When Mark Jacobson aka Jake aka Bubbaguy first joined us on Sermonindex I almost left. Not because of Jake but because of the reaction I got when I opposed Jake. To some, I was unkind and uncaring and not exhibiting a Christian spirit in that I was not welcoming to a brother. There may still be some who feel similar, and wonder why I resist his posts with such determination. Well it all has to do with 'authority'. In fact the most important discussions in Christianity always have to do with authority.The chief priests and elders challenged Christ with the words of the title of this thread in Matthew 21. They knew that the vital question had to do with authority. The centurion whose faith Christ commended recognised that Christ was working under authority, and received a greatest commendation; I have not seen this kind of faith in Israel. (Luke 7) Faith is obeying or putting our trust in authority.And yet all Christians know that God gives them insights by micro-revelations of truth, and that a mere slavish adherence to 'facts' is not biblical Christianity. The body without the Spirit is dead; so is the scripture. How do we balance these truths?I have applied for permission to quote extensively from an excellent book written for people who have begun to think about their faith. Know the Truth written by Bruce Milne. In this concise handbook Bruce Milne summarizes in masterly fashion what the Bible teaches in the major areas of Christian doctrine (the Bible, God, humanity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church and the last things). He explains the historical understanding of these truths from the early church to the present, highlighting denominational and theological differences where appropriate. In addition, he offers for each doctrine a thorough listing of Scripture passages, questions to stimulate further reflection and study, and a bibliography. If you buy it from this link sermonindex will get a cut.It really is an excellent start for people who are beginning to think about their faith. Very accessible to the newest 'thinker'. If I get permission to quote I will post some of the main points here and try to expand them. Watch this space! or better still, start thinking and asking the questions now.
By what authority?
Amen... I'm with ya bro. I've had my "confrontations" w/ this person you speak of both privately and publicly. I love this person, and pray God opens his eyes to the MANY falicies of his arguments.Krispy
Just to add some historicity and clarity.Indeed this is true and again brings opportunity to advance the suggestion of mining back through the earlier postings from the old stalwarts around here.Lest anyone be mistaken about intent of these matters, of 'naming of names' and so forth. To malign needlessly, to tear down or to exalt one above another here is not the point nor the spirit of those who follow the Lord out of a pure heart. That is not to say that we all hold to this in perfection. That is not to say that will not happen as we become agitated over deeply held or felt convictions.But we ought to be quick to forgive and ask for forgiveness when we do fail. And we ought to not shy away from exposing error when it is found. Nor is 'naming of names' inappropriate if we are to try and lessen the affront to those who are being mislead by couching it into a generality.It is inappropriate if it is but to cause divisionand stems from some fleshly desire to exalt ourselves.This doesn't make any of us higher in the chain of knowledge in the respect to persons, it's a level field at the foot of the cross.A related thread if you are interested in past history (It's quite a volume!)Evolution proof?
Wow...quite a volume is right! I generally love evolution/creation threads but I took one look at that one and almost wet my pants... 8-)
crsscheck: thanks for putting up the evolution proof link. ron: Authority comes from the Holy Spirit, here in the present. As the SI lead thesolonians quote says: "test everything, hold onto the good." The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present. From your perspective the literal Scriptures hold more weight. My perspective is that we should look to both, but that the Holy Spirit of Christ in the present should hold sway over ancient texts that have been reinterpreted and translated through several languages over thousands of years. Scripture is vitally important, but the end authority remains with Jesus' presence here today in the form of the Spirit.bubbaguy
The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present.Jake,This is not only a false statement but quite dangerous as well. This statement actually makes the person the final authority and places him in a position to be the judge of what is right and what is wrong. 1. Scripture validates our experience and not the other way around. 2. We know who the Holy Spirit is because of the revelation of God's word. The discernment and certainty that the Holy Ghost is present is due to that revelation from the word. If not then the person's experience has become the final authority of what is true and what is not. That problem goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.3. If a person rejects a part of scripture and accepts some, he has placed himself above the word of God. Man's difficulty in understanding scriptures doesn't invalidate its truthfulness. Neither is its seeming contradictions.4. Scripture is absolute in its authority. It is inerrant and infallible. The fact that the bible has been interpreted a thousand times cannot nullify its inherent authority.I know you don't agree with the above but your (or my) denial or approval doesn't nullify the authority of God's word either. It stands forever. I thank God that He doesn't make mistakes, cannot contradict Himself and can never tell a lie.In Christ,Rey
The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present.Even tho they will never admit it... this is what most in the WOF movement do. This is a recipe for very serious error. We see it everywhere today.Krispy
Rey, I appreciate your point of view. Yet, what you say in point three is not right.3. If a person rejects a part of scripture and accepts some, he has placed himself above the word of God. Man's difficulty in understanding scriptures doesn't invalidate its truthfulness. Neither is its seeming contradictions.God gave us intellegence and reasoning and spiritual awareness. If something seems wrong and you examine it in the Light, and it still seems wrong, then it would be a sin against God to ignore it. God gave us intelligence and reasoning abilities for good purpose.I fear that believing Christians can be led astray through the literal interpretation of the Bible, while ignoring the presence of the Holy Spirit. For example. Many people believing in the near time return of Christ and the imminent end of times are likely to make irrational decisions that negatively affect others. SUch as ignoring environmental pollution that threatens the earth God gave us and seriously injures people and creatures (or wipes them out entirely) This is a sin against God and others caused by a false belief that comes out of Biblical fundamentalism. Bubbaguy
I fear that believing Christians can be led astray through the literal interpretation of the Bible, while ignoring the presence of the Holy Spirit. For example. Many people believing in the near time return of Christ and the imminent end of times are likely to make irrational decisions that negatively affect others. SUch as ignoring environmental pollution that threatens the earth God gave us and seriously injures people and creatures (or wipes them out entirely) This is a sin against God and others caused by a false belief that comes out of Biblical fundamentalism. You're really reaching with that one. I don't know any believer who fits that description. So us some hard evidence of what you're talking about.Krispy
Jake writes:I fear that believing Christians can be led astray through the literal interpretation of the Bible, while ignoring the presence of the Holy Spirit. For example. Many people believing in the near time return of Christ and the imminent end of times are likely to make irrational decisions that negatively affect others.Fear often distorts judgment. (Gal 2:12) The possibility of people misusing truth is no reason to reject the truth they are misusing.
bubbaguy wrote:The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present. Thats taking for Granted that the "holy spirit" is indeed the Spirit of the Word and not any other spirit.If that is the way you are going to think use this scripture as a measuring rod.1Jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2\tHereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3\tAnd every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.We as humans have such a limited understanding of spiritual matters our perception of aparent 'truths' can lead to deception. We now see through a glass darkly. We know in part and prophesy in part. It is admirable to be totally 'lead' by the Spirit. The questions arises are you following the right 'Spirit'?
"They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and they said to them, 'you have taken too much for yourselves, for the entire nation is comprised of holy individuals, and G-d dwells among them - why, then, have you lifted yourselves above the Congregation of G-d?'" [16:3]This is what Korach and his group said to Moshe and Aaron. And you know what? For much of what he said, Korach was right: the Jewish people are indeed a holy nation, designated to serve G-d. All of us have a connection to G-d as human beings, and the Jewish people have a special responsibility and special connection as His Nation, the recipients of His Torah. As Korach put it in the original holy tongue, all of the nation are"Kedoshim," which means holy and also distinct, designated. We have a purpose to fulfil.This, however, does not mean that we have no need for guidance. To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct makes no sense. We need guidance, and teaching.The best way to learn to use or program a computer is to simply try various things, with a manual close at hand. If something doesn't work, you just try something else. This approach works well because computers provide instant feedback -- if something doesn't work, you know very quickly. In addition, assuming you are working on a development platform, there are no major consequences if something fails. Do-it-yourself learning is a fine approach -- yet even so, one always benefits when we can ask advice ofothers with greater expertise.Now imagine trying to learn to practice medicine the same way. If someone came in with a serious ailment, we would simply try one medicine after the other until one appeared to work. How many patients would die before we got it right? The feedback is not fast enough, and the consequences of wrong decisions are too grave, to attempt such an approach. In medicine, careful training and expert guidance are that much more important. One who approached this field with the arrogance of a hacker would be a murderer!In spiritual matters, we are not sufficiently in touch with the higher realms to recognize immediate feedback from our actions. According to Jewish thought, there are certainly immediate ramifications. When we domitzvos, we create angels. But, and this is very important, we don't see them. We don't know.Are we doing G-d's will, or not? How do we know? The answer, of course, is through our teachers. The Torah guides us, but the Torah's wisdom is locked in a chain of tradition. If everyone decides how he or she will interact with G-d, then the result is no dialogue, but a monologue. Such a person ends up worshipping himself.The Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avos, teach us [1:6]: "Yehoshua ben Prachya says: make a teacher for yourself." This even precedes acquiring a friend or partner in learning and growth. Rabbeinu Yonah explains in his commentary that you should even acquire a teacher if you know as much as he. _Make_ someone your teacher nonetheless, he says, for a person is more likely to remember that which he has been taught, and may find that the other party has better understood a topic.Moshe and Aharon did not lift themselves up; rather, G-d placed them in that position. The nation needed teachers, and we need teachers and guidance today, in order to rise to our full potential.
ZekeO wrote:"To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct makes no sense." You are right about this. This is called Ranterism. Quaker reject this entirely. Read about it here.http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.htmlBub
Thanks ZekeO,Well said on teachers. Do feel that is in large part what is done here through the messages available as well as in this forum amongst ourselves.What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?
bubbaguy wrote:This is called Ranterism. Quaker reject this entirely. Are you a quacker?Outward forms of religion were rejected. Even the Bible was not the Word of God. Are you sure youre not a Ranterist?
crsschk wrote:What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?Just some online Torah teachings. I find their practical wisdom refeshing.
The 'Quakers' always had a 'lunatic fringe'. (so do evangelicals, Jake, before you blow your top) So did the reformation; not all Anabaptists were reliable either!Jake will probably answer your question with a 'yes'. It is not true. He is an adherent of a pseudo-quakerism which would have been denounced by Fox and Barclay. Pseudo-quakerism pushed past the barriers of scripture that Fox and Barclay embraced and is now adrift on an ocean of infinite speculation where it often resembles Buddhism with a Christian vocabulary more than the faith once delivered to the saints.Jake rejects the necessity of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ. I have still to get him to confess that Jesus Christ is 'God come in the flesh'. He will say he believes that Christ is God and that God was in Christ, but so far he will not say the God became a human in Christ; his language seems to lean towards the idea that Christ's being God is only different to our being God in measure not in kind. He does not believe in the personality of Satan. He believes that mankind's original sin was his turning from vegitarianism, but then the Bible is a lucky dip for Jake. If it agrees with him he believes in it.This all probably sounds hard, but I bear Jake no ill will and have never yet been cross or angry with him. I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation. His supreme folly is that his inner witness confirms these notions to him and that for Jake is the end of the matter. His supreme authority is himself. I have called this idolatry and see no reason to change my opinion thus far.
philologos wrote:I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation. May I add that this is a public place, which is in its nature a radically Christian voice for truth.
ZekeOI will let James Naylor speak for me."There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to avenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thought to any other: if it be betrayed, it bears it; for its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love unfeigned, and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind."You misunderstand. The Bible is the word of God as recorded by fallible men (and women) and handed down through the ages. What Naylor speaks to on his death bed (after suffering unimaginable tortures because of his Quaker faith) is the Inner Light of the Holy Ghost as foretold by Jesus. The collective experience of Quakers over the ages, represented by such testimonies, is a tribute to God's presence in the here and now.bubbaguyPS. to Ron. Fox rejected and betrayed Naylor.
Hi JakeNow I know you had rejected Barclay, but now I see you turn your back on George Fox too. I once sent you a copy of Naylor's testimony and it has pride of place in my study, but Naylor rode into Bristol on the back of a donkey,with women scattering leaves before him, to show that he had the Christ-spirit. He was a gentle fool who brought the gospel into disrepute.Fox distanced himself from Naylor for the sake of the truth. Naylor's suffering was at the instigation of Downing (the man that Downing Street is named after) not Fox. I don't believe that even Naylor would have spoken 'for you'. These men, even Naylor, had a love and respect for the scriptures which is totally lacking in pseudo-quakerism.
bubbaguy wrote:You misunderstand. The Bible is the word of God as recorded by fallible men (and women) and handed down through the ages. Youre right I don't understand, which is it the word of God (God cannot lie) or is it the word of fallible men? What Naylor speaks to on his death bed is the Inner Light of the Holy Ghost as foretold by Jesus. With all due respect to Mister Naylor he only paints one picture of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' own words: And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:Jhn 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; Jhn 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Jhn 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. The collective experience of Quakers over the ages, represented by such testimonies, is a tribute to God's presence in the here and now.That is not what I am disputing with you. My issue is how can you believe every spirit?
Sounds like old gnostic beliefs to me, y'all.Krispy
I dont want to see anyone knockin' the Quakers... they have really good oatmeal.Krispy
KrispyKrittr wrote:I dont want to see anyone knockin' the Quakers... they have really good oatmeal.As a non American with a limited grasp of your culture, were they the ones who started that?
Ron, Naylor rode the donkey in imitation of Christ. A kind of demonstration to the religious authorities. Fox was a great man and I have great respect for him. But he was a sinner as well.Jesus was God on earth. This is mystery that no one can really comprehend. (limited minds and all) His perfect blood sacrifice offers redemtion for those who claim and believe it.But the scriptures say, among other things that are clearly wrong, that anyone who divorces their spouse for any other cause than adultery will go to hell, no matter WHAT. NO POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. ITS AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN!!!Do you believe this?Bub
bubbaguy wrote:But the scriptures say, among other things that are clearly wrong, that anyone who divorces their spouse for any other cause than adultery will go to hell, no matter WHAT. NO POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. ITS AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN!!!Do you believe this?Well maybe I'm just lazy but I can't seem to find that verse anywhere in the bible that says that, so based upon my search, no I don't believe this. The capitals I presume are because you feel quite passionate about this. I mean 'unforgivable sin' thats harsh, whoever told you that it seems has brought a great weight upon you. And I mean that with all sincerity.
Some questions for you...Jake writes:But the scriptures say, among other things that are clearly wrong, that anyone who divorces their spouse for any other cause than adultery will go to hell, no matter WHAT. NO POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. ITS AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN!!!Which scripture is that?"Jesus was God on earth" Jake, was Jesus Christ "God come in human form"? Ron, Naylor rode the donkey in imitation of Christ. A kind of demonstration to the religious authorities. A demonstration of what?
according to Matt. anyone who divorces another without the cause of adultery as justification and then marries another commits adultery against the former spouse, AND does so unrepentently for the rest of their lives (as long as they remain married to the second.)
Bubbaguy, I have found that discussing the Bible with you is harder than trying to nail Jell-o to the wall. You never stay on point, and once someone seemingly corners you on something you jump over to something else without finishing the other argument. Your arguments are all smoke screens. You'd make a great Jehovah's Witness!I dont think you know what you believe. Your so bent on convincing yourself you're a believer without actually believing.You've told me over and over again that Jesus is your savior, but I say that many shall come to Him on that day and say "Lord Lord...", and His response to them will be less that favorable.You mock faith in the Bible, yet the Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God. You're not going to like this... but you are seriously deceived by your own intellect, and I am very concerned for your soul.Krispy
As a non American with a limited grasp of your culture, were they the ones who started that?LOL... no, there is a brand of oatmeal here in the good ol' US of A that is called "Quaker Oatmeal". I believe it's the top selling brand.Personally... I prefer grits over oatmeal.Excuse me while I run to Shoney's and get me some grits w/butter!Krispy
bubbaguy wrote:according to Matt. anyone who divorces another without the cause of adultery as justification and then marries another commits adultery against the former spouse, AND does so unrepentently for the rest of their lives (as long as they remain married to the second.)Lets just ignore that passage. 8-) Gee, talk about taking the fifth left after the second right after the first bend. :-?
You know it seems to me (I may be wrong and if so PLEASE correct me on this)Bubbaguy that you are constantly trying to stir up some mess on one part of the forum or another. attempting to vex our spirits by your foolishness. You know the truth, and yet you try ever so hard to discredit it. In Hebrews says that the bible is sharper than ANY two-edged sword, which cuts and separates joints from marrow, soul and spirit and even discerns the deepest intents of the hearts of men. You heart is not set on God your heart is set on dicrediting Him which is what the enemy is trying to do. The enemy is upon you and using you to spew his venom to poison some of the believers. If you do not realize this and adress it accordingly it will cost you your soul and that is the bottom line. it's up to you Bub
You know it seems to me (I may be wrong and if so PLEASE correct me on this)Bubbaguy that you are constantly trying to stir up some mess on one part of the forum or another. attempting to vex our spirits by your foolishness. You know the truth, and yet you try ever so hard to discredit it. In Hebrews says that the bible is sharper than ANY two-edged sword, which cuts and separates joints from marrow, soul and spirit and even discerns the deepest intents of the hearts of men. You heart is not set on God your heart is set on dicrediting Him which is what the enemy is trying to do. The enemy is upon you and using you to spew his venom to poison some of the believers. If you do not realize this and adress it accordingly it will cost you your soul and that is the bottom line. it's up to you BubWow... yea... what IRONMAN said... I'm down with that.Krispy
according to Matt. anyone who divorces another without the cause of adultery as justification and then marries another commits adultery against the former spouse, AND does so unrepentently for the rest of their lives (as long as they remain married to the second.)I think you need to read this again and think about it before jumping to conclusions based on your personal interpretations. The Matthew 5 and 19 passages are much more intricate than you are giving them credit for.Shall I keep on asking this next question until you answer it, or are you going to come out into the open and admit that you have no intention of answering it?Jake, was Jesus Christ "God come in human form"? I suspect that you are believing in deification of the human, rather than incarnation of the divine. Why not put me out of my suspense and answer the question?
Ron asks:Jake, was Jesus Christ "God come in human form"?Ron, Absolutely, yes. Jake
I just call it like I see it...we don't have time to be messing around with or wasting. We ALL need to get right with God or we have big problems...something is on the verge of happenning, things are moving and shaking in the spiritual realm...keep watch
... I've got my popcorn.Oh, and my Quaker oatmeal too... I'm ready!Krispy
So this must be incarnation. Not the man Jesus developing into deity, but God becoming incarnate in a moment of time within the womb of Mary. Now how could this possibly occur without a virgin birth?Ron asks:Jake, was Jesus Christ "God come in human form"?Ron, Absolutely, yes. Jake;
You know God can do anything, Ron. He didn't even need Mary for this purpose, but could have produced Him out of thin air.My problem with the virgin birth is a big, SO WHAT? I'm not impressed.Several religious figures throughout history have been claimed by adherents to be born of a virgin. Kirshna, for one. This is clearly a practice that religions used to beef up their claims about their spiritual leaders supposed diety. SO, it doesn't matter one way or another. Its not something I hang my faith on.Bub
You know God can do anything, Ron. He didn't even need Mary for this purpose, but could have produced Him out of thin air.This shows you have no idea of the nature of substitution and the kinsman redeemer. He could not have produced him out of thin air because he would not then have been our kinsman and consequently would have been disqualified as our substitute. But then you don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement either do you?If Christ was not virgin born who was his father? You are faced with one of two blasphemies. The record is very plain that Mary was not married so either he was Joseph's bastard or his father is unknown and Mary a promiscuous disgrace. Which of these options do you prefer?You show by your statements that you hold Christianity's documents to be no more reliable or inspired than those of demonic origin. How can you compare the abomination of Krishna with the Holy Son of God?