen]

We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?

 

[Arthur81]

We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the "Yeah, but..." is an agreement. "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?

Whether it is a “yeah, but...” or a “No, but...”, the “but” shows there is a conflict between two interpretations of proof texts, individual verses. You cannot have a conflict in the word of God; so a study of the verses that seem in conflict is called for and the historic approach is the only way to solve it.

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” Westminster Confession

For me as an individual, I do not consider myself an original thinker. There is nothing new under the sun. Therefore I go view the arguments on the verses in question by men of God that history has shown to be valued and respected. I then can compare the various arguments presented to my thinking from that approach. On my computer softward Bible commentaries I include and check from various denominational understandings: Matthew Poole a Presbyterian/Puritan; John Gill a Particular Baptist; Adam Clarke and Joseph Benson Methodists; Paul Kretzmann a Lutheran commentary from 1925. On the NT I have Heinrich Meyer/Lutheran Greek scholar as well.

I do not believe in individualistic free lancing on biblical doctrine! Why did God give the church “pastors and teachers” -

“And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” (Eph 4:11-13 ERV)

I find it arrogant and prideful to come up with unique and weird doctrinal ideas that cannot be found in the history of the church in the past, through commentaries, Creeds, Catechisms and Confessions. What individual believer has more illumination of the Holy Spirit that the body of Christ in agreement through the centuries. What person goes to a doctor who does not have proven qualifications? Who strikes out on their own trying to get to a destination without the aid of correct maps?

 

[St. SteVen]

I find it arrogant and prideful to come up with unique and weird doctrinal ideas that cannot be found in the history of the church in the past, through commentaries, Creeds, Catechisms and Confessions. What individual believer has more illumination of the Holy Spirit that the body of Christ in agreement through the centuries. What person goes to a doctor who does not have proven qualifications? Who strikes out on their own trying to get to a destination without the aid of correct maps?

What's the point of studying the Bible at all if it should be left to the "experts"?
Does the Holy Spirit refuse to speak to laity? Except tell them to bow to leadership?
How did the Protestant Reformation even happen if the boat was NEVER to be rocked?

 

[St. SteVen]

Whether it is a “yeah, but...” or a “No, but...”, the “but” shows there is a conflict between two interpretations of proof texts, individual verses. You cannot have a conflict in the word of God; so a study of the verses that seem in conflict is called for and the historic approach is the only way to solve it.

What about baptism?
Catholics and Protestant have vastly differing views. Both based in Tradition and scripture.
As a Protestant, do you say the Catholics are wrong?

 

[Behold]

So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

The person who isn't on a "christian" forum to try to "win".

 

[Jim C]

What about baptism?
Catholics and Protestant have vastly differing views. Both based in Tradition and scripture.
As a Protestant, do you say the Catholics are wrong?

Lol, the Catholic church is wrong about a great many things.

 

[Arthur81]

What's the point of studying the Bible at all if it should be left to the "experts"?
Does the Holy Spirit refuse to speak to laity? Except tell them to bow to leadership?
How did the Protestant Reformation even happen if the boat was NEVER to be rocked?

The Reformers did not strike out on their own free style, divorced from the history of the church. Luther and others quoted often from earlier theologians, largely Augustine. An example of a Reformed person quoting from theologians in the past can be seen in the footnotes of the book:

Absolute Predestination by Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590) - TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination

The Reformers did not try to invent something new, they were taking the church back to its more pure NT foundations and in proofs, they quoted often from earlier pillars of the church.

 

[Behold]

Lol, the Catholic church is wrong about a great many things.

Including burning Joan of Arc as a "heretic' and later re-installing her as a Catholic Saint.

Typical "cult of Mary" "Ooops...,"

Or putting Saint Jeanne Guyon in the "Bastille" for 7 yrs, and she is one of the greatest in the history of Christian mystics.. and a Catholic.
She's right there with St Francis.... in case anyone is interested.

Or the time they had 3 Popes, and each was saying the other was the "Anti-Christ".

That's a good movie Script..... because they screen writers don't have to make it up....... it true.

 

[Arthur81]

What about baptism?
Catholics and Protestant have vastly differing views. Both based in Tradition and scripture.
As a Protestant, do you say the Catholics are wrong?

Yes, I believe Roman Catholics are wrong on Baptism. I tend to view Roman Catholics as in the Christian family, but I view them as distant cousins.

I do not even agree with my Lutheran brethren on their connecting water baptism as the vehicle of regeneration, but I know they do not teach it as a total necessity for salvation as the Campbellites do, who are fully works salvationists.

I view baptism as an "ordinance", not a "sacrament" and it is an outward symbol of the inner baptism in the blood of Christ and the profession thereof. That does not stop me from feeling kinship and brotherhood in a Presbyterian or Lutheran church. Not everything that I believe do I use to break fellowship with other brethren IN PRACTICE. I know in a forum like this, we battle like brothers do in a family, but on the cardinal doctrines we unite against the devil and his crowd!

 

[Behold]

I know in a forum like this, we battle like brothers do in a family, but on the cardinal doctrines we unite against the devil and his crowd!

If what you said was true, then you would not be trying to lead people into the theological abyss of John Calvinism.

 

[Jim C]

Including burning Joan of Arc as a "heretic' and later re-installing her as a Catholic Saint.

Typical "cult of Mary" "Ooops...,"

Or putting Saint Jeanne Guyon in the "Bastille" for 7 yrs, and she is one of the greatest in the history of Christian mystics.. and a Catholic.
She's right there with St Francis.... in case anyone is interested.

Or the time they had 3 Popes, and each was saying the other was the "Anti-Christ".

That's a good movie Script..... because they screen writers don't have to make it up....... it true.

Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition (even if no one expected it)

 

[BlessedPeace]

We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the "Yeah, but..." is an agreement. "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?

Maybe the reason there is conflict is because the bible fluctuates in its details.
It isn't perfect because the more than 40 authors who wrote it were not perfect.
Nor were the transcribers over the ages. If one scribe mistranslated, all others after them would too. The Bible is imperfect , has contradictions, and in some areas is false.

And maybe all this is a message from God.

Seek him not in books. He is the word. He is not that collection of words men over centuries intended as a control mechanism for those who believe in it. We're to believe in the word. Not a fallible manufacture of fallible men.

God still sends us messages in the bible. However, thinking God is only what the Bible says God is, is what I believe causes conflict. Because there is not a constant narrative.

We are told nature is proof of God's existence, and thus we are without excuse to not believe.

We are also told we will seek God and find him only when we seek God with our whole heart.

I think when we divide in argument over scripture, we fail.

 

[Behold]

Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition (even if no one expected it)

and the "crusades".

 

[St. SteVen]

Lol, the Catholic church is wrong about a great many things.

Build bridges, not walls.

 

[St. SteVen]

Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition (even if no one expected it)

I thought that was a Monty Python sketch.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think when we divide in argument over scripture, we fail.

BINGO!

 

[Behold]

Build bridges, not walls.

The "cult of mary" = The creator of the "Dark ages" .

You can't reach this cult with a bridge.
You have to keep this water cult from the real Sheep.
-

 

[Jim C]

But they  look so religious with their fancy robes and pointy hats and statues and crucifixes and sermons in Latin and so on.

 

[St. SteVen]

But they  look so religious with their fancy robes and pointy hats and statues and crucifixes and sermons in Latin and so on.

Well...
Isn't that what "religion" is?
It's the frosting, not the cake. - LOL

 

[MatthewG]

Love can dominate over these disputes. Love all my brother and sisters in Yeshua the anointed one. Love all the people who are around me, and still call them brother or sister. Love all my calivnistic friends, and hindus, and muslim friends, and all those who claim they are a sinner. Doctrine doesn't make a person a Yeshuan anyway. Love makes them one, a disciple that follows Yeshua.