Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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?" |
||||||