Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Looking into the heart for assurance? | Matt 7:21 | Brian.g | 187143 | ||
LookN I mistakenly read your original question as one of measuring piety. I now understand that your question is about quantifying orthodoxy. Sorry. To reiterate your question: am I living and believing what Jesus was actually teaching. Am I united with the Truth, which is Christ? In reality, the question becomes one of who do I trust to help me learn the truth, who will be my ‘Teaching Authority’. 1. There are those who read Scripture and accept that the Holy Spirit will lead each person to a true and accurate personal interpretation without any human assistance. The Holy Spirit is their only ‘Teaching Authority’. Christianity is not a private venture. It is meant to be learned and shared with others. 2. There are those who read Scripture and who will listen to any quack that comes along, including fortune-tellers, mediums, and others. This is their ‘Teaching Authority’. 3. There are those who read Scripture and look to individuals such as their pastor, TV Evangelist or Theologians for an interpretation. These sources become the ‘Teaching Authority’ for that individual. 4. There are those who read Scripture and then turn to their Church, as a whole – not just a local pastor, as for guidance in understanding. For example, the Catholic Church and the ‘Magisterium’ which is a Latin word for ‘Teaching Authority’. The challenge we all face is how do we separate out the human opinions of our Teaching Authorities from truth or who do we trust to show us the truth in order to choose the best and most accurate Teaching Authority. I can only give you a response from my own personal belief in regard to this question. First, as a foundation, I defined what truth actually is. I believe truth is not created and as such, it is from the essence of God and is never changing, ever. I believe that Jesus is truth, not only his words and actions, but his total being is truth, his divinity being the word of God, his humanity being in union with God. I believe that there is absolutely no deviation in what and who Jesus is and Scripture. Scripture is the printed Word of God and Jesus is the Word of God, made flesh. Scripture and Jesus are one with God. I reject any teaching authority which proclaims, among other things that: • Jesus as anything other than God. • The ‘primary’ purpose of Jesus becoming man, as anything other than mans unity with God and the eternal salvation of our souls. • Belief in Jesus will guarantee us monetary wealth or material goods. • Does not focus first on the worship of God and second, the love of our neighbor. Next, I look for the ‘organic unity’ of the teachings of this authority. Are there any obvious inconsistencies in their teachings today, in comparison to their teachings over the years? Do they completely change or modify what they teach, over time. I believe a teaching authority can expand on a teaching or a thought, but it cannot outright change its beliefs, that action demonstrates that the Teaching Authority does not recognize, understand or teach truth, but instead opinions. Opinions change, truth does not. In their teachings, is there truth building upon and joining with truth – an ‘organic development’. Can the teachings of an authority hold up under scrutiny – true academic-style in-depth examination and not just simple off-the-cuff opinions? Use this as a starting point and build upon it. As a result of this type of examination, I chose the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church, there are those who teach their opinions. I reject those people and listen to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches. You have to make your own decision. Brian |
||||||
2 | Looking into the heart for assurance? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187262 | ||
Brian, The crux of my question is not “am I living and believing what Jesus was actually teaching”, but how does one know for certain that they are saved? Unfortunately, your response did not answer it. In any case, I would like to respond to some comments you have made in appreciation of the time and serious effort you took to respond. 1. The Holy Spirit may “lead each person to a true and accurate personal interpretation without any human assistance,” however: (a) If the interpretation were personal, does it necessarily apply to all? (b) That the Holy Spirit leads “true and accurate” necessarily mean that it will be interpreted “true and accurate.” For example, is one obligated to hold as “true and accurate” the teachings of MacArthur or Stanley? (c) Is one under obligation to believe how another has interpreted the Holy Spirit’s leading? Or, to even believe that the Holy Spirit has led them (e.g. MacArthur or Stanley) in the first place? (d) Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is not the only authority by which one is obligated to follow? (I use MacArthur and Stanley as examples because they have been suggested by others to be read in response to my question on assurance). 2. How about those who do not give the impression that they are quacks but just hold erroneous doctrines? How does one differentiate the “quacks” from the genuine? For example, how does one determine that Kenneth Copeland is a “quack” (rather than, maybe, an errant brother) and MacArthur is neither a quack nor errant (or, may he be erred)? 3. Is it necessarily wrong to see how another interprets Scripture? Or, is it wrong to assume that another’s interpretation is correct without carefully considering it in the light of how they believe the Holy Spirit is leading them as they read the Scriptures? 4. In all honesty, there may be “strength in numbers” (but, admittedly, not necessarily). In general, there might be safety in examining what the Church believes as a whole, at least, until one feels they are capable of discerning for themselves the teachings of scripture. In any case, no one should be obligated to go against their conscience with respect to what they see scripture is teaching them. Regarding separating truth from “human opinions”, upon the assumption that the Bible is truth, what constitutes human opinion? For example, when MacArthur says, “…once you have come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, is that eternal? The answer, of course, is yes,” is this truth or human opinion? Or, when Stanley says, “Eternal life is just that--eternal. There is nobody, not even yourself, who can take Christ's God-given gift of salvation away from you”, is this truth or human opinion? Regarding your “own personal belief [opinion?], you said that you “ listen to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches.” I was under the impression that you considered the Bible as true and, therefore, as the ultimate “Teaching Authority.” Do you consider the “Magisterium” as an authority ultimately binding on all professed believers? It seems to me that, outside of certain vital scriptural teachings, there is more “human opinion” in the Roman Catholic Church than right discernment of scripture. |
||||||
3 | Looking into the heart for assurance? | Matt 7:21 | Brian.g | 187557 | ||
LookN Greek philosopher Plato’s classic story, ‘Euthyphro’ is a story of an encounter between Greek philosopher Socrates (S) and a fellow named Euthyphro (E). Euthyphro (E) and Socrates (S) meet while E was enroute to reporting his father to the authorities for causing the death of a murderer. The man had died while E’s father was restraining him while waiting for the authorities. E stated that due to his devotion to the gods (piety), he has a moral responsibility to report his father. S asked E if he believed the stories the poets had written about the gods: of the battles, wars, and bitter hatred among the gods. E affirmed his belief. S further questioned that hadn’t the wars, battles and bitter hatred between the gods been caused by gods having different beliefs? E agreed. S then challenged E with a simple question: ‘what is piety?’ After some dialogue, E finally constructs an answer that piety is that which is pleasing to the gods. S further challenged E: if battles and wars are caused by gods not agreeing, then do all gods agree on the exact same meaning of piety? In effect, Socrates was asking Euthyphro – what is the correct interpretation of the moral action of piety (which Greek god will he listen to), and is E acting in accordance with the correct interpretation of truth. This story parallels the spirit of your comments: Ultimately, the question becomes: ‘what is the truth, which is Jesus?' If you turn to John Doe and John Smith as your Teaching Authorities, and at some point, they disagree, who represents the truth - who will you trust. Will you go left with Doe or right with Smith. And at the next crossroads, which way will you go. With truth, there is only one straight path. Look for the 'organic unity' in what they are saying. Truth has no conflict. Brian |
||||||
4 | Looking into the heart for assurance? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187603 | ||
You conclude, "Ultimately, the question becomes: what is the truth, which is Jesus?" The question, "What is the truth?" is not my point. The assumption is that truth is already known. The question may be put, "How can one be certain that they are on the path of what is, in reality, truth?" The question is not, "Is Jesus the truth?" The question is, "How can one be certain that they are in the truth?" |
||||||