What is biblical authority...?

[GDL]

Correct by what standard? The bible itself has the saying "may God be true, and every man a liar." Therefore, to say your interpretation is correct, is to proclaim yourself God.

Correct by the standard that it aligns with what God has said and means.

That quote is a command from Romans 3 from Ps 51 having to do with God prevailing in judgment and man's unbelieve having no effect on His faithfulness. It is not saying that everything a man says are lies or just interpretations.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Good, bottom-line question.

Like I said. I’m not trying to push anyone away. I understand why people have confident in their beliefs. But confidence should not turn into arrogance or we risk missing the truth all together.

 

[zoidar]

... it’s still a little weird this is the same response people use when both people have the Holy Spirit but have differing views on scripture.

Good and important point!

 

[misput]

Seems to me God/Christ is the only authority, everything else is subservient to Him.

 

[GDL]

I agree that theology is important, and of course not anything goes. Some teachings are heretical and should be treated as such. Still it's not theology that saves us, I quess that was my point.

Thanks, and I don't mean to knit-pick, but I do heavily favor accuracy and strive for it in all of us.

With that said, soteriology being a part of theology, and the gospel being a part of soteriology/ theology, the gospel is said by Paul to be the power/authority of God for Salvation. God saves us and in a way His soteriological proclamation is His power that saves.

Also, I think of what Jesus said re: knowing the truth and the truth making us free. In context this is being made free from sin. It is thus also a statement re: our salvation - being made free from what we are enslaved under. Being freed from knowing the truth. And the Truth is both Him and thus what He says. And all of such we study under the topics of theology.

I know I'm pushing it a bit, I think, but in a way theology does save us - the power of the Word of God and our understanding of it, belief of it and in Him, and thus submission to Him and what He says. Anyway, that's somewhat of what I was pushing as a point.

Thanks for the response.

 

[GDL]

Therefore all the violence and rudeness stops immediately.

Does it really? Are we really called to not take a stand on what is clearly truth? Is it rude to staunchly proclaim Jesus is the Christ?

 

[chad kincham]

In a previous thread someone made the honest confession that the "pedigree" was unfortunately producing some mutts. (ouch) That there needed to be some housecleaning done to fix this problem. I see apostolic succession to be a weak link in the chain of authority that is emerging in this discussion. (at least in my mind)

Iwant to continue adding to the chain of authority here. (adding message as authority)
Jesus>Scripture>Church>Message (the gospel)

Since the gospel (message) saves us, it seems to have authority. In fact, it is so potent, it may deserve to be farther back in the chain. Jesus>Gospel>Scripture>Church ???

1 Corinthians 15:2 NIV
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Roman church claims of apostolic authority are bogus.

The Orthodox Church states the first RC pope was Linus, and that peter was never pope in Rome - and scripture proves Peter was never part of the gentile Roman church, since he was the apostle to the Jews.

 

[zoidar]

Thanks, and I don't mean to knit-pick, but I do heavily favor accuracy and strive for it in all of us.

With that said, soteriology being a part of theology, and the gospel being a part of soteriology/ theology, the gospel is said by Paul to be the power/authority of God for Salvation. God saves us and in a way His soteriological proclamation is His power that saves.

Also, I think of what Jesus said re: knowing the truth and the truth making us free. In context this is being made free from sin. It is thus also a statement re: our salvation - being made free from what we are enslaved under. Being freed from knowing the truth. And the Truth is both Him and thus what He says. And all of such we study under the topics of theology.

I know I'm pushing it a bit, I think, but in a way theology does save us - the power of the Word of God and our understanding of it, belief of it and in Him, and thus submission to Him and what He says. Anyway, that's somewhat of what I was pushing as a point.

Thanks for the response.

Do you think the theology of some of the major branches of Christianity might be an obstacle to salvation?

 

[GDL]

Is to really that hard to admit I’m confident in my belief but because it’s possible I may be wrong I will not judge another.

Sorry, second post:

But Jesus' lessons on judging were to learn to judge righteously and doing so with ourselves first.

Also, Paul rebuked a congregation treated it's congregational judiciary so lightly as to put some into it because they didn't know what else to do with them.

In Hebrews 5 the difference between the infants who are being rebuked for their continued infancy, and the mature is that the mature have become trained to be learned and skilled in the Word of Righteousness and have well-exercised faculties to judge both good and bad.

IMO, from studying such things, I think Christians should be becoming the best judges on the planet - well able in Christ to judge according to God's judgment. I also think there are many cautions about learning to judge rightly and not hypocritically.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Does it really? Are we really called to not take a stand on what is clearly truth? Is it rude to staunchly proclaim Jesus is the Christ?

What I meant by the violence stops meaning that how can I judge another if I’m willing to admit I may be wrong.... What I may see as clearly truth another may not see at all. And rightfully so. Some people have a different standard before they are willing to accept something as truth. So we are able to have a discussion because what I believe is much different from what I know. We confuse they two. Somehow we have been convinced that belief is synonymous with certainty and it cannot be both at the same time. If you only believe there is without question the possibility that you can be wrong. If you are certain than being wrong is not a possibility.

 

[Clare73]

Can’t argue with that besides to say it’s still a little weird this is the same response people use when both people have the Holy Spirit but have differing views on scripture.

Not the same. . .the account of the woman has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and one's view of Scripture. It has to do with it just not being an issue for those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, it affects nothing for them regarding the Scriptures.

I wonder do people ever take the time to consider what if what they think the spirit is telling them isn’t actually what the Holy Spirit is telling them. This is why I believe in a way religious minds are some of the most arrogant minds because they leave no room for the possibility they could be in error in regards to what they believe has been revealed to them. Thanks again

I suspect the priests thought the same thing about Jesus.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Sorry, second post:

But Jesus' lessons on judging were to learn to judge righteously and doing so with ourselves first.

Also, Paul rebuked a congregation treated it's congregational judiciary so lightly as to put some into it because they didn't know what else to do with them.

In Hebrews 5 the difference between the infants who are being rebuked for their continued infancy, and the mature is that the mature have become trained to be learned and skilled in the Word of Righteousness and have well-exercised faculties to judge both good and bad.

IMO, from studying such things, I think Christians should be becoming the best judges on the planet - well able in Christ to judge according to God's judgment. I also think there are many cautions about learning to judge rightly and not hypocritically.

I personally would rather not judge at all when it comes to religious matters. Right and wrong seem to be relative to the time one lives and the environment one lives in therefore it’s seems to be eve changing when talking about that standard of right and wrong from place to place. Even with in the Christianity itself there are things that of happens today would be considered unacceptable and flat out wrong. But it was considered ok in those days according to scripture. Now sure I have my one thoughts about all that but honestly they are just my own thoughts from my perception of the world and how I interact with it. It seems a lot of people on the “Christian forums” are mean and rude a lot of times but this is only my perception. It doesn’t mean because I perceive it that way it is the truth. It seems this fits in all areas where we are unsure if we are willing to admit we are unsure. I may believe Jesus is real another may question because they have a distrust in the history we are provided on all subjects so they take an agnostic approach and say “I don’t know”. Are they wrong? Are they denying God? It doesn’t seem that way to me. I try to understand why they struggle to believe the information presented to them.

 

[GDL]

Do you think the theology of some of the major branches of Christianity might be an obstacle to salvation?

I guess I'd have to ask you to specifically identify what you mean by, "the major branches of Christianity."

And then I would likely bow out on some for now, because it has been some time since I studied various soteriologies, so I wouldn't want to misspeak.

I will say something re: something a bit closer to home for me: After a lot of work in study and some pains in coming to grips with my updated view some time ago, I came to view the soteriology I was trained under as likely and unintentionally (in most) marching many off a cliff. This view was shared by another in that camp who studied the matter with me and I don't think we pushed our conclusion on one another, but each of us saw things from Scripture that caught us both a bit off-guard at times.

Any such discussion would have to include what is included in the word "salvation," which is another big piece that typically gets intense in repeated discussions from time to time on other threads here.

Additionally, as I said earlier in a post to chevyontheriver, although once staunchly in the camp(s) opposed to the so-labeled Catholic "works-salvation" gospel, I have found in some of these threads in discussions with Catholics, that their gospel as they explain it does not seem to be in actuality what I was taught it is. Also, I find some of such discussions to present a salvation that I see conforming to Scripture in ways that have pleasantly surprised me a bit.

I'm not speaking comprehensively, but just trying to answer you in part. To truly discuss this I'd want to take any soteriology point-by-point and bring out Scripture to address them all. I'm cautious at this point of just dismissing a camp under some label that may or may not be comprehensively valid.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Not the same. . .the account of the woman has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and one's view of Scripture. It has to do with it just not being an issue for those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, it affects nothing for them regarding the Scriptures.

I suspect the priests thought the same thing about Jesus.

Maybe they didn’t maybe they didn’t. Its not my job to say. I do wonder are you able to admit you could be wrong about your belief? Is it even at all possible? I’m just curious and if you are certain than thats awesome as well.

 

[Clare73]

Correct by what standard? The bible itself has the saying "may God be true, and every man a liar." Therefore, to say your interpretation is correct, is to proclaim yourself God.

All unbelievers (Romans 3:3-4) are liars because they deny the truth of God.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

All unbelievers (Romans 3:3-4) are liars because they deny the truth of God.

What does deny the truth of God actually mean?

 

[zoidar]

What does deny the truth of God actually mean?

I can answer that. The truth is that Christ was crucified and rose again for our salvation. Denying that is denying truth.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I can answer that. The truth is that Christ was crucified and rose again for our salvation. Denying that is denying truth.

And if a person says they simply don’t know are they still denying the truth?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

And if a person says they simply don’t know are they still denying the truth?

Is it denial to be skeptical or unsure?

 

[zoidar]

I guess I'd have to ask you to specifically identify what you mean by, "the major branches of Christianity."

And then I would likely bow out on some for now, because it has been some time since I studied various soteriologies, so I wouldn't want to misspeak.

I will say something re: something a bit closer to home for me: After a lot of work in study and some pains in coming to grips with my updated view some time ago, I came to view the soteriology I was trained under as likely and unintentionally (in most) marching many off a cliff. This view was shared by another in that camp who studied the matter with me and I don't think we pushed our conclusion on one another, but each of us saw things from Scripture that caught us both a bit off-guard at times.

Any such discussion would have to include what is included in the word "salvation," which is another big piece that typically gets intense in repeated discussions from time to time on other threads here.

Additionally, as I said earlier in a post to chevyontheriver, although once staunchly in the camp(s) opposed to the so-labeled Catholic "works-salvation" gospel, I have found in some of these threads in discussions with Catholics, that their gospel as they explain it does not seem to be in actuality what I was taught it is. Also, I find some of such discussions to present a salvation that I see conforming to Scripture in ways that have pleasantly surprised me a bit.

I'm not speaking comprehensively, but just trying to answer you in part. To truly discuss this I'd want to take any soteriology point-by-point and bring out Scripture to address them all. I'm cautious at this point of just dismissing a camp under some label that may or may not be comprehensively valid.

Hope this makes sense.

I think it makes sense.

I didn't mean you have to point out which one or anything like that. I was thinking about Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheranism, Reformed, Angelican, Pentacostals, the bigger ones.

I didn't grew up Christian. So I came from a point I didn't know much at all. Maybe that was more of a blessing than a curse? I did know about Jesus dying for our sins. That was pretty much it. So I got to know Christ, then I started to think about belonging to a church.