Results 21 - 40 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: dschaertel Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 51181 | ||
I wonder sometimes if Christians are too politically correct. I realize that we shouldn't be fighting each other, but at the same time I don't see just sweeping things under the rug as a real solution. Ultimately, I think we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose in what we say. Why do we discuss, ask, answer? Is it ego? Are we trying to impress eachother? Are we trying to convert each other to our ideas? Are we honestly exploring things with an equal willingness to challenge and be challenged in order that we might see what we might not have seen before? If I make a point, I should expect that there will be those who disagree. To simply avoid that confrontation solves nothing, except to reinforce an attitude of repression. Now, that doesn't mean that we need to be abusive, but at the same time our thoughts and ideas are not sacred. Who has an opinion that is above the scrutiny of his brother? It's kind of like Jesus sayng who can cast the first stone. If we understand that we are all seekers of truth, then we can challenge each other and not be offended or threatened. If, however, our ego is at stake, then we are like egg shells and we best not allow anybody to disagree. Dan |
||||||
22 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48863 | ||
" It defines what the church is, and tells me a great deal about human nature and this place called heaven. However, you seem to think that none of that information should be trusted" That is not what I have said at all. But you demonstrate why I continue to challenge. I have stated that I take the Bible very seriously,and in fact that is why it is so important to me to determine what it actually says and what it doesn't. But rather than impute meaning to it, like Sola Scriptura, I believe that I need to accept that in some cases the Bible just doesn't have an answer. You know, like infant baptism. The Bible just doesn't have an answer. Yet churches divide over this issue and both sides are convinced they are right. In my mind they have missed the point. " Which church is the one He reigns through? The Protestant one? The Catholic one? The Orthodox one? The Coptic one? The Church Universal and Triumphant? You can't answer that, so in effect you are saying that there is no clear authority. " You see, you missed it again. The Bible says there is only one church, one faith, one baptism. These are divisions of men. Scripture doesn't support this. Yet they carry their Bibles to battle over the issues that are not theirs to fight over. In my mind this is an abuse of the scriptures. It is using them for man's own glory, his own need to be right. "What if I attend a church that teaches the bodily resurrection never took place? Who are you to tell me that he is alive? " I can only appeal to the witness of those who were there. And yes, that is recorded in the scriptures. But you missunderstand me if you think that I am saying the scriptures are of no value. I am saying they should not be a crutch for our own pride. The battles over doctrine are nothing more than human pride. I know this discussion has been long winded and a little off course. You seem to think that I am against the Bible or something. I am not. I read it every day, attend several Bible studies, etc.. The topic of this discussion is Sola Scriptura. I believe the scriptures are inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Let's look at this word profitable. Here are the other two places it is used in scripture: 1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Niether of them mention scripture. They are more concerned with our behavior than our Biblical knowledge. |
||||||
23 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48860 | ||
"What is YOUR authority? And answer my question regarding infant baptism, citing your authority as the source." My authority is Jesus Christ. He is not dead, but He is alive and He reigns in and through His church. So the church is the physical manifistation of Christ on earth and therfore is the authority as it has been given by Him. Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The problem comes in because man's pride and insecurities still find their way in. The Bible to many people has become a crutch, kind of a security blanket. It is a scary thing to not have all the right answers, to have to trust in Christ when you just don't know if you are right or not. To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves. But we are justified by faith, not by being right. Can we proceed in faith even when we don't know the answers? I don't think we can begin to realize faith until we don't know the answers. As long as we hold tightly to our crutches, our sacred cows, we can never step out in faith. I honestly don't know the "right" answer regarding infant baptism. I believe it is acceptable, and I in fact prefer it. But the issue isn't whether it is right or not. I don't believe any denomination or sect of Christianity has the exclusive right answers. You listed a bunch of different groups. These could be likened to the Samaratins of Jesus' day. They had a resemblence to the true religion, but had been corrupted by the many pagen beliefs. Yet Jesus on several occasions used the Samaratins to convict the Jews. I wouldn't put down Mormons, because in my judging of them I have become worse than them. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by being right. Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not. That He is right when we are not. So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it. As far as the church goes, there are times when we are probably not right. But can we still trust that as the church, we are justified? |
||||||
24 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48845 | ||
"1) Are all writtings equally inspired? " Not sure what you mean by all writings. If I have a significant event in my life, and I later write a book about it, I could say that the event inspired the book. I guess the level of ispiriation is related to the person and the experience that thay had. Certainly Paul would qualify to write inspired text. The level of inspiredness is validated by the experience and the sources of the author. "2) If not, how do you decided which ones are inspired and which ones are not? " Like I said, it is largely due to the experience and position of the author. Inspired simply means that God has motivated poeple by His presence and His grace. In response people have written and acted out of gratitude and obedience. If you are changed, then I guess you could say you are inspired. |
||||||
25 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48844 | ||
"The problem is that one of us is wrong about what it says. " This is why the tree in the Garden is so important. I don't believe that it is necessarily a matter of who is right or wrong. It is a matter of submitting that human desire to be the judge. Suppose that you thaught infant baptism was wrong. But your church all of a sudden decided that it was going to practice this. What would you do? Is the question one of being right, or one of being submissive and obedient? I have stated that I am not a Catholic. But I believe that there should be one church. I think that the division is wrong, rooted in human pride and an unwillingness to submit. I am not pro-protestant or pro-catholic. These are divisions of men. The Bible can become a destructive tool when we use it as a means to promote our agendas, to feed our egos, to exclude and label people. This certainly is not the purpose of the scriptures. Sola Scritpura is a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. What it does is it gives every person the "authority" to decide for themsleves what is right. This is what we got kicked out of the Garden for. This choosing what is right doesn't unite people, it divides people. You say there is agreement that the Bible is true, and I agree with that as well. But I don't believe in it's sufficiency, because it isn't a matter of sufficiency, or right and wrong. It is a matter of one's pride and willingness to submit. |
||||||
26 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48842 | ||
Tim, Whether the tree is real or not isn't the issue. The tree (being the knowledge of good and evil) is very relevent to the story. If we miss the meaning of the tree, then I think we miss the meaning of the story. They didn't get kicked out of the garden because the disobeyed. They got kicked out because now that they had become like God (knowing good and evil) they must not be able to eat from the tree of life. The knowledge of good and evil is man's attempt to judge. The word for God means judge. When we take that role on for ourselves we are taking what is God's. He said eat from any tree except that one. This excersize may not seem like it has much to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but it does in the sense that if we don't read the Bible and take seriously what it says, then we can make up all kinds of doctrine to fit our needs. Sola Scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was an invention in response to the oppresion of the Catholic hierarchy. The reformers thought that if every man could read and decide for himself what the Bible said, then we would be free. But actually the opposite has happened. It turns out that everybody has their own interpretation and people impute all kinds of meaning into the scriptures that just isn't there. There are ove 30,000 protestant denominations in the world today. Sola Scriptura just hasn't been what the reformers dreamed that it would be. My suspicion is that if Luther couls see the state of the church today, he would second guess is beliefs. |
||||||
27 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48799 | ||
"Therefore, it is not far-fetched at all to assume that while there was no developed, grown plants of the field, that vegetative life existed prior to this point." I don't think I am taking this out of context. It does show my point very clearly though. It is not far-fetched to assume? Good way to study the Bible I'd say. Don't worry what it says, just assume. we can make it be anything we want it to. Actually it is my respect for the scriptures that causes me to continue to ask the question. You assume that which is a direct contradiction to what the scripture says, and then say I have no regard for the scripture. I demand for myself the truth of what the scripture says. There are plenty of ambiguities and dificult issues to resolve in the scriptures whithout adding our own assumptions. Sola Scriptura is an assumption because the Bible teaches it nowhere. While you say that you have provided plenty of evidence, all you have really given me is opinion and assumption. I am simply asking for some scripture that bears witness to this doctrine that seems so indefensible. And you have provided none of that. Book, chapter, verse? Telling us what the Bible is to be, and how it is exclusive and sufficient? That's all. And as for my knowledge of Catholic belief.. try again. I got it right from the horses mouth so to speak. You have demonstrated that you are willing to make assumptions to make your case. |
||||||
28 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48797 | ||
Joe, Maybe it's me, maybe I am just not getting the question across. Let's look at this real example. The church is clearly divided over the issue of infant baptism. Now you may have your belief, but if you say that the church has resolved this you are just out of touch with anything real. The Bible apparently isn't sufficient to resolve this issue. So how should it be resolved? You speak from the perspective that your beliefs are right because they are yor beliefs. But if someone who has studied the Bible disagrees with you, how can you say the scripture is sufficient? And the question still stands, where does the Bible speak of the 66 or more books that we call the bible, and where does it say that they are the exclusive and sufficient revelation of God? What prohecy was this? I haven't found it, and nobody I know has found it either. As far as I can tell you are just making that up. |
||||||
29 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48794 | ||
"The tree was simply a test of obedience." So you don't see the signifcance of the fact that the tree was called the knowledge of good and evil? You think this is just some useless extra information? Personally I think if that is the case you are missing the whole meaning of the story. The tree is signicant. They get kicked out of the Graden because they became like God by eating from this particular tree. Read it again. I think you are missing something. "But, the New Testament does recoginize, and deal with, the fact that only some books are God-breathed" Actually it says that "ALL" scripture is God breathed. Not just some of it. The question is of course what is scripture? Where does the Bible tell us what it is? You can't just say the Bible. Men wrote it and decided which books were in it. If you are going to say it is ordained by God which books are in it, show me where that ordination is? Where is the prophecy that there would be a New Testament with 27 books? |
||||||
30 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48594 | ||
"A normal reading would indicate that Gen. 1-2, like the rest of Genesis, is an historical account! This is why people are bothered by the term parable. " You make a reasonable point. But if we actually examine the text of the story, I guess I have to question it as being literal history. The imagery is quite fanciful and symbolic. Again, think about the meaning of these things. The tree of knowledge of good and evil. When you read about this tree, do you think that it is a literal tree? Is that the point of the story? Did God really want us to know that there is a tree somewhere that makes us to be like him? What about the serpent that must eat dust and crawl on his belly "all the days of his life"? I am not a science expert, but I am not convinced that is how the snake was created. And what happened to the Garden when the flood came? Did it get washed away and did the serpent die then? Didn't every creature on earth die except those in the ark? Do you think that it is possible to find the Garden somewhere? Is the Angel still there guarding the entrance? Has God allowed his paradise to vanish from the earth, and he didn't tell us? I curious, when do you think man became artistic? When did he learn to tell stories that express things without being literally true? Where did he learn to do this? From God, or somewhere else? But again, not to belabour a point... but still.. nobody has answered the question. Where in the Bible does it tell us anything about Bible? and where does it teach anything about Sola Scriptura? |
||||||
31 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48590 | ||
"The Genesis 1 account is chronological; the Genesis 2 account is not." I'm sorry, I guess my Bible didn't come with the official footnotes that tell me that. Chronoogical or not, it clearly says what day Adam was created in. Have you found it yet? ""2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum." " I don't mean to attack anybody, nor the authority of the Bible. I am willing to challenge the false beliefs about the Bible though. You know, like Sola Scriptura. I still haven't seen the scriptural evidence. Can anybody produce it? Why do you keep avoiding this question? How can you say you believe in the authority of the Bible when you desparately hang on to a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible. P.S. as for me not posting here... you don't have to respond. I'll stop this thread as soon as people stop responding. Why is it you think I should stop and not you? Again I turn your attention to the question at hand. |
||||||
32 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48574 | ||
"Well, why can't Jesus just be a parable, then?" Because I believe that the written eye witness testimonies (by those who gave their lives and who were empowered by Jesus to teach and baptize) that he was in fact the Son of God and did in fact rise from the dead. I am confused here. Can you tell me why you can't allow for parables and truth to coexist? I just don't get why the Garden story being a parable somehow destroys one's faith. |
||||||
33 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48573 | ||
"It does not follow that the truth is self-evident to all. The unregenerate have their eyes blinded to the truth, and God has gifted some individuals in the church with a higher degree of knowledge and discernment, while giving different gifts to other believers. " Then you are saying that the Bible itself is not sufficient? It needs some contribution from it's reader? Some kind of gifting? God given? Hmmm... Interesting. Is this gifting fond to be in certain members of the church and not others? Hmmm.... Interesting. So in effect, you are saying that God chooses people and gives them better ability to read and discern the scriptures than others do? Now the million dollar question. Are you one of the gifted ones? Am I? How does one tell who are the gifted ones and who are not? I think we are getting somewhere, but I dare not celebrate yet. |
||||||
34 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48572 | ||
Hank, let's think about this a minute. Suppose that you told me that you had hamburger for dinner one day. So, if I follow YOUR line of reasoning, am I to believe that you have hamburger every day? Don't be silly. If I did think the Garden story was a parable, that doesn't mean that I think all the stories are. How do you get to that reasoning? I also wasn't comparing the Garden story with Santa Claus and George Washington's cherry tree. I was tryng to make a point. One can teach, or convey truth using parables, metaphor, symbolism and a host of other literary tools. The use of these styles in no way validates or invalidates the truth of the message. The important part is the message. Now I think we are getting a little off topic here. The question still stands and I haven't seen any takers yet. Where in the Bible does it say anything about the Bible? How many books, which ones? how we are to determine that they are scripture? etc... Any takers? Oh, and Hank, take another look at the Garden story. There is some intersting things. Like for instance, God is walking and can't find them. What kind of God is that? He has leggs, and can't see through the trees. Also, what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil anyway? Tell me you think this is a literal tree and if we eat literal fruit from it we literally become like God. Oh, and the tree of life as well. If we eat from that tree we can live forever. Who needs Jesus, we can just eat form the tree. Or is Jesus the tree? Ooops. That was a clue. Second, the beasts and fowl were all created after Adam, where they were created before mankind in the first creation account. CONTRADICTION!!!!!!! Third, maybe you can take this as a homework assignment. What day was Adam created on? Wait.. it wasn't day six. The story tells us what day, and it definately wasn't day six. CONTRADICTION!!!! You see, the story doesn't hang together if it is literal. That is of course unless you just ignore what it really says. |
||||||
35 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48547 | ||
"If Adam is an allegory, then we can safely conclude that Jesus is as well. Your comparison to Hercules doesn't fit at all with Paul's arguments. " Not at all. You are real aren't you? Yet Hercules isn't. Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable. Sorry, you have proven nothing here except that you wish Adam to be a real person. Please, don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that I believe he wasn't a real person. But I find no problem with the idea that it is a parable. And I find no real evidence that it isn't. I do see that it was in the character of Jesus Christ to speak in parables and it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the Garden story is a parable. What I do find problematic is people's religous devotion to it being literally true. It seems that they can't have faith if it isn't. This causes me to wonder what their faith is in. Is it in Jesus Christ, or the idea that evolution is wrong. If I were to take a sample of evengelical mass media, and divided it into topics, I would be willingto bet that there is more about things like evolution and Israel and the land then there is about God's Grace through Jesus Christ. I am just wondering what the "church" is turning into. Let me ask you this; When you found out that George Washington didn't really cut down the cherry tree, did it cause you to think that telling the truth is no longer a good thing? When you found out that Santa Clause is not real, did it cause you to no longer think that giving is a good thing? I think this obsession with the "literal truth" stuff is clouding people's view of what is really true. The Garden story isn't there so that we believe it is a real story and can argue against evolution. It is there to show how man strives to have the knowledge of good and evil (to judge), and there by become like God. Yet God, though just, is merciful, and seeks reconciliation with his people. I'll ignore the stuff about the comforter for now since you obviously can't keep up with an argument that is beyond tit for tat contradiction. You totally missed what I was saying there. "Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that you let the church determine truth for you. Since you have said that you are not Roman Catholic, exactly WHICH church are you referring to as the arbiter of "your truth"? " This is a great question. I have studied for some time now the idea of authority. How do we know what we know and why do we believe what we believe. In other words, what is hype and what is not. When two Christians disagree, how do you know who is right? Or are they both wrong, or both right? I resent it when people assume that I, or others, are some how less Christian because we see something a little different than they do. This idea to me totally misses the point of Grace and who Jesus Christ is. Not to mention it shows a rose colored view of church history. Sometimes the facts just stare you right in the face and you can choose to ignore them, or accept them. Accepting them doesn't always leave you with a pat answer though. When we ignore them, we can make our answers fit nice and neat. |
||||||
36 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48484 | ||
"Is there any ambiguity in the One you worship? The one that is spoken of in parables is not the One that we worship. " I am confused by this. Are you saying that a parable and ambiguity are the samething? Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like.... and gives us several parables. Are you suggesting there is some question as to the truth of what he is saying because he used a parable? I'm not sure what you mean. |
||||||
37 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48482 | ||
" The Council of Nicea was not infallible, but they were right, and they used as their basis the authoritative writings of Scripture, and not merely human conjecture or opinion. " You must understand that the reason to have a council of Nicea, or any other council is becaue there was disagreement. You seem to think they all got together and just agreed on everything. But the bigger question is how do you know they were right? If others thought differently, how do you know they were wrong? Is it becaue of the council's decision. You say not. So I guess what you are doing is exhibiting the character of Sola Scriptura, which is I am right no matter what you say. Sola Scriptura is just a word for everybody interpret what they want and you are right if you say so. So I am right, and you are right, and we are all right. Because Sola Scriptura says that all truth is found in the Bible and it is self evident to whoever reads it. So if I read it and disgree with you we are by definition both right. But if we are both right, then the Bible contradicts itself. Ooops! we can't have that. Forget it, you are wrong and I am right. There, that's better. Sola Scriptura, it's great! |
||||||
38 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48479 | ||
"By making these statements, you have acknowledged that no written work is or ever can be God's final word. " No, not at all. I am saying that they are not flawlessly self evident. That the church has named a set of books as being inspired by God. The reality is that there are different lists. I don't have a problem with that. Some people do, so they deny the truth and glorify their own imaginations. They must, because they worship the Bible and there can't be any ambiguity in the one you worship. Yes, I am against Bible worship. I do believe it is inspired. I read and study it every day. I have no less than 7 translations that I read. I take what the Bible says very seriously. But if there is an ambiguity, or if God uses parables to make a point, I'm OK with that, because I don't worship it. If all my Bibles were destroyed and I was unable to read them anymore, I wouldn't lose anything of eternal value. Because I beleive in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and that He lives to day in and though His church. |
||||||
39 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48478 | ||
" The early lists were all in basic agreement and used similar critieria. The problem I have with the RCC list is which 'Church' was right, the one in the late 300's or the one in the 1500's? " I think that there were no fewer than 3 councils that had canon lists in the 4th century. They didn't all agree, so which one do you mean? Also, the first church historian, Eusebius,did not consider Revelation to be scripture, he didn't even believe that it was written by the apostle John. Jude was a book that was in some lists and not in others, Hebrews as well. In fact, Hebrews, by todays standards for canonization doesn't make the cut because we don't know the author. As I mentioned before, there were different version of the Old Testament as well depending on if you were of the Palestinian or Alexandrian persuasion. You say that these apocryphal books were not recognized, and I agree people disagred about it. But the simple fact that it was in the scriptures says that it wasn't some kind of fly by night fad. Especially when Jerome himself didn't recognize them as being inspired. He still incuded them in the Vulgate. Somebody thought they belonged there. It may have a lot to do with the fact that they were in the Septuagint. But my point is that people look through rose colored glasses. There wasn't all this automatic agreement that people seem to think. I think that people have trouble dealing with ambiguity. They don't like the idea that there isn't some kind of solid "correct" list that has God's stamp on it. So they deny the truth. You see, if the Bible is your God, it must be everything you want it to be. If Christ is your God, as long as it points to him, it's good enough. |
||||||
40 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48460 | ||
Tim, Very well put, and in fact that is my point. It is the church that recognizes the scripture. The scripture doesn't come with some kind of angelic seal that marks it as such. It is though usage, application, and revelation that we come to accept something as being inspired. But the authority to make this recognition, I believe, has been given to the church. So now we have a dilema. Part of the church says one thing, and part of the church says another. Many of the early church fathers quoted the apocryphal books as if they were scripture. Paul even makes refernce to the practice of being baptized for the dead. John even says that there are many more things that Jesus did that are not recorded in his gospel. If the RCC says that these books are scripture, by what authority would you argue against that? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |