Results 101 - 106 of 106
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: gbennett76 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94490 | ||
More Fuel Misconceptions held by the majority of this forum: 1)The Bible is so plain that what it means is "obvious." 2)Simply by quoting scriptures, everything will become clear. In doing so, they show very little knowledge of the Bible, or ability to think clearly. This is why: -If every Bible verse can be taken at face value, then the Bible is a mess of contradictions and mistakes. -If the meaning is so clear, then every thinking person would agree with them. But they do not. The truth is that the Bible has to be interpreted. So the great question is, why is one interpretation any better than another? Using the Bible to Test the Bible Circular Arguments: A critic wrote, "If I am shown interpretations other than those I already hold to, which make more sense than mine do in light of the whole of Scripture, I will listen." This belief is comforting but false. What "makes sense" when interpreting scripture will depend on our existing methods and assumptions. What if our view of "the whole of scripture" is faulty (for example, if we think that the Bible is all there is)? Then every other scripture will be judged according to this false standard. The Usual Protestant Rule of Biblical Interpretation: "If we are to believe that God gave us the Bible for a purpose, then it follows that... His purpose is for us to understand it, with His help" Exactly. "With his help." Since internal help would be circular, he must provide external help (the Holy Spirit, prophets, etc.) "Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible" I agree this is a good general rule, but it must not be relied on completely, because: This was the rule the ancient Pharisees used – e.g. they expected a Messiah who would literally be a "king." Consequently they missed Jesus when he came. It is just not practical. It is possible to take almost everything literally, an still be internally consistent. But who does? How many Christians only have one coat? How many give to everyone who asks? It goes against the examples in the New Testament. Right from Matthew chapters 1 and 2, we see prophecies that are not interpreted according to any literal rule, or by looking at the original context. For example, "out of Egypt I have called my son," by this method, must refer to the nation of Israel being led by Moses. "A virgin shall conceive" must have referred to an ordinary young woman in Isaiah's day. I am highly doubtful that most evangelical Protestants do follow this rule anyway. The last time I discussed this matter in any depth with a "Born Again Christian," he sent me a number of audio tapes from his church. One of them was about the Book of Revelation. His minister started by stating that it was practically all symbolic. "If God cannot author confusion, then any interpretative problems invariably arise from the human end (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16), not from the Scriptures themselves" I agree. But humans are sinful. We invariably get it wrong without divine help. This method of interpretation just about guarantees a false understanding of scripture. The verses quoted make clear that the final test of scripture is NOT more scripture. 1 Cor 2:14 suggests the final test is the Holy Spirit. The context of 2 Peter 3:16 (e.g. see verse 2) suggests the final test is the living apostles. (At the time, there was no cannoned New Testament.) The Myth of Context If you ask someone why a passage means one thing and not another, the usual answer is "context." In other words, they look at the surrounding verses and chapters. But this does not help – it is another circular argument. If the verse in question is open to different interpretations, so are the surrounding verses. Context IS important, but it does not give certainty. Which context do we look at? The previous verse? All the surrounding verses? The whole chapter? The message of the whole book? The speaker? The audience? Other similar scriptures? The historical context? The political context? The expected level of understanding? All of these things can potentially lead to different interpretations. Combining them in different ways just multiplies the potential confusion. Conclusion: Can or Should Scripture be Interpreted by Scripture? Scripture should be interpreted in the light of scripture, but this should not be the "first and foremost" way: It contradicts itself. The first thing we discover when we read scripture is that it is written by prophets and apostles. So it follows that prophets and apostles (since they create scripture) must be the preferred source. So the first task of a Bible believer must be to identify the true apostles. (This of course eliminates mainstream Protestantism as a potential source of truth.) |
||||||
102 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94491 | ||
Even More Fuel: Ten Reasons Why "Sola Scriptura" is Impossible, Illogical and Foolish: 1)If the Bible is complete, why does it not say so? Sometimes people point to verses that say "all scripture is given" – a very forced and unnatural interpretation. The first such passage is in Deuteronomy 4:3, which says (in effect) "do not add to this." So why don't believers in "sola scriptura" throw out the whole New Testament and all the Old Testament that was written after Deuteronomy? 2)Bible interpretation depends on the words of prophets. 3)Bible interpretation depends on having an accurate copy of the original texts. No such copy exists: All we have are copies of copies. The earliest copies show that whole passages – e.g. the last 12 verses of Mark – could be in doubt. 4)The current Bible canon was decided by Catholic theologians: So Protestants base their faith on uninspired men from a church they reject as apostate! 5)Scripture has to be interpreted: In practice, "sola scriptura" means that everyone interprets the scriptures for himself. So we have scriptural chaos. At the very least, the individual becomes the final judge of exactly what the scripture means, which places man above God. 6)Even the greatest thinkers will disagree over how to be saved: For example, "Luther thought Zwingli was "damned" because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If Luther didn't even regard him as a brother in Christ due to doctrinal disputes, then obviously they didn't agree on how one is saved! Clearly, Luther thought that the Eucharist was crucial to salvation. In this he would differ from Calvin as well, and the same thing applies to baptism, because Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, whereas Calvin (and, I believe, Zwingli) denied it." 7)There are many different ways of harmonising the Scripture. ALL can be defended indefinitely: So it is not enough to use one scripture to explain another. Calvinists have one way of doing this. Arminians have another way. Baptists have another way. They all come to different conclusions on significant questions. So do Lutherans, Anglicans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mennonites, etc., etc. 8)Believers in "sola scriptura" rely on outside evidences: The idea is that the believer listens to churches, pastors, books, professors, commentaries spiritual experiences, traditions, creeds, hymns, etc., and then makes up their own mind. But this implies that these outside influences suggest possibilities that the believer would not have come up with on their own. In other words, he relies on them. 9)Believers in "sola scriptura" place their own subjective beliefs above the authority of the Bible: Luther recognised that some key teachings could not be reconciled from the Bible alone. For example, Paul seems to teach salvation by grace, and James appears to teach salvation by works. So Luther developed a concept known as the "analogy of faith." In other words, if Paul seemed to contradict James, Luther looked at his overall beliefs regarding Christ. But where do these overall beliefs come from, except from these same texts? Luther liked Paul better than James, so he (Luther) decided that Paul was more important. He wrote: "To sum it all up ... St. John's Gospel [not the synoptics], and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially those to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle – these are the books which show you Christ and teach everything which is needful and blessed for you to know even if you don't see or even hear any other book. ... Wherefore St. James epistle is a true epistle of straw compared with them, for it contains nothing of an evangelical nature." See Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith for references and further discussion. 10)"Sola scriptura" was the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees: Jesus and his apostles were different. They spoke with authority. They could back up their words for scripture, but the churches of the day did not accept their interpretations. Many years ago I was reading the Bible and came across the following verse: 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This struck me as odd, because I had been brought up with another well known verse by the same author (the apostle John): John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Is it good to love the world? Yes? No? At that point, I began to realise that the Bible has to be interpreted. There is no getting away from that fact. The End |
||||||
103 | let him ask of God, who gives to all | James 1:5 | gbennett76 | 94497 | ||
The Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are: “On the evening of the . . . twenty-first of September [1823] . . . I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God . . . . “While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrists; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. “Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book. “Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. “After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so, until the room was again left dark, except just around him, when instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended until he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance. “I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger; when, in the midst of my meditation, I suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside. “He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation; which having done, he informed me of great judgments which were coming upon the earth, with great desolations by famine, sword, and pestilence; and that these grievous judgments would come on the earth in this generation. Having related these things, he again ascended as he had done before. |
||||||
104 | why do you think that jesus went to hell | 1 Peter | gbennett76 | 80660 | ||
Ok..I know my comments worry some but again I must...I,,I just must.. Scripture answers scripture simply put. Did noy Christ proclaim that he must set the captives free? Did not Peter answer the above question "therefore he went and preached to the spirits in prison" I believe it is 1Peter 3:19. Yes Jesus descended to hell , he offered salvation to the rebellios spirits of men past. He rose on the third day and the rest is history or future..which ever way you look at it. |
||||||
105 | preached to them that are dead | 1 Pet 3:18 | gbennett76 | 95434 | ||
Have you ever wondered what happened to people who die without ever knowing of Christ? 1 Peter 3:18-19 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." 1 Peter 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" |
||||||
106 | sons of god as in early gen | 1 Pet 3:19 | gbennett76 | 80180 | ||
"sons of god" refers usually to angels or premortal spirits. In this case of Genesis 6 it is often accepted that this is the case. These are some of the 1/3 who rebelled with lucifer and were cast down out of heaven. These spirits mixed with the human female to create "giants" as in "Goliath". This special race was ferociuos and demonic. We find a few references to these spirits throghout the bible as in the case of Peter 3:19-20. Having served their sentence they were relesaed from spirit prison. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] |