Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 4, 2017

RDKirk said:
The question is, though, whether the difference makes a difference in carrying out the mission Jesus has given His Body:

1. Make disciples (just as Christ did)
2. Take care of each other (just as Christ made sure His disciples had three hots every day)
3. Operate in a manner that nobody without a grudge can call despicable

The only differences that matter to us as a Body are those that result in a failure to do the things we are commissioned to do.

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.” ~ Mark 9:38-40

A bunch of Catholics doing the things Jesus said, professing the name of Jesus. I have nothing to say about how they view communion.

Accept anyone who is weak in faith, but don’t argue about disputable issues. --Romans 14

There are such things as "disputable issues" and there are things that are indisputable.

Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. -- 2 Corinthians 13

Things that are indisputable will have two or three explicit scriptural references. There are other things that have one witness or conflicting witnesses that Christians may honestly dispute.

But you will find that none of those things gets in the way of actually carrying out the mission.

And, most likely, people who get mired down in those issues are the ones not carrying out the mission.

The situation of the strangers casting out demons is simply talking about allowing strangers to cast out demons or not. It is not about whether or not we cannot correct others with God's Word if their doctrine is wrong.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and correction, etc.

So yes. I can correct others who have wrong doctrine or beliefs. Or have you never tried to correct others with God's Word before? What exactly are you doing now?

As for making disciples of all nations:

19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20).

What did Jesus command of us?

Many things. He commanded us that if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven (Matthew 6:15).
He said that if one were to look upon a woman in lust, their whole body can be cast into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30). There is no penance to an earthly priest for these things, but only to the Heavenly high priest who is Jesus Christ (See 1 John 2:1, 1 John 1:9).

For Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).
Why also pray to Mary and the saints?
It is insanity to think that one can pray to the dead instead (Which is forbidden in Scripture).

“When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.” (Deuteronomy 18:9)

“Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:31)

“And the person who turns after mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people.” (Leviticus 20:6)

“So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance.” (1 Chronicles 10:13)

....

RDKirk · Jul 4, 2017

Jason0047 said:
The situation of the strangers casting out demons is simply talking about allowing strangers to cast out demons or not. It is not about whether or not we cannot correct others with God's Word if their doctrine is wrong.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and correction, etc.

So yes. I can correct others who have wrong doctrine or beliefs. Or have you never tried to correct others with God's Word before? What exactly are you doing now?

.

Whose doctrine did I say was wrong?

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 4, 2017

traditions and the love for them lead people to twist and contort things they don't like.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 4, 2017

RDKirk said:
Whose doctrine did I say was wrong?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says you can correct others in general. This means we can correct others in regards to what others believe if it does not line up with God's Word.

For example: If a group formed tomorrow that said they worshped Jesus and yet they pushed people down stairs, I have a right by God's Word to correct them.

...

FireDragon76 · Jul 4, 2017

There is a third alternative, Jesus is being intentionally ambiguous because he is instituting a religious mystery. This would not have been unclear to early Christians who were surrounded by a culture where such rituals were common.

The Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed doctrines of the Lord's Supper are actually closer to this third alternative.

FireDragon76 · Jul 4, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Because they believe Jesus is a part of the ceremony on a spiritual level. You cannot remember someone if they are also right in front of you.

That's a highly questionable assertion.

The mode of Christ's presence among Christians that affirm the Real Presence is not necessarily the same as what you are implying. We do not deny that Christ is present in a different mode to us than when he walked among his disciples. Nontheless, we believe he is truly present and known through faith when we receive the sacrament in accordance with Jesus' institution.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 4, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
That's a highly questionable assertion.

The mode of Christ's presence among Christians that affirm the Real Presence is not necessarily the same as what you are implying. We do not deny that Christ is present in a different mode to us than when he walked among his disciples. Nontheless, we believe he is truly present and known through faith when we receive the sacrament in accordance with Jesus' institution.

While Jesus lives in believers (with His spirit), that is not the same thing as saying that Christ is going to physically manifest his actual body and blood in the elements of the wine and bread or that He is going to make a special extra communion of His spirit by a particular ceremony. Jesus said, "remember" in regards to the Lord's supper and he did not say "I will be with you" in spirit in a powerful way or I will be with you by putting my flesh and blood inside your stomachs as a part of the Lord's supper. In fact, Jesus said he would not drink of the fruit of vine again until His disciples were in the Kingdom. So this stresses and focuses on a memorial of Christ and what He has done for us on the cross. That is what the wine and bread represents. To believe that the Bible teaches anything like the RCC Eucharist is simply a gross misintrepration of the text. If such a thing did exist in God's Word, we would see Paul and others talk about it at length because many believe the Eucharist is a part of salvation.

...

FireDragon76 · Jul 4, 2017

Jason0047 said:
If such a thing did exist in God's Word, we would see Paul and others talk about it at length because many believe the Eucharist is a part of salvation.

...

It may not be spelled out in the scholastic terms of Catholic theology, but it is clear to Paul that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are more than representations of Christ's death. They have a sacramental function in the Christian community.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 4, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
It may not be spelled out in the scholastic terms of Catholic theology, but it is clear to Paul that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are more than representations of Christ's death. They have a sacramental function in the Christian community.

I am sorry. I just do not see that clearly spelled out in Scripture at all.

....

FireDragon76 · Jul 5, 2017

Jason0047 said:
I am sorry. I just do not see that clearly spelled out in Scripture at all.

....

1 Corinthians 10:17 is but one example. This is clearly sacramental logic and a eucharistic theology not unlike many modern churches adhering to the broader catholic tradition.

Daniel9v9 · Jul 5, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
There is a third alternative, Jesus is being intentionally ambiguous because he is instituting a religious mystery. This would not have been unclear to early Christians who were surrounded by a culture where such rituals were common.

The Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed doctrines of the Lord's Supper are actually closer to this third alternative.

I agree. Early church writings also suggests this. Even Acts 2:42 says: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

I also want to add to what FireDragon76 says, that it's also important to appreciate that it is God in flesh who instituted the sacraments, and also the situation they were instituted - as a last will; their command, promise and grace therein - and how they are wonderfully tied into Christ, and only apprehended by faith.

I think it's a common idea to think, or at least think in a way that amounts to, that the sacraments are a kind of work we do, or some means outside of Christ. I used to believe this. However, this is also important to understand correctly: A Baptism is a baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:27), and the Eucharist is a participation in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). They are both divine means of grace.

At the end of the day, whatever people may believe about the sacraments, I would at least encourage us to take them seriously and be thankful for them, and not doubt what Scripture has to say about them.

Daniel9v9 · Jul 5, 2017

One more thing that popped to mind based on @FireDragon76 comment - I don't think Scripture is deliberately ambiguous, but it's more to do that it speaks of divine truths that are simply way beyond our comprehension. e.g. the triune God, the two natures of Christ, the kingdom of God etc

I think Scripture can be challenging partly for the purpose of being understood through faith in Christ, and not merely by reason.

FireDragon76 · Jul 5, 2017

Jason0047 said:
While Jesus lives in believers (with His spirit), that is not the same thing as saying that Christ is going to physically manifest his actual body and blood in the elements of the wine and bread

This is not descriptive of any of the sacramentalist positions. To physically manifest means to physically show something to the senses. It could happen, but it would be extraordinary and not something clearly promised in the Scriptures.

or that He is going to make a special extra communion of His spirit by a particular ceremony.

I don't know any sacramentalist that interpret's the Lord's Supper that way. Even Reformed Christians traditionally view the sacrament as a substantial partaking of Christ. It is not a communion with the Spirit but with Christ.

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Dartman said:
LOL .. our posts were like "ships, that pass in the night".
I think the response of the audience proves the majority most certainly did NOT understand what he said!
And, I also think a "few" took the time, and made the effort to understand.
This is consistent with Christ's God's plan.
God fully intends to save the "few" .... not the many.

LOL! Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks.

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Greg Merrill said:
Oh how I would have preferred clearer words in some passages, but I am not God. Mt 26:26 gives me no trouble at all after reading John 6:63. That may be one reason it is written the way it is, that we search the rest of scripture for clarification. Isaiah 28:10; 2 Peter 1:20. A harder passage to defend than Mt 26:26 is 1 Corinthians 13:10, that which is "perfect". I believe it should have been rendered "complete" in reference to the Bible, not Jesus.

"It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life."
(John 6:36)

Thanks, Greg, but perhaps I've missed something? How do these words make it clear whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively?

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Shempster said:
This was one of my biggest questions I have had my whole life.

I'll just say that at this point it appears that it contains a secret key to understanding what salvation actually is and how to be an overcomer. What's really neat is how that message is also plainly written in red ink. But that key is like understanding words of a different language. What I mean is that the main reason it is so vague and unclear on many topics is that it is designed to hide that truth from some people while showing it plainly to others!
The reason some see the true message is that they understand the "language". They can look at a passage of words and it all makes sense because they hold the key.
But those who do not hold the key cannot see it. And the kicker is that within the entire body of the church, both camps exist. Though a person may seem religious and maybe serve as a pastor he may not actually understand the gospel, but clings only to the things he was taught in seminary.

Those who do not have the key are the 5 foolish virgins. They wasted life indulging in sports, social media and chasing wealth. They spent little time searching God's riches. They were selfish and lacked love.
This is the reason they don't have the key....they hardly bothered to search for it. They bring it upon themselves. So the word makes sense to them lined up to denominational teachings while opposing passages are ignored or explained away.
In a way He is intentionally hiding the truth from many, but it is because of their own lack of love for Him that they cannot really understand it.

So...in all this I'm not saying that you don't have the key because you see it as confusing. But remember there are thousands of differing interpretations out there all wanting to sell it to you. If it were me, I would just spend time on your own. A decent amount of time. It is a life long process but just like looking for buried coins, if you keep on looking, you'll find something real.

BlessUp

Hi, Shempster. Please tell me: What is this key you mentioned? Does said key tell you why God wants to hide the truth?

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Light of the East said:
Do you understand that for fifteen centuries, the Church had no confusion of which you speak? The biggest issues were things about which the Scriptures are silent - the two natures of Christ and His ontological issues.

The confusion didn't come until Protestant heretics began teaching that which was never known before the 16th century.

Hi, Light of the East. I love Greek food, and I'm a fan of the Father of Philosophy Socrates.

I think yours is perhaps the strongest argument for taking Jesus' statement about the bread of the last supper literally. But I suppose one might say the early Greek and Roman Catholic Churches destroyed all written evidence of dissent long ago, considering the writers of such early heriticts rather than early church fathers.

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Light of the East said:
Where does the Bible say is found the "pillar and ground of truth?" Individuals or the Church? Where was the very first confusion settled in Acts 15, by the musings of an individual or in the Church?

The Church has always been the place where the Holy Spirit has spoken, and if you look at history, whenever you find an individual speaking, you are likely to find heresy, such as the teaching of Arias against the Trinity.

Even in the Old Covenant, the salvific work of God was given not to individuals, but to the congregation of God's people (aka, the "edah" or Church). There is no such thing as one person speaking for God (other than our Lord). Salvation comes in community and so does truth.

Find the Church which follows the earliest of Christian teachings (HINT: Holy Orthodoxy) and you will find the Church.

I hear what you're saying. The difficulty is finding an Orthodox Church in the United States. Catholic Churches are many, Orthodox few. Or by referring to orthodoxy were you speaking of the Catholic Church?

spockrates · Jul 5, 2017

Light of the East said:
That's Luther and Calvin's heresy. Jesus made no such distinctions when He said at the Last Supper "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood. Is means......is.

Yes, but he also didn't say, "This is my body, soul and divinity," as the Catholic Church teaches. Can you tell me the reason for expanding on his statement?

Light of the East · Jul 5, 2017

spockrates said:
I hear what you're saying. The difficulty is finding an Orthodox Church in the United States. Catholic Churches are many, Orthodox few. Or by referring to orthodoxy were you speaking of the Catholic Church?

Grammatical rule of thumb:

Orthodoxy - The Orthodoxy Church (Note the capital "O")

orthodoxy - proper theology (Note the small "o")

BTW - very interesting picture of Mr. Spock you have there. Leonard Nimoy simply nailed that role, didn't he?

Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Dynamic UNO

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

†

†

Well-Known Member

Wonderer

Wonderer

Wonderer

Wonderer

Wonderer

Wonderer

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Similar threads