Are you here to learn from others or to correct them?

[toLiJC]

Can we be divided so easily into two types here on CF? There are other types who are here for entertainment or singles looking for a potential partner perhaps?
I would the say the ones who are here to correct others would hesitate to the admit that. They might say something like "I am here for both. To learn and correct." But the reality I suggest is, they feel confident enough in their spiritual knowledge to be correcters only.
I don't want to be on CF, if I ever reach that stage. because then I have nothing else to learn.

if i don't know e.g. how much is two plus two, and you tell me that 2+2 is 4, then i will (be able to) learn something real from you, but if you tell me that 2+2 is a number different from 4, then what will i (be able to) learn from you?!

Blessings

 

[Blade]

Well.. the people asking for prayer.. and then I read what people like you post and then I share. I lol have the same kind of thoughts as others.. yet.. I fight so to speak to make sure.. what I say is written and points to the one I need and love the most. To some how give this unbelievable awesome wonderful love away. To never be seen.. never up front....never taking the glory.. this is how I truly feel.

 

[AarontheStudent]

Which is the point: Jeff's ( or my) personal opinion of what scripture means and the diversity of mutually exclusive opinions on the meaning of eucharist is a total irrelevance. The only one that matters is that handed down by the apostles, which came from Jesus. There is a word for that handing down of faith. It is paradosis in the original language, which is now translated as the word tradition. I.e handing down of . The true faith.

That's merely a prideful assumption that "the true faith" is only Catholic. Consider that we all can read the words of our Christ and discern, on our own, what true faith is.

 

[Mountainmike]

That's merely a prideful assumption that "the true faith" is only Catholic. Consider that we all can read the words of our Christ and discern, on our own, what true faith is.

No you cannot. And that is the point. That is why reformation theology has fractured into 10000 mutually exclusive pieces. There is only one truth and interpretation, we can discover from tradition, ie the faith handed down by studying what the apostles handed on in the writings of early fathers. Jesus also gave power to resolve ambiguity on doctrine which is the power to "bind and loose" , so authority given to the apostles and successors acting together consort (ie in councils without which you would not even have a new testament!!!) and also to successors of Peter alone, and that is how contemporary Jews would understand that phrase "bind and loose" as the means of resolving doctrinal and legal disputes.. That is the same authority Jesus notes for moses seat in the old covenant, and is why he says they should listen to


So right boot, wrong foot.

The pride lies with those who think they can discern meaning of scripture on their own without church authority or tradition that carries the meaning with scripture. They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yet We are told to "hold true to tradition" and "the pillar and foundation of truth IS the church"

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Both. We should be open to both be corrected and to correct our brothers in Christ, to leatn and to teach. But it must be done in love. I believe that is in line with Proverbs 27:17.

The only time I have a problem on here is with people who claim to have some insightful knowledge that they claim is scriptural or from God yet thy cant and wont show why they believe that. To me that is a massive warning sign that they are not to be trusted.

I also take the view that on some things like OSAS God can use differences of belief for the best benefit of individual people. We are all created as individuals and as such different approaches may work better for different people to make them more effective and better Christians. The different churches in revelation represent this, but not all churches are necessarily of God and some can lead people astray.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I think many do come to teach, not learn. They see themselves as people who have more spiritual understanding than most, and come that others may gain the insight they believe they have. They must have invested huge amounts of time in reading the Bible, due to the way they reel it off( could be using Bible gateway of course)
Are many of these, proud, and arrogant concerning what they think they know? Sure. But as I joined these kind of sites thinking I knew a lot I better stop there.
People in glass houses....

 

[Mountainmike]

In that context one teaching I think all should consider is Romans 10:15

"how can they teach if they are not sent?" which from early christian times was considered a reference to the apostolic succession, apostles appointing those who can teach, and sending them. Which dovetails with Paul stating elsewhere "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

So should anyone trust a self appointed teacher, unless he is citing an authority in the succession?

The massive range of interpretation of dogma on such as eucharist, and baptism did not exist pre reformation and was a product of empowerement of all to decide doctrine from scripture, Luther lamenting as a result "every milkmaid now has their doctrine.

I think many do come to teach, not learn. They see themselves as people who have more spiritual understanding than most, and come that others may gain the insight they believe they have. They must have invested huge amounts of time in reading the Bible, due to the way they reel it off( could be using Bible gateway of course)
Are many of these, proud, and arrogant concerning what they think they know? Sure. But as I joined these kind of sites thinking I knew a lot I better stop there.
People in glass houses....

 

[stuart lawrence]

In that context one teaching I think all should consider is Romans 10:15

"how can they teach if they are not sent?" which from early christian times was considered a reference to the apostolic succession, apostles appointing those who can teach, and sending them. Which dovetails with Paul stating elsewhere "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

So should anyone trust a self appointed teacher, unless he is citing an authority in the succession?

The massive range of interpretation of dogma on such as eucharist, and baptism did not exist pre reformation and was a product of empowerement of all to decide doctrine from scripture, Luther lamenting as a result "every milkmaid now has their doctrine.

Don't all self appointed teachers quote Christ and the Apostles?

 

[blackribbon]

I am on this forum to talk to other Christians and find a form of fellowship. I hope to have my thinking challenged and be force to evaluate my own thoughts and beliefs through these discussions. I do not believe that this is the place "to be taught" since we have no idea of the actual character of those we interact with but it is a place to seek advice and get other viewpoints to use to re-evaluate our own beliefs.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.... and yet Jesus PRAISED THE FATHER for hiding salvation <<SALVATION>>
from the educated,
and revealing it to infants (young ones), for thus it is the FATHER'S GOOD PLEASURE SO TO DO.

as JESUS PRAISED the FATHER for this, so do we in HIM.

 

[dqhall]

I am reminded of a thread which proposed the dismissal of a pastor for using another's copyright sermons, when the congregation considered they deserved a custom version just for them. My question is , why does the original author have the temerity to consider his works are worthy of protection, and I consider that he overestimates his own importance and the value of his work, in seeking to be identified as author let alone restrict access. As for the congregation , to have the self importance to think they deserve anything let alone better, speaks volumes on how far they have to travel on their journey in humility.

I think this is close to the topic about some people wanting to correct others. A copyright is intellectual property. Taking someone's copyrighted work is like theft. I published web pages. I was able to use many sources and years of study to come up with original text. I also used published books with expired copyrights before 1922. These are in the public domain. I used the World English Bible when putting quotes in posts. The author(s) put it in the public domain. If you find a book of sermons from before 1922, you may use them. There is financial risk in infringing on a copyright. Hershel Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. He put an article in his magazine about the last of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments being translated. It took years to assemble these pieces in the right order. He had borrowed a photo of one of the unpublished assembled fragments for scholarly use. He did not have a license to publish it. He was eager to share this photo with his readers and published it in his magazine. He was sued for a million dollars and lost the lawsuit. Oprah Winfrey is a popular writer. She published a best selling book. Someone else copied most of Oprah's book and published it. The ripped off version of the best seller made the lady wealthy. Oprah sued the woman and the copycat lost her big house after a court battle.

 

[dqhall]

Can we be divided so easily into two types here on CF? There are other types who are here for entertainment or singles looking for a potential partner perhaps?
I would the say the ones who are here to correct others would hesitate to the admit that. They might say something like "I am here for both. To learn and correct." But the reality I suggest is, they feel confident enough in their spiritual knowledge to be correcters only.
I don't want to be on CF, if I ever reach that stage. because then I have nothing else to learn.

One always hopes to learn something from what is written on CF.

If a single is looking for a relationship, PlentyofFish.com is the largest dating service that I know of. It is free. One may get a upgraded version of the online dating tool for a price.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Don't all self appointed teachers quote Christ and the Apostles?

No.
I think there are many more who never do, practically;
instead , or at least more often,
they quote non-biblical sources,
loving the approval of men instead of God's approval
(by quoting popular instead of true sources).

 

[Mountainmike]

Don't all self appointed teachers quote Christ and the Apostles?

They may quote the words, but then misstate the meaning.

That is the problem. As we see from almost any aspect of doctrine there are several mutually exclusive versions of reformationist doctrine arising `from differing opinions on what scripture means, so those who promote the differing versions are stating own opinion or denomination opinion on meaning.. Only by going back to early fathers and authority can we determine which of these is the truth, so only by listening to teachers who are sent by the succession can we be sure of the veracity.

Scripture carries the words. Tradition carries the meaning from apostles and earliest christians to present day.

Doctrine changed only imperceptibly until the reformation, when all and sundry took off at tangents by wrongly thinking they could interpret scripture themselves..
OSAS is a false man made tradition that had no place in church history till Calvin and later using the newly assumed but false belief he could decide his own doctrine contrary to early fathers, those who decide the new testament, and contrary to the apostolic succession..

So self appointed "Bible gurus" like Calvin often have the wrong end of the stick and Christianity fragmented because of them. These are the self appointed teachers who were not sent.

 

[stuart lawrence]

They may quote the words, but then misstate the meaning.

That is the problem. As we see from almost any aspect of doctrine there are several mutually exclusive versions of reformationist doctrine from differing opinions on what scripture means, so those who promote the differing versions are stating own opinion or denomination opinion on meaning.. Only by going back to early fathers and authority can we determine which of these is the truth, so only by listening to teachers who are sent by the succession can we be sure of the veracity.

Scripture carries the words. Tradition carries the meaning from apostles and earliest christians to present day.

Doctrine changed only imperceptibly until the reformation, when all and sundry took off at tangents by wrongly thinking they could interpret scripture themselves..
OSAS is a false man made tradition that had no place in church history till Calvin and later using the newly assumed but false belief he could decide his own doctrine contrary to early fathers, those who decide the new testament, and contrary to the apostolic succession..

So self appointed "Bible gurus" like Calvin often have the wrong end of the stick and Christianity fragmented because of them. These are the self appointed teachers who were not sent.

Well I think to continue this might be distracting from the topic of the thread.
I will say, from the opposing point if view, that Luther, and subsequent protestants would argue the church was not being faithfull to the biblical message, that's why they broke away.
However, if you want to discuss this subject in more detail, I think it would be wise to start a separate thread. For I don't think it would be right to derail this one

 

[Mountainmike]

Well I think to continue this might be distracting from the topic of the thread.
I will say, from the opposing point if view, that Luther, and subsequent protestants would argue the church was not being faithfull to the biblical message, that's why they broke away.
However, if you want to discuss this subject in more detail, I think it would be wise to start a separate thread. For I don't think it would be right to derail this one

True that it is derailing a little, to mention specific cases . I simply challenge the opinion that anyone who just quotes scripture to teach doctrine, is therefore worthy of audience here, because they in reality are teaching just one opinion on what scripture means. So they are potentially teaching falsehood regardless of the quanity of scripture used.

 

[stuart lawrence]

True. I simply challenge the opinion that anyone who just quotes scripture to teach doctrine, is worthy of audience, because they in reality are teaching only one opinion on what scripture means. So they are potentially teaching falsehood regardless of the quanity of scripture used..

And that would apply to someone who was a catholic as well as it would apply to protestants.
Actually, I'm put off by long posts that only quote the letter. Ministers/ preachers don't do that do they, they go into detail explaining what they quote. Give relevant examples of it to the flock

 

[Mountainmike]

And that would apply to someone who was a catholic as well as it would apply to protestants.

Without protracting this, catholics also quote tradition which carries the meaning of scripture via ECF interpretation which also includes definitions of heresies and council decisions on doctrine, not just the raw scripture. And that is the difference. The sacramental eucharist definition of real presence only valid if performed by succession bishops comes from the earliest church taught by apostles and is found in those writings. We dont just quote raw scripture and enter a free for all on what it means.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Without protracting this, catholics also quote tradition via ECF interpretation which also includes definitions of heresies and council decisions on doctrine, not just the raw scripture. And that is the difference. The sacramental eucharist definition of real presence only valid if performed by succession comes from the earliest church. We dont just quote raw scripture.

Without wishing to prolong it either. The message of grace plainly stated in the Bible means everything to me.
So if you can point me to an RC church, close to where I live in the UK where the priest regularly tells his flock they are not righteous in God's sight by obeying the TC I will consider joining it

 

[Mountainmike]

Without wishing to prolong it either. The message of grace plainly stated in the Bible means everything to me.
So if you can point me to an RC church, close to where I live in the UK where the priest regularly tells his flock they are not righteous in God's sight by obeying the TC I will consider joining it

But RC churches do! it is a part of part 3 of catechism!
"2081 The Ten Commandments, in their fundamental content, state grave obligations.

Catholics are the guilt people, so we are told, and priests often focus on one aspect or another of that, although "hellfire and damnation" preaching has mellowed in all denominations I suspect.
We know we cannot be certain of salvation until the race has run its course, and we accept all our Lords ordinances, so we can only hope for our Lords Grace, since all of us fall short by some way. There is no easy say this or do this, and you will be fine, in catholicism! And we are frequently reminded of how we fall short!