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

[MatthewG]

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.
-
View attachment 36710

I do not think Idol worship is a good thing, It's part of the world. Anyone can make an idol of anything these days, and worship it more than the Creator. This also does kind of remind me of Paul in a sense how he would do all he could to love everyone in order to help them come to the truth. Doesn't matter what religious bondage a person may be in, to love them is a must... regardless otherwise one is failing to love God and love others properly by the spirit in my opinion.

 

[Lambano]

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

Let's see where this one will go. Nobody wants to admit that there are some biblical subjects that will always be argued until Jesus comes back because there are real tensions in the text that cannot be resolved. For example, the Arminian-Calvinist debates have been on-going for over 400 years.

 

[BlessedPeace]

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

Everything Jesus taught against.

 

[Lambano]

Ironically, the "Yeah, but..." is an agreement.

No, it isn't. "Yeah, but" is just a more polite way of saying, "You're full of s***. Here's what the text REALLY says..."

Or has participating in Christian forums for 20 years made me a bit cynical?

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Ironically, the "Yeah, but..." is an agreement.

No, it isn't. "Yeah, but" is just a more polite way of saying, "You're full of s***. Here's what the text REALLY says..."

Or has participating in Christian forums for 20 years made me a bit cynical?

I agree.
I should have said the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, however...

Edit made. Thanks.

 

[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.

They have a few nasty comments about Protestants as well.
As far as they are concerned, we left the Church.

/

 

[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?

There is just One Holy Spirit so he inspires and illuminates one truth. One group of Bible scholars come up with something different from the overall universal church, the body of Christ, you must ask where is the weight of the evidence? Is it the history of the church on its exposition or not, or some new group who claim to see something not before seen? Martin Luther and the Reformers constantly referred back to earlier pillars of the faith to support their reform going back to NT doctrine. Read the book Absolute Predestination written in the 16th century and notice the constant references to men in the earlier years of the church, usually Augustine:

TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination

Reformation Treatise on Predestination

www.truecovenanter.com

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" (Eph 4:11-15 KJV)

I made that last bold emphasis for myself. I fail in speaking in love too often, and I try to watch myself.

 

[JBO]

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

LOL. Name one that isn't.

 

[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?

Because I embrace believer's baptism by immersion I believe most Protestants and Roman Catholics are in error on baptism. But, I do not find method of baptism a cardinal doctrine. As to immersion, the Greek Orthodox Church has always practiced immersion so there is clear historic evidence for that. Yet, even among those of the baptistic view, there are variations. For me, cardinal doctrines include the divinity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone, the abolition of the Old Covenant, never to be re-established by a crass, literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. Salvation is realized today only merited by the life and death of Jesus Christ with assurance given by the resurrection.

 

[Arthur81]

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

In stead of using a label in a pejorative manner, try exegeting the particular verses the Calvinists use, and disprove them with scripture. Try doing away with the following clear verse:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48 KJV)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers." (Acts 13:48 NRSV)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they were overjoyed and thankfully acclaimed the word of the Lord, and those who were marked out for eternal life became believers." (Acts 13:48 REB)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48 NET2.1)

There are four translations of one verse to see the variation of presentation. Why does that not clearly show that people who believe were destined to do so from the distant past, even before the creation as other passages show.

 

[St. SteVen]

I made that last bold emphasis for myself. I fail in speaking in love too often, and I try to watch myself.

Yes.
And all too often our discussion of the Bible comes off as judgmental and unloving.
How did we miss that?

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Because I embrace believer's baptism by immersion I believe most Protestants and Roman Catholics are in error on baptism. But, I do not find method of baptism a cardinal doctrine. As to immersion, the Greek Orthodox Church has always practiced immersion so there is clear historic evidence for that. Yet, even among those of the baptistic view, there are variations.

Right, not cardinal. (to use a Catholic term - LOL)
It helps to be clear on the meaning of baptism. To me, it is a religious ceremony.
And a religious ceremony should be an outward sign of an inward reality.

/

 

[Arthur81]

Let's see where this one will go. Nobody wants to admit that there are some biblical subjects that will always be argued until Jesus comes back because there are real tensions in the text that cannot be resolved. For example, the Arminian-Calvinist debates have been on-going for over 400 years.

You wrote "there are real tensions in the text that cannot be resolved". I believe God the Holy Spirit inspired words that were to be understood, while some may be more difficult than others, but I do not see God inspiring words conveying thoughts that "cannot be resolved". The purpose of an honest hermeneutic is to help create a unity of understanding of scripture, following common sense rules of interpretation. When there is a conflict of interpretation, there is a violation of a rule of interpretation. This so often involves ignoring context, or applying the wrong definition of a word or ignoring the grammar.

 

[Arthur81]

Right, not cardinal. (to use a Catholic term - LOL)
It helps to be clear on the meaning of baptism. To me, it is a religious ceremony.
And a religious ceremony should be an outward sign of an inward reality.

/

I should add, I do find it fatal error to think baptism is necessary for salvation as the Campbellites do. Even the Lutherans who believe in baptismal regeneration by the word, do not teach it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

 

[rwb]

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

This is the kind of comment made by many in these communities that cause division. I believe our doctrinal points should be made from Scripture rather than labeling others as you have here done to a fellow Christian, named John Calvin. Argue for or against doctrine you either do or do not believe to be biblical without characterizing others as someone you may disdain. My typical response when others place labels on me is the belief that they cannot prove from the Word of God that my doctrinal position is in err, so they want others to believe they have biblical truth while I promote the doctrine of men.

 

[St. SteVen]

I should add, I do find it fatal error to think baptism is necessary for salvation as the Campbellites do. Even the Lutherans who believe in baptismal regeneration by the word, do not teach it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Agree.
I feel the same way about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. (very controversial, I know)
It is a subsequent experience for the entry into operation in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
(although we can't put the Spirit in a box. That wind blows where it will)
But not needed for salvation. (although, I am a Universalist as well, so... another subject)

/

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic.

The changing perception of hell. - How do you define it?

/

 

[Spyder]

Agree.
I feel the same way about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. (very controversial, I know)
It is a subsequent experience for the entry into operation in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
(although we can't put the Spirit in a box. That wind blows where it will)
But not needed for salvation. (although, I am a Universalist as well, so... another subject)

/

This issue was the very first one that I ever landed me in hot water at a church. Since I coordinate verses together to find truth, I exposed verses to the class where I was at. Of course, the church police turned me in. What do you think? Is all scripture "God-breathed?"

I do believe that God's spirit gave the messages that the writers of the O.T. books required, and Hebrews 11 speaks of how the people of Israel were saved by faith - and so are we.

I think the issue, for me at least, is to understand how God's spirit worked differently for the O.T. people of God that it does for us now. The scriptures show the evidence that the writers acknowledged that they had a spirit, and the Psalm 51 refers to renewing a "right spirit" in verse 10 and then, in verse 11, asks that Yahweh not take Ruach HaKodesh from him.

Do you think we still have our original spirit in us at the same time that God's spirit is in us? (I think we do, as it is our original spirit that tries to control us - makes our fleshly desires. Without God's spirit, we would not be set free.) Although I know that some believe that our spirit has died.

We have indication of God's spirit in the people of the O.T. in Titus. It speaks of a "renewal" of the Holy Spirit - indicating that it was previously there.

Tt 3:4–7 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

However, we see in the N.T. passages that the Jews were not even aware of "Holy Spirit." Yeshua called it "a helper," The Spirit of Truth," and "The Holy Spirit." If the O.T. saints had the same Spirit that we do now, then the difference must be in how God's spirit works in us.

Yeshua spoke of a coming Spirit - indicating the Spirit was not present at the time.

Jn 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified

Jn 14:16–17 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Jn 16:13–14 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

However, there are those who "spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus" while not having the promised Spirit.

Ac 18:24–25 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Ac 19:1–6 There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

But first, we see that Jesus gave His disciples God's Spirit which was apparently somewhat different for receiving God's Spirit at Pentecost.

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

That event was not the same as the one reported at Pentecost. I think I would see that the function of God's Spirit gift at Pentecost was to enable them to go out and fulfill the mission that Yeshua gave them to do. But, after that:

Ac 2:2–4 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Peter was at Pentecost, and was given some authority to act as an Apostle of Yeshua.

Ac 10:44–48 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

We know that the sacrament of Baptism has a purpose, and obedience is certainly one of them. God's spirit is also part of it.

Ac 2:37–38 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Pe 3:18–22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Ro 6:1–4 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

(The while idea of sprinkling of baptismal waters in not found in scripture.} The fact that it is found in the Didache is not proof.

I'd like to see views on this - and I have a reason for not starting another thread to get it.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Agree.
I feel the same way about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. (very controversial, I know)
It is a subsequent experience for the entry into operation in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
(although we can't put the Spirit in a box. That wind blows where it will)
But not needed for salvation. (although, I am a Universalist as well, so... another subject)

This issue was the very first one that I ever landed me in hot water at a church. Since I coordinate verses together to find truth, I exposed verses to the class where I was at. Of course, the church police turned me in. What do you think? Is all scripture "God-breathed?"

Do you believe that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Do you have questions about it?
I had to study this out at great length to undo my church upbringing on the subject.
Found myself pedal-to-the metal going after it, when the church I grew up in said, "No," (stay away)
Although, I had changed churches by then. The new church said, "Yes!" (press in)

What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Wow. Interesting post. Lots to consider. I'll do what I can. - LOL

I do believe that God's spirit gave the messages that the writers of the O.T. books required, and Hebrews 11 speaks of how the people of Israel were saved by faith - and so are we.

I think the issue, for me at least, is to understand how God's spirit worked differently for the O.T. people of God that it does for us now. The scriptures show the evidence that the writers acknowledged that they had a spirit, and the Psalm 51 refers to renewing a "right spirit" in verse 10 and then, in verse 11, asks that Yahweh not take Ruach HaKodesh from him.

I see evidence that God's Spirit as working in the OT as would be expected.
But in a limited way, through specific people. Moses and Joshua in the Tent of Meeting, for instance.
And of course, the Prophets who spoke and wrote direct revelation. Is see this dovetailing with the spiritual gifts in Corinthians.

Do you think we still have our original spirit in us at the same time that God's spirit is in us? (I think we do, as it is our original spirit that tries to control us - makes our fleshly desires. Without God's spirit, we would not be set free.) Although I know that some believe that our spirit has died.

We have indication of God's spirit in the people of the O.T. in Titus. It speaks of a "renewal" of the Holy Spirit - indicating that it was previously there.

Tt 3:4–7 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

I see our spirit as distinct from God's indwelling Spirit. Both are present in the believer.
Additionally, we can be obedient to manifestations of the Holy Spirit in us. (the gifts)

Yeshua spoke of a coming Spirit - indicating the Spirit was not present at the time.

Jn 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified

Jn 14:16–17 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Jn 16:13–14 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

The Spirit was present. IMHO
But had not yet been poured out on all humankind. (made available to all)

However, there are those who "spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus" while not having the promised Spirit.

Ac 18:24–25 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Ac 19:1–6 There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Aha, very good.
You are recognizing the difference between those who had not yet received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and those who had.
The Holy Spirit was working through these individuals in a limited way.
But they were not experiencing/operating in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit can work in a person even when not working THROUGH them. (directly/miraculously)

But first, we see that Jesus gave His disciples God's Spirit which was apparently somewhat different for receiving God's Spirit at Pentecost.

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

Yes. Very curious passage. They "had" before the major outpouring.
Compare their actions before and after these two events.

That event was not the same as the one reported at Pentecost. I think I would see that the function of God's Spirit gift at Pentecost was to enable them to go out and fulfill the mission that Yeshua gave them to do. But, after that:

Ac 2:2–4 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Exactly. Good.

Peter was at Pentecost, and was given some authority to act as an Apostle of Yeshua.

Ac 10:44–48 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Peter was not in the driver's seat on this one. The outpouring came spontaneously.
Note the reaction of the Jews that were with Peter. (amazed) ????

We know that the sacrament of Baptism has a purpose, and obedience is certainly one of them. God's spirit is also part of it.

Ac 2:37–38 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Pe 3:18–22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Ro 6:1–4 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

At Pentecost the Baptism with the Holy Spirit was tied to water baptism.
But what happened in Samaria? The baptized believers did not receive the Spirit. (per the text)
They did at the laying on of the Apostles hands. What was the evidence?

(The while idea of sprinkling of baptismal waters in not found in scripture.} The fact that it is found in the Didache is not proof.

I'd like to see views on this - and I have a reason for not starting another thread to get it.

As I understand it, sprinkling began when the church was forced into hiding in the catacombs.
No rivers there. - LOL

/