Menu

How Do We Define Sound Teaching?

M
Martyr

Hi! My question is "How do we define sound teaching?"

What authority do we appeal to in order to know if a teaching is true or not? I ask this because it seems to me every christian claims guidance by the Holy Spirit into truths and yet I have not met two Christians yet who agree on everything.

I also see, when two Christians meet with differing views, at least one of them will harbor the thought that the other Christian "isn't there yet".

Because we are not Catholic we cannot look to the organized church to define our teaching for us.

We can claim the bible will show us sound teaching but again I would like to point out the extreme disharmony between believers and how strongly interpretation plays into that. Look at the doctrine of original sin, even on these boards people have completely differing views on the very foundation of why we need salvation in the first place. I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith.

An objection I hear to the disharmonious christians is that "it's just the small stuff." But didn't Christ call us to be one MIND? How then are there so many different minds in Christianity?

Do we appeal to the men on this site as an authority? I don't see any Catholic priests on here, I guess none fit the "standard" (the one I'm calling into question). But not even the ones the died for Christ? Or what about Joyce Meyer? What standard does she not meet? (Certainly not mine, I just picked a name as an example)

WHAT STANDARD ARE WE GOING BY? And again, if you say the bible I must ask whose interpretation then are we going by?

It truly seems like we "are all like sheep gone astray" and "each man does what is right in his own eyes."

----: Re-reading this it appears to me I might seem hostile. I am not looking for a fight, just an answer. This seems to me to be a big problem in christendom and I would love to hear some thoughts on the matter.

D
dolfan

I risk being misunderstood or being incomprehensible here. I hope neither.

Absent the bond of fellowship (in person) and the self-denying love of one another, it seems to me we can't be sound. Outside of that context, teaching that goes deep into us is probably not going to happen. If it doesn't transform us, it is not sound. Can we even define it? Can we, here, in an online forum, really nail it down?

I am made firm, complete and rooted in the truth of Scripture in the context of the assembly of believers. Not that I do not comprehend truth outside the assembly, but I do not comprehend it "soundly" and deeply and transformatively otherwise, or at least not often.

J
JFW

Brother Tyler,

You've touched on a vital subject and I believe you're honest in your inquiry. While I prayerfully pondered this question, it seems there are many answers that could be given tho the simple one (for me) is this; it's a heart issue. A heart that loves the truth and seeks to submit to it and obey it will always find it. We always find what we seek don't we? And in this seeking and finding the truth of our intent is revealed. For example, do we really seek righteousness or just to be right? As a motivation, these two are inherently incompatible. I have a brother that is well studied in the scriptures and for a while lived a holy life, full of joy and contentment, marked by grace and faithfulness, a kind and loving soul. Tho along the way the focus shifted and during a difficult season he began to exhibit tendencies of wanting to be justified (right) in what he was doing rather than being justified by resting in what Christ has already done. Honestly it is one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed. Now if someone attempts to point out the inconsistencies, he becomes defensive and aggressively so. You guessed it, people stopped trying to point it out directly to him and rather just pray/intercede on his behalf. And you wanna know what I see when I look at him?.... Me, I see me,... because we all have blind spots don't we? I mean I can see his quite clearly but that makes me all the more aware that I have some too, that I can't see. Isn't that true of us all? Which is why I agree with brother Tim in that we need other members of Christs body to minister to us, to pray for us, to correct us and gently so. Without the fellowship of an assembly we will, in most cases, get off the way and get tangled up in the semantics of our own subjectivity. Having said this we can't rely upon the assembly but rather upon God, and His work in and thru the assembly as well as how He disciplines us and leads us privately in our personal fellowship with Him. Even in this context there still exists the possibility of getting it wrong on certain matters,... just look at the 7 letters to the churches in Revelations- only one was without rebuke or correction, meaning as the rest had some blind spots. But look at how Jesus was faithful to bring their attention to these "wrong doctrines" and not only gave space for repentance but also specific direction on how to get back into "sound doctrine/practice", surely He does the same for us if our heart is right before Him.

In any case I hope this is a fruitful inquiry as I believe it to potentially make a real difference, if that's true then we can be sure the enemy has a vested interest in stirring up trouble and causing confusion. So I pray we'd all be mindful there's far more at stake here than our desire to "be right" and somehow win what Christ has already won by His righteousness:)

P
proudpapa

RE /// ...and yet I have not met two Christians yet who agree on everything.///

For now we see through a glass, darkly


RE : /// I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith.///

The Writings in the New Testament they are Scripture.

As with the Old Testament, so is the New :

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Writings of the church Fathers are not inspired.

The New Testament is,
And as Peter Pointed out about Pauls Writings, so are the rest of the Writings in the New Testament : they are Scripture.

How did Jesus read the Scriptures of His day ?

He paid attention to even the minute details including the very tense of a verb.
He
said to the Sadducees :

"Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

This is how Jesus proved the Resurrection of the dead
using the Scriptures :

"have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"

Because the Scriptures said " I am " rather than saying "I was"
Was what Jesus used to prove that the Scriptures taught the Resurrection of the Dead.


clarity

S
sermonindex

Most important topic! I try to share a few simple thoughts.
In simple terms I believe that God has given us Scripture to make one "wise for salvation" and then to equip us for ministry. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 also Ephesians 4:11-14
Therefore if a teacher is does not "equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ..." then I'm already very careful. Also if someone gives exclusive interviews and then promotes his DVD with his latest end time ideas I'm not wasting my time listening.

Another point, Paul wrote; "Though I am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to illuminate for everyone the stewardship of this mystery, which for ages past was hidden in God, who created all things.…Ephesians 3:8

A teacher should be able to give us a deeper understanding of the riches of Christ, a deeper desire to read scripture and to pray.

This is just a very short summary of what I'm trying to say.

H
Heydave

Martyr,

Quote" I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith."


Proudpapa has well stated the error in your thinking here, but I would like to add something...
If your statement above is true, then you are left with either a situation 'where everyone does as seems right in his own eyes" as per the book of Judges, or you have some ecclesiastical authority that claims to be THE truth as per the RC Pope.

To clarify, the New Testament is, together with the OT the word of God given to men to (as John puts it) "believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that believing you should have life in His name".
The NT is 'Scripture'. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 regarding the scriptures, "they are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

M
Martyr

Thank you all for responding!! The problem I have with bible being the authority is it is so easily subject to different interpretations and view. It is not something that can be a solid standard, only an interpretation of it can be solid. There is no consensus on what any verse means. So if the scriptures make one wise how is it that this wisdom (which surely must be a standard) is so radically different per person? Someone quoted that we see in a glass darkly, but shouldn't we be seeing the same thing if we are all looking at the same word and the same Christ? Paul urged us to be of one mind in Christ, so it must have been how the early church was. Perhaps the Roman Heirarchy isn't an evil idea? Many of the church fathers attest to it.

A topic to explore my question: the apocrypha. Most of us do not recognize the apocryphal writings however many of the church fathers did and so did the church until Luther. Even after it was still accepted until the church of England took a stand against it. So then, if the bible is an authority, which one? If you say the current 66 bible most of us are now using then you admit to the authority of the church of England, an authority none of us (to my knowledge) recognizes. We can defend our 66 book bible but none of us made that decision, others did long ago and now we accept it and defend it.

There is a problem here. We are the fruits of decisions made long ago for us in thought and doctrine and many things we accept and defend as being "part of the faith" may have been ideas of men and these ideas over time were accepted and then over time made the "way it is" and anything else is heretical. Who can search through 2000 years of history to find the truth apart from our 2000 year influenced minds and feelings? Does anyone else think it might be very important to do that? How else will we know we stand on TRUTH and not bias?

D
dolfan

Martyr, question. How long have you been a Christian? Because I think the questions you are asking indicate a developmental stage in your faith and walk. I would lie if I said I did not once have similar questions. Yet, I look back and know where I was in my Christian growth then. I have other questions I wrestle now. I think one day I might look back again and think, "Boy, I am thankful the Lord lead me through those minefields and pits I did not even see and not letting me blow myself up or fall away."

P
proudpapa

I understand your discouragement ( I can definitely relate)
But I disagree with your conclusion.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

In other words Faith is the inward certainty on things that can not be simply proven by things of sight.

I know that The Scriptures are true because they resonate with my spirit that they are indeed true.

Many people suppress the Truth that they hold.

Because they hold the truth deep down, is why they are guilty.

So when dealing with an athiest we have lost the battle if we try to argue or convince him of things intellectually or of sight.

So we appeal to his conscience that we know also holds truth.

Now Christians have an 'unction from the Holy One, and... know all things.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

At the same time we also see through a glass darkly,

That is we do not always intellectually recognize the truth that we know . even as Christians

And so that is why I like reading/listening to Preachers such as Spurgeon because They often times will say something that resonates with me as truth that I always deep down new but intellectually did not relieze.

But sometimes what they say does not resonate as truth and that is where the discerning becomes difficult

So we are on a constant journey of discovering truth that we deep down know.

What hinders this , It is when we bring our conscience under the Subjection of other men. Other men are to point us to our Head they are not to serve as or cover over our Head.

The divisions and problems through out church history has been because leaders and teachers have so often not pointed people to there Head but instead have served as the head themselves and have covered over other mens heads.

Read first Cor real careful , Paul talks about this subject throughout that Book.


clarity


M
Martyr

I was born again in 2011. The problem is I have never received a satisfactory answer to these questions. I feel we as Christians sweep things under the rug to preserve our sense of security in our faith. I don't want that, I want the Truth of the matter. I see a lot of untruth (according to Christ and the scriptures) within the church. I refuse to feed upon that without knowing where it comes from.

I see what your saying with these being developmental questions, they have been with me for some time now because I have yet to meet someone that can answer them (thinking specifically of the apocrypha post and the source of our beliefs). I know the answers Google gives for how protestants defend their faith but they all seem stretched and very "convenient" to their beliefs and to what they were taught. But if we are taught something then we will see it, how then can we ever claim to see clearly? What If they are wrong? Too much is subjective.

P.s I refer to protestants in the third person, I am not Catholic but I am making that distinction.

P
proudpapa

I do not think that this will produce faith in someone who doubts but I believe it can strengthen many peoples faith in Gods Sovereign hand on the Scriptures.

There are 66 books in the Bible there are 66 chapters in Isaiah.

Some have shown parallels of themes between each chapter of Isaiah and each book of the Scripture

One example

The New Testament is the 40th Book of the Bible, So we go to the 40th Chapter of Isaiah

we go to verse 3 and it says :

" The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

That was the 3rd verse of the 40th Chapter of Isaiah

Now we go to the 3rd verse of the 3rd chapter of the 40th Book of the Bible :

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

M
Martyr

Proudpapa,this completely and perfectly reflects what I said in my last post here. You have a pre conceived belief and because of that you see things to defend your belif deespite the complete illogic of the reasoning to get there. There are not 66 chapters in the book of Isaiah, a Catholic priest subdivided it that way. A Catholic priest that most certainly held to the apocrypha.

Even if there was, what does that prove?? Are you suggesting that God had the Catholic priest divide it that way just so Luther's bible (after much debating about what books he wanted in and out such as Jude and James) could be justified? Doesn't that seem a bit too convenient and very very illogical?

I don't want to sound mean but that is an absurd way of thinking. Christ is Logos, reasoning, logic. That just doesn't make sense.

M
Martyr

This thread was not made to discuss the apocrypha but I would like to because it gets to the meat of what I'm trying to get at. We stand upon a foundation of other men and accept those teachings as true despite not knowing the source and motivations behind those teachings. If we do not see what we are standing on how can we be sure it's of Christ? And if it's not we are not in truth no matter how much we deceive ourselves and no matter how we feel we are with God. This is a big problem. And we wonder why revival hasn't come! Can a plant with a bad root be made well?? Where do we come from?

Every plant that the father has not planted will be plucked up by the roots. Are our roots HIM or were they planted by those who came before us?

T
TMK

Tyler- I know where you are coming from but it is an exercise in futility. There has always been disagreement on scripture interpretation, even among the earliest church fathers. There is no "gold standard" to go to.

You have simply trust that if you read scripture God will lead you to the truth. So it is indeed a faith issue.

Personally, I like Bible teachers who, when teaching, point out the various differing views and the pros and cons (based on scriptural support) of each view. Steve Gregg is very good at this. He will say which view he thinks is correct, but also admits he could be wrong so he never comes across as overly dogmatic.

Thankfully most disputing is not over "life or death" issues.

P
proudpapa

I am content with the answers I gave.

What is your answers to the questions that you pose ?

add : RE /// Even if there was, what does that prove?? Are you suggesting that God had the........///

I am suggesting that the Scriptures are inspired.
And that the nature that they testify of themselves is true.


M
Martyr

TMK- I think its more futile to stay in ignorance and yet ask God to send us a revival.

Proudpapa - I don't know, all I know is within my church and the protestant movement at large there is an aptitude for blind acceptance of teachings from dubious sources (while other more credible ones are discarded). When people don't have reasoning they cite faith. Christ is logic, Christ is reason. I am not an anarchist, I believe in the authority of the prophet within the church (are there any left?) But everyone has their own agenda and no one seems willing to take the truth anywhere except where it's comfortable. But Christ is truth and he DAY will tell whether or not our foundation was on Christ or the teachings of men.

T
TMK

Who said anything about staying in ignorance?

Study the scriptures like a madman- just realize that someone else studying the same scriptures like a madman may reach some different conclusions. Nothing to panic about.

The important thing: what did the HS reveal to YOU?

P
proudpapa

RE : /// I don't know ///

You mock others for what they believe but you offer no alternative answers ??

M
Martyr

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I'm not panicking over that. Im saying our way of viewing has been eskewed by those who came before us and we are unwilling to reexamine ourselves and what we believe in truth. That is why I brought up the apocrypha because it's a good example of this.

M
Martyr

Guys thanks for responding and for your insight. I think I'm done here

S
Sree


An objection I hear to the disharmonious christians is that "it's just the small stuff." But didn't Christ call us to be one MIND? How then are there so many different minds in Christianity?

I apologize for getting into this argument late. No where does God want us to agree with our fellow brother on every matter. Unity does not mean agreement. Only agreement that is needed to be united in Spirit is to have Christ as our head. If I find another fellow Christian who wants Christ to be his head then I can easily fellowship with him. The problem comes when they hold man made theology as their head!

My right hand and left hand are totally opposite to one another. Still they beautifully work together in my body. It is because they are all connected to my head. Same way in a body of Christ, if we agree to have Christ as our head then there will always be unity of spirit.


My question is "How do we define sound teaching?"

To me a sound teaching will lead me to Christlikeness. It will show all unchristlikeness inside me and will lead me to following Christ more closely. Any other teaching that gives only head knowledge on theology is not sound to me.

I do not agree with Spurgeon's theological understanding. But was very much blessed to read one of his book. It gripped me so much to take discipline seriously in my life. I am reaping lot of spiritual blessing from this book.

S
sermonindex

Just another quick thought.
You need the HS to guide you and show you what is most important.

A simplified example, the Wilderness experience.
When they came to Kadesh Barnea 10 spies thought that it is not a good idea to enter the promised land, they were in agreement. But the agreement was not in accordance with God's will.
God's will was that they learn to trust Him and follow Him and find rest in Him
This is where we need to "build each other up"

I disagree with most of today's end time teaching, but I can still be "one in Christ" with a true believer.
But I can't have unity with a prosperity teacher who wants to tell me how i can have my best life now.

Paul wrote:
20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.Galatians 2:20

D
dspks

You said, "I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith."

If the above statement is fact... then what does one do with these verses:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17, KJV.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16, KJV ???

M
Martyr

1st verse Christ is the Word of God

2nd verse doesn't contradict what I said in any way

B
BranchinVINE


Hi Tyler,

You said:
"I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith."

dspks countered:
If the above statement is fact... then what does one do with these verses:
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17, KJV.

You replied:
"Christ is the Word of God.”


MY THOUGHTS
============

The New Testament writers wrote about Christ and preached Christ.

For example:

Gospel of Mark:
Mark 1:1 ”“ "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

Gospel of John:
John 20:31 ”“ "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Epistle to the Hebrews:
Heb. 12:2 ”“ "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith……”

Paul:
1 Cor. 2:2 - "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”

Peter:
2 Peter 1:16 ”“"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty……”

John:
1 John 1:1-3 ”“ "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

Revelation:
Rev. 1:1 ”“ "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John…”


Therefore the New Testament definitely brings to us the Word of Christ. Surely, then, it is a most trustworthy guide to faith?


B
BranchinVINE


"But Christ is truth and he DAY will tell whether or not our foundation was on Christ or the teachings of men."

Christ is the Truth. Amen.

The amount of truth in any preacher's message is exactly equal to the amount of the word of Christ in the message.


P
proudpapa

Jesus called the Scriptures "the word of God" Mark 7:13

Tyler, I am all for examining our traditions in the light of Scripture and discarding what is simply tradition and the teachings of men, But to down play the Scriptures as you are is simply not Scriptural nor how Jesus regarded the Scriptures of his day.

M
Martyr

Let me clarify my position:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

Jesus is the Word of God. He is the order, the reasoning, the wisdom of God Himself and all we see that is fashioned according to an order is fashioned according to Him.

The Scriptures were written by men of old who spoke as the Spirit of God gave utterance. I am not downplaying that. This "Word of God" (see above) manifested Himself into this world through men in wisdom, declaring the things that are and the things that are to be. If you look at the development of scripture (putting the books in chronological order) you see an amazing thing: the Word becoming more and more manifest. I do not deny that the bible is the word of God, He spoke it! But Jesus is the Word of God, He is that from which they were speaking, that which was coming into this world gradually over the ages through the mouths of men until He Himself actually appeared on this world.

We seek Christ. The scriptures testify of Him and are indeed VERY useful and VERY good for instruction and teaching. However it is important to remember that we have something better than they have. They had the Wisdom of God in part, but we have the Spirit of Christ living within us, the full revelation of the Wisdom of the Son of God.

I do not seek to downplay the scriptures. I seek to understand them properly and soberly. I do not fear contradictions in the bible or inconsistencies because I know what it is. The Word of God coming into this world. And for those who would argue the Old Testament is perfect I would point out that the very fact that you are a Christian and not a Jew proves that you do not, for if that was perfect then you do not need Christ.

Proudpapa, did they make void the Word of God? They sure did, they took His teaching and order and what He has deemed right and made it of no effect here on this world. This is why we pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," that this world (or rather those in it) may conform to that heavenly logos. And you accuse me of downplaying scripture? Why, you've ripped entire books of the bible right out and you don't even know why! Who downplays scripture??

B
BranchinVINE


Hi Tyler,

I think I see what you are trying to say.

Just a thought:

OT Jews were "flesh and blood”. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Jesus told Nicodemus, a man of the Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews, "You must be born again.” ”“ John 3.

We are born again of the "living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). Christ is the Word of God. We are born again "of Christ”. It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2:20).

"Flesh and blood” Christianity will fail as the OT Jews failed.

In Christ we will not fail because we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us to form Christ in us.


I
InTheLight

Tyler,

Concerning the apochyphal books, they were not taken out but rather added in by some. Although they have been respected by some throughout church history their place as canon has always been tenuous and the Jews themselves have never accepted them as OT canon even though they were translated into Greek in the Septuagint.

To quote from Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible;

"All of the arguments urged in favor of the canonicity of the apocryphal books merely prove that these books have been given varied degrees of esteem and recognition, usually falling short of full canonicity, until the Roman Catholic church officially pronounced them canonical at the Council of Trent."

"For some fifteen hundred years the Apocrypha was not accepted as canonical by the people of God. Then, in 1546, just 29 years after Luther posted his 95 Theses, the Council of Trent elevated the Apocrypha, or rather the part of it that supported the council's position, to the level of inspired Scripture."

Second, for the purpose of understanding your position concerning the Scriptures I would like to ask if you believe that the Bible is inerrant in all that it says, not just concerning salvation but also concerning matters of society, relationships, morals, and human history?

In Christ,

M
Martyr

Inthelight,

Unfortunately that is simply not true. Paul himself quoted and echoed many teachings from the book of Wisdom for example. Show me what makes the book of esther worthy of inclusion in the scriptures and I will give you 10 verses from the book of Sirach that completely align with other scriptures and even teach things Christ himself would teach when he came.

Speaking of esthe that is a marvelous work of historical fiction which gives a unique perspective on the Jewish people during that time. Does that answer your second question?

I mean really who recorded Nebuchadnezzars prayer? Who recorded Naomi's exact words? Or the midwives in egypt? These are oral traditions. It does not rob the scriptures of anything to see that.

S
sermonindex

Bro are you saying the Book of Esther is a work of fiction???

Just want to make sure I understand your post.

Bro Blaine

M
Martyr

Does it matter? There is very little (none) evidence of esther or of any of the decrees made by the king from that time. Could it be true? I guess but there's not much evidence for it. Either way the book of esther never claims to be a true story so am i a heretic for thinking it's not?

I repeat, if it makes no claim to be a true story why am i wrong for thinking it is not? (Here i am assuming brother that you think it is both true and wrong to think its not, correct me if i am wrong)

If it is true, great. If not, great. The spiritual truths it conveys (not much compared to Sirach or wisdom) are preserved.

M
Martyr

In regards to the book of esther if you really want to get some spiritual truths from it read it with ALL the chapters (most bibles don't have them).

I
InTheLight

Speaking of esthe that is a marvelous work of historical fiction which gives a unique perspective on the Jewish people during that time. Does that answer your second question?

Yes, that answers my question and helps me to understand your position. Yours is a position that has swept many in this country and saddens me deeply.

What you are saying is that there are mistakes in the Bible(you use the word 'fiction') but nevertheless we are to keep hold of the value system as it relates to religious things.

This is a very dangerous position because it cuts the truth of the Bible off from the objective world and replaces it with subjective experience of an "inner witness". This stands in stark contrast to the view that Christ Himself and the church historically has held concerning the Bile being objective, absolute truth. Of course there are subjective elements to personal reading of the Bible, nevertheless it does contain objective truth in all the areas that it speaks on.

We believe that our society and culture is to be judged by the Bible, rather than the Bible being judged and bent to conform to modern wisdom.

Also, when you accuse us of holding doctrinal positions and not even knowing why, you are implying that we are holding to presuppositions. This is not the case, a presupposition assumes that we are supposing something to be true without evidence. We have evidence(reasons) to believe in the Bible as authoritative in every area that it speaks to and so we are not presupposing.

Let me just give one reason here. We see in the person of Jesus, His stamp of approval on virtually the entire Old Testament. He quotes from every section: the Books of Moses, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets (both major and minor), the Historical material. He quotes them as if they were authoritative, from God Himself.

In fact, sometimes Jesus refers to the text itself as "God said.” Sometimes He says "Scripture says…” sometimes He says "Moses says…” or whatever writer. But clearly, when you examine the words, in His mind those terms are interchangeable.

If Jesus is someone we can trust then that gives us good reason to trust in the Old Testament at the very least as authoritative in every area.

In Christ,

D
drifter

If you look at the 66 canonical books, they agree in every detail. Not so the Apocrypha or the gnostic gospel of Thomas, for example. These books push RC doctrine like salvation by works, and contain heresies about the divinity of Jesus, flesh is inherently evil, etc.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
1 John 2:27

M
Martyr

"This is a very dangerous position because it cuts the truth of the Bible off from the objective world and replaces it with subjective experience of an "inner witness". This stands in stark contrast to the view that Christ Himself and the church historically has held concerning the Bile being objective, absolute truth. Of course there are subjective elements to personal reading of the Bible, nevertheless it does contain objective truth in all the areas that it speaks on."

It does not. If my "inner voice" goes explicitly against the truths preserved in the Bible I know I am in the wrong. Christ is revealed in the bible, that revelation is the Word. It is Spirit that is truth, it is Christ that is the Truth. Didn't He say that? He never said "Me and the Bible," he never equated Himself with "being the bible" either. HE IS THE TRUTH. You charge me with holding a dangerous view but if my view has fostered such a radical charge for others to know Christ and the Wisdom from Him then how is that bad? We have not talked on any other views but if we were I think you would see that I uphold the values placed in the bible and frown on those it condemns. I read my bible daily and I treasure it because in it I gain Wisdom from Him. It is precious.

You say: This stands in stark contrast to the view that Christ Himself and the church historically has held concerning the Bile being objective, absolute truth.

That is not true either. Augustine held an allegorical view of the Garden of Eden as did the catholic church for a long long time. Or do they not count?

You say: He quotes from every section: the Books of Moses, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets (both major and minor), the Historical material.

This one made me laugh because I could just say "but not from esther" and my argument is clear of your accusations. But instead consider this:

Hebrews 5:12/Wisdom 7:24
1 Corinthians 15:50/Wisdom 7:25b
John 5:19/Wisdom 7:26a
Romans 9:20-21/Wisdom 15:7
2 Corinthians 5:4a/Wisdom 9:15b
James 3:17/Wisdom 7:22
Luke 12:19-21/Sirach 5:7-9
Matthew 6:7/Sirach 7:14
Romans 12:15/Sirach 7:34
2 Corinthians 6:14-15/Sirach 13:16-18
James 1:13/Sirach 15:11-12
Matthew 6:14a/Sirach 28:2

Don't give too much heed though, you wouldn't want to give up supporting the traditions of the protestant movement (please stop saying the "church" upholds the view of...etc. It's not the "church" its modern protestantism and its you. Other denominations do not hold the same views as you)

T
TakeUptheCross

I am very worried by the spirit in which you speak, Tyler. I'll need more time and prayer to answer some of your posts... but I want to tell you the following:

If you say that Esther is fiction, you can as well say it of any other book in the Bible - and therewith, you also give another reason the enemies of God to speak evil of His way because God apparently could not preserve His word and pass it on "without fallacy" (or error) on the Israelites and the Gentiles.

Don't even the Muslims claim that the Bible was somehow changed, corrupted, throughout the years so that they don't accept it as the word of God?!

So, I warn you, don't do this! And prayerfully consider your approach to the Bible.

Remember also that, particulary the book of Esther is also in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)!

S
sermonindex

Below is a short article on the Book of Esther from Insight for Living. Based on what I have Googled I hardly doubt that this could be considered a fictional story. Most commentators hold that the Book of Esther has a historical context. Also commentayors hokd the characters to be actual people.

_____________________


Who wrote the book?

The unknown author of the book of Esther was most likely a Jew very familiar with the royal Persian court. The detailed descriptions of court life and traditions, as well as the events that occurred in the book, point to an eyewitness author. Because his perspective was pro-Jewish, scholars believe he was a Jew writing for the remnant that had returned to Judah under Zerubbabel. Some have suggested Mordecai himself was the author, though the accolades for him found in the text suggest that another person, perhaps one of his younger contemporaries, was the author.

The book is named for the "star” of the story, a young Jewish girl named Hadassah who was taken from her guardian, Mordecai, and forced to compete for the affection of the king. This unlikely contestant for a beauty pageant was crowned queen of Persia and renamed Esther, meaning "star.”

Where are we?

The events in the book of Esther occurred from 483 BC to 473 BC, during the first half of the reign of King Xerxes, who chose Esther as his queen. During this time period, the first remnant of Jews who had returned to Judah were struggling to reestablish temple worship according to the Law of Moses. But Esther and Mordecai, along with many other Jews, had chosen not to make the trek back to Judah. They seemed content to stay in Susa, the capital city of Persia, in which the story is set.

The book was written no earlier than 470 BC and probably no later than 424 BC, during the reign of Xerxes’ son Artaxerxes.

Why is Esther so important?

Esther is the only book in the Bible not to mention the name of God. But that is not to say that God was absent. His presence permeates much of the story, as though He were behind the scenes coordinating "coincidences” and circumstances to make His will happen.

Much like the book of Ruth, this book stands as one of the most skillfully written biblical books. Using eight feasts to systematically build and resolve suspense, the author constructed the story chiastically””using a Hebrew literary device in which events mirror each other inversely. Early listeners to the story would have recognized significant events and followed the rising tension with understanding.

Haman, the king’s evil second-in-command, was a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites, who were ancient enemies of God’s people (Numbers 24:7; 1 Samuel 15:8). He cast the lot, called "pur,” in order to determine the day that the Jews would be exterminated (Esther 3:7”“9). The feast of Purim, still celebrated by Jews today, commemorates the Jews’ deliverance from Haman’s plot (9:24”“32).

What's the big idea?

While the primary purpose of the book of Esther was to relate the dramatic origins of the feast of Purim, a greater theme shines through the story. The sovereignty and faithfulness of God permeate each scene. Nothing is truly coincidental, the book of Esther says to us. God’s sovereignty is best summarized in Mordecai’s exhortation to Esther: "And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14).

When events seemed out of control to Esther and Mordecai, when the king dictated ruin for their people, when evil was poised to triumph . . . God was at work. He worked through their dark days (Esther was taken to the harem [2:1”“16]), their faithful obedience (Esther risked her life before the king [5:1”“3]), and their victories (Esther revealed Haman’s plot and the Jews’ destruction of their enemies [7”“9]). This message is clear: God is sovereign even when life doesn’t make sense.

God is also the great Promise Keeper. Mordecai said to Esther: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish” (Esther 4:14). Mordecai’s words reflected his faith that God would honor His eternal covenant with Abraham and David.

How do I apply this?

Life can be hard. Difficult times happen, and pain cannot be avoided. When life doesn’t make sense, do you turn to God or away from Him? Let the book of Esther encourage you that God is always present. Jesus called us "friends” ( John 15:15), and the Spirit is our "Helper” (14:26). Trust and obey, as Esther did. And watch God silently weave all events for His glory . . . and for our good.

_____________________

Bro Blaine

H
Heydave

 "Other denominations do not hold the same views as you"

Martyr, which other denominations do you specifically mean in this comment you made to Ron?

S
sermonindex

___If his words hold wisdom and his philosophy is honorable, what does it matter if he returns? What is important is that we follow his teachings. Perhaps the words are more important than the man.___

The line above is from the closing scene of Rightful Heir from Star Trek the Next Generation. Worf has had a crisis of faith. He encounters the Klingon god kayliss. Only to discover that Kayless is a clone. Thus the line above indicates that though kayliss may not be real. He may not return as Klingon Legend says he will. What is important are his words and philosophy.

This came to mind as I thought of the ensuing discussion on the Book of Esther. Or any other book of scripture for that matter. Or even Jesus Himself. There are some who may call into account the historical validity of books such as Esther or Ruth. There are some who would even call into account as to whether Jesus is really the Son of God. There are those who say that what is important are the truth He taught.

This has a nice new age appeal. But for us as believers in Christ it calls into question faith. If we start questioning the historical validity of books such as Ruth or Esther or the Song of Solomon. If we start questioning historical events that we believe to be true such as to creation of Adam and Eve or the flood. Eventually we are going to question as to whether Jesus was really real or just a figment of someone's imagination. Some would say it really doesn't matter if Jesus really walked the earth. What does matter are His teachings.

Brothers and sisters we cannot go down this line of reasoning. To call into question the authenticity of the book of Esther. Or any other book of the Bible. Ultimately will be to question the authenticity of Jesus Christ himself.

The words are NOT more important than the man himself. Particular if the man himself has declared that He is the Son of God. If we start to question the authenticity of Jesus Himself. Then one may come to the conclusion that his death was simply a martyr's death on the cross with no redemptive value. If we come to that conclusion then as Paul would say in 1st Corinthians 15 we of all men are to be pitied.

Thank God that Jesus is real. Thank God that the Bible is the word of God. And the Bible can be trusted. The question that we face is are we willing to believe it. Are we willing to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Bro Blaine

H
Heydave

Does Paul or any of the NT writers quoting sources outside of the bible validate such sources as being equal to the biblical books, i.e scripture?

In Acts 17 Paul when preaching to the men of Athens quotes a Greek poet. In doing so he was in no way declaring that these poetic Geek writings were to be held as devine truth and to be considered scripture. Its just that one particular saying expressed an already established truth.
In the same way Paul or others quoting 'Wisdon' or any other apocryphal book is just using particular truths or concepts in them to articulate his teaching. It does not follow that these books are being endorsed as scripture.

Many non Christian people can at times say things that are biblically true,but that does not mean everthing they say is corret.

M
Martyr

Takeupthecross: Thank you for your concern. Sincerely, if I am in error I want to know. You say there is danger in this thinking in the way it presents God to the outside world. I understand your concern. And I want you to know brother that scripture cannot be broken, as Jesus said and this I too affirm and admit too. (Who am I to argue with Jesus?) But this idea that scripture must be literally true in every way is not required by scripture. It is not explicitly written and I think if it was so important than it would have been. Consider the hebraic view of the world: http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2013-03-30-at-7.56.58-PM.png

We know with scientific advancements this is not a correct cosmology of the world and yet it underlies many statements made in the bible. Those statements are not literally correct yet the spiritual message behind them is, see Psalm 75:3, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 104:5. These verses are literally wrong and yet the spiritual message is true. The New Testament got the message right when it said "in Him all things consist and He holds all things together." This is a more correct and advanced way of saying the same thing the ancient Hebrews tried to convey with their more limited understanding.

As for it harming the faith of non-believers it is more harmful to do gymnastics with the scriptures and wrest them to make them coherent and ignore obvious truths than it is to admit the flesh the word came through was imperfect but the Spirit that came through it is unto life and perfect in every way. We are not trying to convert people to the bible but to Christ, the Living God.

Bearmaster: That is very nice. Maybe it's not fictional after all. As for the godly message you got out of it do not take that as proof of its inspiration. I've seen modern preachers use Star Wars to teach about God (I am not commending that). I do agree with the final summation of what you posted that the Book of Esther is a nice story to teach us that God brings all things together for good to those who love Him, but this is true regardless of whether it is literally true or not. Again, I don't care whether it literally happened or not. I just know there is a lot of debate on it with the fiction side citing a lot of lack of evidence and as I said before nowhere am I commanded to believe in the literal historical events in Esther in the bible. Nowhere. I am not going to sit with someone and defend the literalness of Esther its not important.

As for your second post that is where YOU think that line of thinking leads. I know who I have believed in and I plan on finishing this race. My view of the scriptures leads me deeper into them, not further away. It has truly become my food. Augustine held allegorical views of the scriptures, did he come to doubt Jesus? And if your response (Excuse me for guessing) is to dismiss Augustine then again I return to the question, who's standard are we going by?

HeyDave: First post, I was thinking specifically Catholicism, Orthodox and Anglicanism but who can number all the denominations with all their different beliefs. I'm not saying they're right, I was just pointing out that we think we're right.

Second Post. He is not quoting books that aren't in the bible! He's quoting books that aren't in YOUR bible!! Did you look at the list? He's not quoting those scriptures, those scriptures are IN him! He took their foundational teaching and let those fill his heart so that they comes out without quote but in the substance of what they are. That is truly a sign of a man who meditated on those verses and let them influence his thinking. (If you need me to explain that more let me know.)


Guys, I believe in the bible. I hand out bibles. I encourage people to read and pray over the bible. Heck, I have a few bibles buried so if anything happens I'll have a few secret stashes. A view of me that downplays my love of scripture is wrong. I may not fit in your boxed view of what a bible loving Christian looks like but that is okay because despite where you think such a view leads to (a disbelief of scripture) it DOES NOT because Christ is Truth. I did not develop this view by listening to sermons or attending a church where it was preached. This came from hours upon hours in the woods by my house every day after work with me, God, an open heart and a willingness to abandon all to know Him as He really is, apart from any influence, thought or opinion of man.

TMK made a good point when he said "You have simply trust that if you read scripture God will lead you to the truth." But most of us have hearts too fill of preconceived notions and standards to actually be brought to that. I know I did (and in some ways still do but God is good!) I have shed many tears brothers and thats not sentimental garbage. God has brought me away from it all and to Him and only Him and it's a lot different then what we've been taught under the headship of Luther (the creator of sola scriptura and the spiritual father of many of us, unbeknownst to us). You guys cry for revival! Oh brother don't you see why it won't come? The root is wrong! Our views and beliefs don't stem from God we were taught them! And though many of them may be right in part they can never fully be true because the source is off and because of that the viewpoint that specific teaching brings cannot be fully developed/fully correct/fully clear. Oh the limitation of words!!

P
proudpapa

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=55075&forum=36&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=0

add : The views of Brinsmead seem almost exactly the same as what is being proclaimed in this thread

P
proudpapa

Eta Linnemanns a Bultmannian turned evangelicals book "Historical Criticism of the Bible Methodology or Ideology" is a must read for any one buying into this mindset

also "The End of the Historical Critical Method" by Gerhard Maier is worth reading

both are written by Germans whom have had to fight German Idealism and humanism head on.

M
Martyr

I didn't really see too much on that thread that was posted by him but it did link to his website. This man and I do not have similar beliefs on any point except maybe that the hebrew mindset of the cosmology of the world is off. I affirm the scriptures as true spiritually. What I do NOT do is take only the historical facts and use that to make up what the scriptures say, I affirm what the scriptures say is true.

Again, because this point has not been addressed, Augustine believed in an allegorical view of the scriptures on some points. Yet this was not contradictory for him in believing the scriptures to be true. You make that distinction, he and I do not.

I do not know this brinsmead, he's doing his own thing and has exalted his own authority above that of the scriptures. I do not do that. I simply claim that the Life of Christ is found within and without its pages and the Life found within its pages is Christ, not the bible itself. If we agree on this point oh well, I do not agree with him on anything else from the looks of his website.

M
Martyr

Proudpapa go ahead and continue to focus on my view of the scriptures and forget the substance of what I'm getting at. I told you where I stand but obviously you can't understand how one can not believe in the 100 percent literal historical, scientific literalness of the bible yet still believe it to be 100 percent correct. I'm just a heretic according to your standard. But you were taught by man to believe in the 100 percent literal interpretation of the bible, unless that is you claim that came to you directly by God with no outside influence of that. I was taught by God to see truth and to see Christ. I don't fight for the scriptures not being 100 percent literally true in every way, I don't care! I see Christ in them regardless!!

M
Martyr

I don't mean to post over and over again but i'd like to use this to go back to the main question of this thread. If my view of scripture is wrong, by what authority is it wrong?

Bible verses have been thrown at me in this thread to try and prove that the bible says I'm wrong to not take the scriptures 100 percent literally (which I do for the most part) but I think I have answered all those. Yet if my answers explaining how those verses didn't prove me wrong were themselves wrong then I still prove the authority lies in the interpretation of the scripture. If it's another authority please tell me who it is??

P
proudpapa

Tyler,

My concern for your views and the danger of those views are not because you are seeking spiritual truth from the Scriptures.

My concern for your views is because you down play the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures.

Tyler the views that you have expressed so far are not unique, They are the same points that I hear from the Liberal anabaptist camp that I am familiar with, including the down playing of Scriptural authority by claiming Sola Spiritus .

Tyler do not take what I am saying harshly but from concern

M
Martyr

Thank you sir, I know you mean that. But I have never claimed to hold an authority that can contradict scripture. Does the Spirit exceed scripture? To me that question doesn't make sense because it is the Spirit that gives the scripture life. I am not running rogue independent of the bible but am, I hope, living my life according to it. I am not, however, striving to please the bible or keep its commandments, I strive to walk in the Wisdom and Fulness of Christ and THAT will be in accordance with the scriptures because it is the Spirit of Christ that brought them forth in the first place.

You keep saying I downplay scripture but brother I have never, not once expressed that. If it seemed that way I apologize. I simply do not follow the same standard of biblical inerrancy that you do, I was never taught that and never gathered it from scripture nor from the Spirit. The Spirit of God has led me in accordance with the scriptures, not underneath it nor above it. I make no such claims to be above it. You make that claim for me.

Again, I hold the book of Wisdom and Sirach to be scripture because they 1. are used extensively by Christ and Paul, 2. express themes and ideas common to other "confirmed" scriptures in the bible 3. Are used by God to lead me into Wisdom and closer to Him. You do not hold them because you were taught that they are the boogie man. It seems you are not very open to Truths outside what you have been taught is "essential" doctrines, the casting away of which is heretical.

Your mention of sola spiritus made me laugh. I had not heard that one before. Must we put everything in latin terms!? Nevertheless I can assure you I am not sola spiritus, the life I live outside the bible is in accordance with the scriptures. That being said remember our religion IS a spiritual one, whether you like it or not. The words the Jesus said are SPIRIT and LIFE, again whether you like it or not. These substances are not found in one book, they are found in Christ.

You defend the bible like you're defending God. It makes me wonder.

D
docs

"My point with that is this, the scriptures need to be taken and viewed in the revelation of Christ. Going back to the atonement you are not going to find it spelled out for you in the bible. The bible wasn't meant for that. Paul didn't hand out his letters and say "Here study these and find out about Christ." No he would go into a city with the power of God and in His wisdom speak words not of doctrines or explanations but of the sword of Truth which pierces the hearts of those who hear." (Martyr)

/Going back to the atonement you are not going to find it spelled out for you in the bible. The bible wasn't meant for that./

I still see that as a seriously flawed of a statement as can be made even though it is accompanied by, "the scriptures need to be taken and viewed in the revelation of Christ." It's every bit a downplay of the significance and value of scripture.

S
savannah

This book is available for online reading:

Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures

by L. Gaussen August 25, 1790 ”” June 18, 1863

From the preface:

At a time when almost all religious controversies seem to turn, more or less, on the question,How far the Holy Scriptures are inspired? and when persons of all ranks and classes are called upon to arm themselves against various errors, having their root in false or inadequate views
on this subject, it seems hardly possible to overrate the value of the work now before the reader. Nor is it only as a work of controversy that it is invaluable. It is imbued throughout with a spirit of affectionate earnestness and glowing piety, which, even when it makes the greatest demand on the intellect, never suffers the heart to remain cold. Add to this, the wonderful copiousness of the illustrations, which the author seems to borrow with equal case from the simplest objects in nature, the deepest wells of learning, the remotest deductions of science, and the history at once of the most ancient and most modern times. In short, as we accompany him from page to page and chapter to chapter, we seem not so much to be reading a book, as to be listening to a devout and accomplished friend, expatiating on a favorite subject a subject of the very greatest importance, and one amid all the details of which he is quite at home.

DAVID D. SCOTT.
Sept. 20, 1850.

And, first of all, I do not think that, after we have come to know that Christianity is divine,there can be presented to our mind any question bearing more essentially on the vitality of our faith than this: "Does the Bible come from God? is it altogether from God? or may it not be true, as some have maintained, that there occur in it maxims purely human, statements not exactly true, exhibitions of vulgar ignorance and ill-sustained reasoning? in a word, books, or portions of books, foreign to the interests of the faith, subject to the natural weakness of the writer's judgment, and alloyed with error?” Here we have a question that admits of no compromise, a fundamental question - a question of life! It is the first that confronts you on opening the Scriptures, and with it your religion ought to commence. (pgs.5,6)

I
InTheLight

This one made me laugh because I could just say "but not from esther" and my argument is clear of your accusations.

That's true, Jesus did not directly quote Esther, I believe that He didn't directly reference Ezra or Nehemiah either, are those books also historical fiction?

What about the first eleven chapters of Genesis? Do these chapters also merely give us a unique perspective on the Jewish people during that time? Are they accurate history?

We have not talked on any other views but if we were I think you would see that I uphold the values placed in the bible and frown on those it condemns.

OK, let's talk about other views. The position that you hold begins with the questioning of the historical accuracy of the Bible but it never ends there. What is your position on the moral absolutes of the Bible regarding relationships, is that also culturally oriented? As an example, what about divorce and remarriage, are the Biblical limitations given in this area only relevant to the Jewish culture of that day or are they truth for us today?

What about what the Bible says concerning the home life and church life, are these moral absolutes for all of us?

H
Heydave

Quote: "HeyDave: First post, I was thinking specifically Catholicism, Orthodox and Anglicanism but who can number all the denominations with all their different beliefs. I'm not saying they're right, I was just pointing out that we think we're right."

Martyr, that is what I suspected and is itself revealing of your position. I wonder why you would write in a derogatory way against what you call "modern Protestants" and "your bible" and yet reference in support of your views apostate and cultists religions such as the Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. Both have a sordid history of denying the gospel and having the blood of the Saints on their hands.

M
Martyr

InTheLight: But Jesus and Paul did quote from Wisdom and Sirach. That is all I'm saying. You have turned my statement into an attack against esther, it is not that. I was merely making the point that Wisdom and Sirach have as much reason to be included as scripture. That is all.

I believe the first 11 chapters of genesis happened as portrayed. They do give us a unique perspective on the jewish people during that time and they are accurate history.

More godly men then you and I have believed Genesis 1 and 2 to be allegorical, be careful about making that a standard whereas scriptures do not. For me I believe them literally.

No, the Spirit has made clear his position on marriage. One man, one woman to be married and become one flesh. Divorce, from my understanding, is never encouraged but allowed on the pretext of infidelity.

I do not fit in the groups and doctrines you're trying to lump me in to. I wasn't brought up by them I was brought up by God and His Word.

I believe the bible to be true and standing, you (not just you but others on this thread) desire to make me an infidel who rejects the scriptures. Go ahead it is simply not true, I affirm the entire book to be true and, as you put it, for its moral values to be absolute on a believer because those absolutes spring from Christ and it is He who dwells within us. What now? I believe in all the "essential" beliefs, I turn from sin and strive for holiness and godliness as confirmed by the scriptures but I still hold the views I hold regarding scripture. It doesn't make sense to you does it? What now?


HeyDave: Then again let me repeat the question started in this thread. By what standard do we go by? The Catholics and Orthodox hold that what they teach is revealed in scripture. Any verse you may throw out to disprove that they will have an interpretation that says it is in accord with that scripture. Therefore it is a matter of interpretation of scripture. My original question: who's interpretation of scripture is our standard?

M
Martyr

To those who insist on taking the bible literally why do you not believe the Eucharist is literally the flesh and blood of Christ? He said "This IS my flesh" and "This is my blood." And if you choose to not take it literally by what standard do you pick and choose what is literal?


To IntheLight: while I don't retract any points made in my last post I was in a rush when I wrote it and in a sour mood. The "what now" part was condescending towards you and I am sorry for that and ask you to forgive that lapse in love. You don't deserve to be talked down to like that.

H
Heydave

Quote: "HeyDave: Then again let me repeat the question started in this thread. By what standard do we go by? The Catholics and Orthodox hold that what they teach is revealed in scripture. Any verse you may throw out to disprove that they will have an interpretation that says it is in accord with that scripture. Therefore it is a matter of interpretation of scripture. My original question: who's interpretation of scripture is our standard?"

This is actually not correct. Even if the Catholics say their teaching is in accord with scripture, when they are confronted with scripture that contradicts their church belief and practice they then appeal to the authority of the church's teaching and apostolic succession, i.e the Pope. Do you accept the Pope's authority above scripture Martyr?

All cults do this. JW's, Mormons. RCs, etc. They hold the teaching of their particular cult above scripture. I know this from experience of talking to them over the years.

Also many of the 'strange' doctrines of the RC church come out of the extra-biblical books you consider as scripture.

It's about time you came clean and told us what church/denomination you are par of/attend, so we understand where you are coming from and why you want to keep pushing the particular issues that are in line with the RC church, like the Eucharist.

As you have told us, you only became a Christian in 2011, so you are very young in the faith. I expect you think you know a lot, but believe me 6 years is nothing in the faith. You can have knowledge from reading and studying books, but it takes more time to be taught of God.

M
Martyr

Sorry HeyDave I have nothing to come clean of. I am not part of any specific denomination or teaching. I have nobody's doctrine to push besides Christ's.

Can you please tell me what interpretation of the scriptures is correct? In trying to get an answer for this, what standard are we going by in interpreting the scriptures? Or do you not know?

As for how long I've been a Christian what does that matter? I have spent everyday of those 6 years in prayer and study of the scripture. I do not read other men's books, just the scripture. (I have read other men's books but far and few between and there is none I hold to be dear to me). God gives the growth, who are you to tell Him how fast or slow he can grow a willing heart?

I'm not pushing the Eucharist, I'm trying to establish which authority grants us the right to take that verse figuratively and not literally.

T
twayneb

martyr:

I have caught a few snippets here or there from this discussion that seem to speak well to the OP. I may try to weave them in here. This is something I have thought a lot about. Let me see if I can answer the question as far as I can.

First, there is only one correct interpretation of scripture and only one truly correct slant on any doctrine. It is never, "what does this mean to you?", but rather it is, "What did God mean when He wrote this?" So the fact that there are so many different doctrinal stances and denominational differences is only a sign that most of us are probably not hearing from God like we should.

But the first reply was, in my opinion, the one that his closest to my understanding. It is all about relationship. But not necessarily just relationship between members of the body of Christ.

God interprets His word to us by revelation. That is, He supernaturally opens up to us or reveals to us what He is trying to tell us in His word by His Holy Spirit. We may use our intellect to read and to study scripture, and this is helpful to us as it puts the word of God into our minds so that the Holy Spirit can easily bring it to our memory, but the word cannot be properly understood or interpreted intellectually, no matter how many Biblically educated scholars come together to try to do so. So intellectual study is important, but insufficient. We must have supernatural revelation.

But supernatural revelation cannot come apart from intimate relationship. We cannot receive revelation from the Holy Spirit unless we are spending time in intimacy with God through the Holy Spirit. We must, like Jesus says in John 15, abide in Him and let His word abide in us. We must be a people who are more interested in knowing God through His word than knowing His word to be informed about God. There is a huge difference. The first man says, "God, please let me know you. Reveal yourself to me because I want to be conformed into your image." The second says, "I am going to be a very good Bible scholar who can defend my belief about God with an ironclad apology."

But intimacy is not possible without a revelation of the love of God and of His desire for our lives. When we understand he full measure of His love for us, which goes beyond mere human knowledge, then we will be able to be fully furnished and fitted out as God desires us to be. See Ephesians 3.

In practicality it looks something like this. I am madly in love with God because I have a revelation of His great love for me. I desire to know Him more than anything. I am willing to admit that I am wrong in any area that He reveals to me and obey Him in conforming my own life to His image as He reveals it to me through prayer and through diligent study of His word. I am submitted first to Him in true intimate relationship, and so I am also submitted in relationship to the other members of His body. As a result, when I feel I have a revelation from God about His word, I can go to other members of the body who are likeminded and submit what I am thinking to them. We can pray over it and continue to seek God. There is NEVER any argument or debate in this process, because each one of us is more interested in knowing Him more and conforming to His image than we are about personally being right or about defending a pet doctrine. It is in this environment and ONLY in this environment that I have any hope of walking continually in correct doctrine.

If there is only one correct interpretation, then I must realize that I do not have it. Only the Holy Spirit has it. It is only in intimacy with Him that I can learn from Him what it is that He desired for me to know when He inspired the scriptures.

S
sermonindex

This topic is on a wrong foundation and is going in the wrong direction.

When I became a Christian it became clear to me that the Bible (66 books )is the Word of God.
No scholar could have revealed this to me, it must have been the HS.
If we start to add new discoveries and some scientific stuff then Christians around the world would have different foundations, eg someone might quote from "Thomas" etc. We would have less and less unity and spend time debating rather the proclaiming.
God can not fail and He has given us in His Word what we need. He has given us what we need to grow, to be equipped and to serve Him.

Of course there are many things I don't know or understand. Eg there are many opinions which should be the last verse in the Gospel of Mark. But having the "correct" answer would not make me a better Christian and it would not advance the Kingdom of God one bit.

The mayority of those in the Wilderness perished for a simple reason : "So we see that it was because of their unbelief that they were unable to enter. " Hebrews 3:19
Again the highest priority is to learn to trust Him and to follow Him and Scripture is totally sufficient for that.
In another thread "sherry 2" quoted from brother Yun. There you can read a bit more what I'm trying to say.
I doubt that those Chinese believers would even have the same discussions as we have in this thread.
And yet there faith is so much stronger then ours.
Not sure if it makes sense what I have been trying to say in my posts.

Tyler, realise that God is Almighty, He did not make a mistake or miss something when He gave us His Word (66 books)
Focus on Him, learn to trust and obey, discover His rest. Blessings.

H
Heydave

Quote: "Can you please tell me what interpretation of the scriptures is correct? In trying to get an answer for this, what standard are we going by in interpreting the scriptures? Or do you not know?"

The bible interprets itself in that the more we read and understand it's teaching the more correctly we can interpret individual passages. Of course the Holy Spirit is the one who enlightens us in this process. No outside source or authority has the right to claim correct interpretation. They can however certainly help to point out where the bible interprets itself and offer their revelations for us to consider.

You keep going around the same question fruitlessly because there is not one simple, complete source for interpretation on every issue and point of doctrine (unless you want to give your conscience away to a cult) because we all only 'know in part' and are growing in our knowledge. But you have been told this in many posts already.

Your questions about interpretation of the bible per sa is OK, it's the statements you have made about not accepting certain biblical books as being true or deciding that other extra-biblical books are more scriptural that those we have in the accepted biblical cannon that are concerning. In particular you wrote earlier that the NT is just a collection of letters written by the church fathers and not a 'guide' for the Christian faith. Not sure what you mean by 'guide', but they are actually much more than that. They are the authority for church practice and doctrinal truth. I think it is no wonder that you are confused about what is the authority of correct interpretation as you reject the very thing that is the authority, i.e the bible itself.

C
Christinyou

John 14:26-27 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Quote: """Quote: "Can you please tell me what interpretation of the scriptures is correct? In trying to get an answer for this, what standard are we going by in interpreting the scriptures? Or do you not know?" """

There is only one answer to the question: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,"

The Comforter, Parakleet, Holy Ghost, Teacher, Holy Spirit: He is the only one to "teach you all things". If the writer, Pastor, teacher, teaches from the truth of the Holy
Spirit then these are who the standard is and even then we are to test all things by the Word of God and the revelation of the true test by the Holy Spirit that it is true and by He that is in us forever.

Proverbs 3:3-8 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

This was written of the Law. So much more now that the Grace of God by His Faith that He has given us, by the Holy Spirit in us and we are in Christ and He in us new creatures a new creation in Christ Jesus our Lord, this is our standard of learning the Word of God, Don't add to or take away from what God has written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of man that is in the Bible.
Revelation 22:18-21 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The Word of God which is the Bible is the Standard by which we listen to God, revealed to us by the Comforter Teacher, The Holy Spirit In us forever.

Do we really think that God cannot reveal truth even through the many translations and different bibles? As for me I use KJV, NAS, Weis' New Testament Greek translation. The Holy Spirit will reveal truth and error to those trusting in Him.

In Christ: Phillip

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 62 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate