Truth is not relative

[justbyfaith]

Did you convert to Catholicism?
Because this is the Catholic argument: it's not up to an individual to interpret scripture, but God's appointed Church.

No; for I believe that the true church does not consist only of Catholics.

I do believe that 2 Peter 1:20 teaches us that every private interpretation is not valid until it is subjected to public scrutiny.

And that two heads are always better than one when we are coming to a conclusion of what the holy scripture teaches.

And when person's A "instinct" conflicts with person B's.... battle of the egos, no True Scotsman, claiming that the other does not have the Spirit!

Each person has to know between them and the Lord whether they have His Spirit. When two or more argue and both say that they are speaking by the Spirit, the third party, listening, should go to the Spirit and ask Him what the correct interpretation is; and why: and then add that to the conversation, until a consensus can be reached.

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

People tend to have disagreements; and therefore if this scripture is going to be obeyed, there must be discussion until everyone can come to the unity of the faith.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No; for I believe that the true church does not consist only of Catholics.

I do believe that 2 Peter 1:20 teaches us that every private interpretation is not valid until it is subjected to public scrutiny.

And that two heads are always better than one when we are coming to a conclusion of what the holy scripture teaches.



Each person has to know between them and the Lord whether they have His Spirit. When two or more argue and both say that they are speaking by the Spirit, the third party, listening, should go to the Spirit and ask Him what the correct interpretation is; and why: and then add that to the conversation, until a consensus can be reached.

This is pretty much the definition of the Catholic argument.

 

[farouk]

And when person's A "instinct" conflicts with person B's.... battle of the egos, no True Scotsman, claiming that the other does not have the Spirit!

I like the expression...

 

[Willie T]

Why don't you copy and paste it on here so it is more accessible, and then make your point?

It is only a mouse click away. (The same way you used Google before.)

 

[justbyfaith]

It is only a mouse click away. (The same way you used Google before.)

If you want to make a point, make it. Please provide all of the information that you believe substantiates your point by posting it in this thread in words and letters.

If you don't want to make your point, that is also fine. But I want everything on the table so it can be brought to public scrutiny, per what I have been saying; if you are even going to make a point.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is pretty much the definition of the Catholic argument.

I think that I agree with them; though I don't agree that the church only consists of those who exist within the Catholic hierarchy.

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, the Catholic Church has been known to exert force on those who disagree with them, without giving them the information that forms their views.

People are decried as heretics when they are only going by their understanding of holy scripture. They are not allowed to become privy to the arguments that have formed Catholic doctrine over many years; and they are also not allowed to add to the conversation with sola scriptura in view.

 

[Marymog]

That would be the reality of scripture that prevails after all debate has been accomplished.

Hi JBF,

It seems you are saying Majority rules? If so, How is that majority decided? The number of members of a specific denomination? EXAMPLE: there are 43 million Baptist and 74 million Lutherans.

Does the Lutheran "interpretation of Scripture" cancel out the Baptist "interpretation of Scripture" since there are more Lutherans?

Mary

 

[Waiting on him]

I guess, at least, I know who my enemies are by seeing who likes such a statement as this.

No one here is your enemy,

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi JBF,

It seems you are saying Majority rules? If so, How is that majority decided? The number of members of a specific denomination? EXAMPLE: there are 43 million Baptist and 74 million Lutherans.

Does the Lutheran "interpretation of Scripture" cancel out the Baptist "interpretation of Scripture" since there are more Lutherans?

Mary

Hi, @Marymog,

I think that the internet provides a venue in which scripture can be discussed and so that a general consensus can be reached.

However, every one of us has a thinking mind and must make our own decisions as to what we believe personally, based on all of the information that is given to us. We are all growing towards the Lord and one another in the concepts of what we believe.

It is not that majority rules; but rather that God gives to those who have His Spirit a spirit that none of their adversaries can gainsay or resist.

Therefore the most forceful conclusion is usually the right one.

 

[justbyfaith]

No one here is your enemy,

de ja vu.

 

[DPMartin]

OP

correct Truth is not relative, and the Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is.

but

morals are relative to those in agreement or better said Covenant.

 

[Marymog]

Again, I reiterate.… the passage says nothing about "public interpretation of scripture." It is saying the prophet did not invent the "prophesy" he foretold, himself, rather, he was told what to repeat to the people.

Hi Willie and @justbyfaith ,

I think the passage (2 Peter 1:20) you two are discussing has to be taken in context. In the next verse (2 Peter 2:1) Peter informs us that he is concerned with more than just the actual text of Scripture. He warns of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies”. Later, in 2:10, he describes the false teachers as “despising authority”. In 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.”

The context of Peter’s letter leaves no doubt that he was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

This is pretty much the definition of the Catholic argument.

Ummmmmm......that is not "pretty much the definition of the Catholic argument".

 

[Marymog]

Hi, @Marymog,

I think that the internet provides a venue in which scripture can be discussed and so that a general consensus can be reached......

The internet allows for a "general consensus" on what the proper "interpretation of Scripture" is......Hmmmm.

How did men come to a "general consensus" BEFORE the internet?

 

[Waiting on him]

The internet allows for a "general consensus" on what the proper "interpretation of Scripture" is......Hmmmm.

How did men come to a "general consensus" BEFORE the internet?

most likely the same way the Pharisees were in church?

 

[Marymog]

"Go into all the world..." If you think that means "travel to the farthest forest and desert....", then it would seem obvious that you must be defying God if you are typing your posts from your home. How do you get around giving that verse more than one meaning, when you swear there can be only ONE meaning to every verse in the bible?

Hi Willie,

Putting that command (Go into all the world) in context makes it clear he was talking to the eleven....not every Christian for eternity: 14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table;.....15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world..."

Therefor only the eleven would have been "defying God" if they did not Go into all the world!!!! So NO, it would NOT seem obvious that we must be defying God if we are typing our posts from our home!

@justbyfaith is NOT defying God....

Bible Study Mary

 

[Marymog]

most likely the same way the Pharisees were in church?

And that most likely way would be......????

 

[Waiting on him]

And that most likely way would be......????

To govern and nurture a system
that produces worldly wealth of course.

 

[justbyfaith]

The internet allows for a "general consensus" on what the proper "interpretation of Scripture" is......Hmmmm.

How did men come to a "general consensus" BEFORE the internet?

Through councils.

Hi Willie,

Putting that command (Go into all the world) in context makes it clear he was talking to the eleven....not every Christian for eternity: 14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table;.....15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world..."

Therefor only the eleven would have been "defying God" if they did not Go into all the world!!!! So NO, it would NOT seem obvious that we must be defying God if we are typing our posts from our home!

@justbyfaith is NOT defying God....

Bible Study Mary

Actually, the scripture has two basic applications in any given moment...1) that it is to be obeyed by the people to whom it is originally spoken; and, 2) that it is to be obeyed by the people reading it now in the 21st century (and before).

I know that I am not defying the Lord and have not defied the Lord in concerning the scripture at hand; not because it doesn't apply to me; but because I have physically gone to the other side of the United States on behalf of the gospel; and also may someday go even further when it comes to geographical location.

What it means is not that the individual is required to go into all the world; but that the church of Jesus Christ is to go into all the world...all of us collectively will eventually reach the world with the gospel...and then shall the end come.

 

[Waiting on him]

To govern and nurture a system
that produces worldly wealth of course.

But this is the Motive of course, the question though is how can they not see it's only temporal?