Can we read scripture together.

[ebia]

Over in GT in a rather unpleasant thread that has thankfully been close, I said:

At what point do we move from threads attacking alternative positions and defending our own into actually talking to each other, reading and studying scripture together, having intelligent discussion together?

And someone else responded:

You said "reading and studying scripture together" and I'm definitely down for that. But this thread is saying that scripture alone is dangerous and if someone holds that viewpoint, would they be willing to "reading and studying scripture together"? Because when it comes down to doctrine, many would probably opt for the traditional view of things which aren't necessarily found in scripture, and then how do you agree what scripture is saying if you don't first agree that Scripture should be the final authority? Granted, I don't think agreement necessarily defines what doctrine should be--but if one say Scripture and they other says Tradition and if those two are not in agreement/complimentary then we are at a standstill.

This thread is definitely not to reignite the debate over Sola v's tradition but to discuss whether we can simply sit down, read and study scripture together without demanding that we resolve that one first and without an agenda of defending our doctines and attacking the others, but simply studying scripture for what it is and letting God take that where he will?

On a local scale I know that can be done from experience. The 2008 Catholic Synod of Bishops said that they saw the Bible as one of the two primary instruments of unity, so they presumably think it can be done.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Anyone willing to sit down and read and study the scripture will always be on the right track. If the bible taught us about God and His love for us. If it taught us about Christ and His sacrifice for us because of His love, then I don't know why people would think that believe in scripture only would be a dangerous thing. Honestly, scripture is amazing, I personally love studying it--you learn so much about the mind of God and the more times you read it the more dimensions it opens and more things you realize.

 

[ebia]

Anyone willing to sit down and read and study the scripture will always be on the right track. If the bible taught us about God and His love for us. If it taught us about Christ and His sacrifice for us because of His love, then I don't know why people would think that believe in scripture only would be a dangerous thing. Honestly, scripture is amazing, I personally love studying it--you learn so much about the mind of God and the more times you read it the more dimensions it opens and more things you realize.

If we really mean that - on both sides - why is CF dominated by argument about doctrine and features so little study of scripture? Why do people on both sides spend their whole time reenacting 16th century battles and so little time engaging with what we share in common in scripture? Why is it that when scripture does appear its not to hear what it has to say on what it wants to speak about but to shore-up our own positions.

 

[onemorequestion]

If we really mean that - on both sides - why is CF dominated by argument about doctrine and features so little study of scripture? Why do people on both sides spend their whole time reenacting 16th century battles and so little time engaging with what we share in common in scripture? Why is it that when scripture does appear its not to hear what it has to say on what it wants to speak about but to shore-up our own positions.

Jesus used scripture to shore up his own positions.

 

[ebia]

Jesus used scripture to shore up his own positions.

Do you really think that? Do you really think the proper use of scripture is to prove yourself right?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

If we really mean that - on both sides - why is CF dominated by argument about doctrine and features so little study of scripture? Why do people on both sides spend their whole time reenacting 16th century battles and so little time engaging with what we share in common in scripture? Why is it that when scripture does appear its not to hear what it has to say on what it wants to speak about but to shore-up our own positions.

I think it seems that scripture is used to "shore-up our own positions" because of the way we have attributed debates. When we debate about something, it's to prove that you are right, but when you bring that into the bible, some still think that they are using scripture to show that they are right...but I personally feel like Scripture shapes our beliefs, we should be able to defend our beliefs based on Scripture. And we should be willing to change our beliefs based on what is written of Scripture, if our beliefs disagree with the Bible.

If someone asked me, "Do I need to be baptized?" or "Are their qualifications of being a elder?" then I'm certainly going to the bible and show scripture, put it into the correct context and show them my beliefs (that is shaped based on reading scripture), and that is engaging in the word because we are looking at Scripture as final authority as God's word and therefore we're going to follow it.

And Scripture can also teach you the truth if you have been misled or misunderstood. That's why I think it is so important to read the bible with an open heart and allow the bible to say what it say because the bible does a great job of explaining itself and showing us our errors and our illogical thought processes (if they are illogical).

As for the reason why CF is dominated by arguments about doctrine and feature so little study of scripture, I don't know.
But the one thing is for sure, you really need to spend time studying scripture before you try and get into one of these arguments because it will be clearly evident if you don't read it. The frustration will start seeping in and your faith will be shaken, especially if you are in an argument with someone who have such a difference of opinion and you have no way to counteract because you don't know what the bible teaches because you don't study it. You also will be frustrated at the lack of knowledge when you do know scripture and you are debating with someone who chooses to believe in a tradition rather than Scripture and the two are contradicting.

Also, it's hard to study the bible with people online, I usually opt to do it with the church during worship and bible study as well as on my own.

 

[ebia]

That seems back to front - it doesn't start with scripture and let that take us wherever, it starts with our doctine and just uses scripture as a means to prove or disprove that. Scripture has been displaced at the centre by doctine.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Do you really think that? Do you really think the proper use of scripture is to prove yourself right?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.​

I think that's the proper use of scripture.



OH, one other thing...I think someone should debate on something with the heart of wanting to spread God's message and His truth and not to be proven right.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That seems back to front - it doesn't start with scripture and let that take us wherever, it starts with our doctine and just uses scripture as a means to prove or disprove that. Scripture has been displaced at the centre by doctine.

No, it starts with one's doctrine belief if a question is asked. And most times in debates, there is a question asked or a statement made and someone disagree with the statement and they prove why.

If someone wants to study the bible verse by verse, then you open God's word and read it together. Scripture is going to shape your beliefs as you continue studying God's word.

 

[ebia]

No, it starts with one's doctrine belief if a question is asked. And most times in debates, there is a question asked or a statement made and someone disagree with the statement and they prove why.

The question is, if any of us are serious about scripture why do all the questions start with doctine, not scripture?

Just look at the thread titles and traffic in GT compared to here. If any of us were as serious about scripture as we claim shouldn't the ratios be the other way around? Shouldn't most of the Opening posts look like - "here's a piece of scripture, this is what I get out of it, what do others think" rather than "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong"?

 

[wayseer]

The question is, if any of us are serious about scripture why do all the questions start with doctine, not scripture?

Just look at the thread titles and traffic in GT compared to here. If any of us were as serious about scripture as we claim shouldn't the ratios be the other way around? Shouldn't most of the Opening posts look like - "here's a piece of scripture, this is what I get out of it, what do others think" rather than "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong"?

I waited awhile before joining as I was interested in how this thread would evolve.

I think you make valid points.

However, I think there is an inherent assumption that perhaps needs to be acknowledge.

I take my point of reference from reader-response criticism.

The biblical texts will speak to us in different ways at different time in different situations. I think that the 'traffic' on CF indicates as much. The inherent problem I think is that there is an assumption that we all MUST sing from the same hymn sheet.

While we all hold central beliefs much of what takes place on CF is nothing more than what has been going on for two millennia - except things are somewhat speeded up with the internet. How do those central beliefs play out given the contingency of the world which we all inhabit.

So I think we need to accept that the texts will speak to us in different ways - that we are all on individual paths and the lessons we need to learn are also individual.

So my question is - what is wrong with difference?

I know in my own life my path is different today than is was 20 years ago, different to last year and will be different in the future.

Yet your point about 'doctrine' is valid. But that is because many here on CF have yet to learn that doctrine is yet another guide and that the quest for the holy grail of certainty is but a mirror of the world. Even the 'certainties' of our creeds can only be accepted on faith - we simply do not have all the answers.

I trust I have no derailed the thread.

 

[ebia]

Thanks Wayseer.

I take what you say completely. But its not just that doctrinal "debate" and rehersing the same old fights are big here - they make up almost everything. Start yet another thread attacking an RCC doctine, or a Sola, or Sat/Sun worship, or anything to do with sex and you're guaranteed to run to pages within minutes. Bust start a thread suggesting we talk about what we have in common and its turned into pronouncing mutual anathamas by the end of the second page and start a thread in here reflecting on a passage and its unlikely to ever run to two pages!

There has to be some scope for challenging that, for trying to get at least some people some of the time to do something more constructive, surely.

 

[wayseer]

Agreed.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The question is, if any of us are serious about scripture why do all the questions start with doctine, not scripture?

I thought doctrine was scripture?
And if it starts with a question, (if the question is about a particular doctrine), it stemmed from scripture.

Just look at the thread titles and traffic in GT compared to here. If any of us were as serious about scripture as we claim shouldn't the ratios be the other way around? Shouldn't most of the Opening posts look like - "here's a piece of scripture, this is what I get out of it, what do others think" rather than "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong"?

Isn't that the same question?

If you ask someone "here is scripture, this is what I think, what do others think" is that not also asking "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong?".

Now, you might say that if you simply want to know what others think that it's not the same as saying something is right/wrong...but I would disagree. If someone tell you, "this is what I think about the scripture you provided," and it contradicts what you have said--you're either going to ask them to prove it through scripture, show scripture to prove or disprove that the interpretation of scripture is right/wrong, or walk away with the same mindset "he believes this but I believe this."

Example:
If I give you scripture in Genesis speaking about the Creation, and asking others to comment on their opinions of it, I guarantee you that some of the opinions will be contradicting. How then do you continue when we don't come to the same conclusion when reading scripture? God doesn't provide contradicting truths, so either what we are thinking is correct or wrong, but you have to be open to changing your mind based on what is in Scripture reading it in its context.

You know what, you can start a thread using that exact layout that you just said. And then you'll get your answer on how people reply.

 

[wayseer]

I thought doctrine was scripture?

Doctrine is not scripture - although it is supported by scripture.

If you ask someone "here is scripture, this is what I think, what do others think" is that not also asking "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong?".

No. All one is doing here is giving an opinion. Opinions are OK as far as they go but such 'opinions' need to grounded in sound hermeneutics.

If I give you scripture in Genesis speaking about the Creation, and asking others to comment on their opinions of it, I guarantee you that some of the opinions will be contradicting. How then do you continue when we don't come to the same conclusion when reading scripture?

Because the biblical text invite us to do just that - to come to some individual understanding. That understand will change within individuals over time and between individuals all the time.

God doesn't provide contradicting truths, so either what we are thinking is correct or wrong,

The waters are far murkier than you imagine. The fact is that we are all still struggling with making sense of the biblical texts - we are all still sinners - that is the down side of being sinners - we can never seem to get it together.

But, to make the assumption that there has to be total agreement across the board is neither realistic nor appropriate - we all have our lessons to learn which will be individualistic.

The other alternative is to remain anchored in Sunday School.

You know what, you can start a thread using that exact layout that you just said. And then you'll get your answer on how people reply.

That is the point Ebia is making. The response is generally zip. I just started one myself. In other words, people on CF are not all that interested in learning about the texts but more about sensationalizing Christianity along narrow emotional lines. Even the so-called 'doctrinal' arguments are not about doctrine at all but about personal ingrown ideologies.

 

[ebia]

I thought doctrine was scripture?

No. Doctines are abstractions [hopefully from scripture]. They are each at least one step removed from scripture, often much more than one step removed. And very different in presentation - its presented as absolute propositional truth or instruction, where as the vast majority of scripture is narrative and even the bits that aren't narrative at face value are embedded in implied narrative and the big meta-narrative.

And if it starts with a question, (if the question is about a particular doctrine), it stemmed from scripture.

Isn't that the same question?

No, its starting from scripture and talking about where we go from here with an openess to what scripture has to say. Starting with doctine is begin with the abstraction as the main event and treat scripture as something to support or demolish it. Our interest has moved from God using scripture to take us whereever he wants us to go, to refining our abstractions that we'll use in place of scripture itself.

If you ask someone "here is scripture, this is what I think, what do others think" is that not also asking "here's proof that such and such a doctrine is right/wrong?".

Absolutely not. The object is reflection, not abstraction, and means is mutual listening, not oppositional debate.

If I give you scripture in Genesis speaking about the Creation, and asking others to comment on their opinions of it, I guarantee you that some of the opinions will be contradicting. How then do you continue when we don't come to the same conclusion when reading scripture?

Who said we have to come to the same conclusion? If it's a good conversation we'll each have got something positive out of it.

The end purpose is to grow into the scriptural story, not memorise a set of abstractions that we or someone else has distilled from the scriptural story and put in its place.

You know what, you can start a thread using that exact layout that you just said. And then you'll get your answer on how people reply.

I have tried it. It never runs to a page. Nobody here seems interested in actually engaging in scripture - all they are interested in is bashing each other's doctines, or proving eheir own. Fighting over abstractions instead of engaging with the original story together. We should be challenging each other with fresh insights into the texts, not perpetually re-enacting the 16th century.

 

[interested in life]

i asked both you and wayseer in the book of daniel thread to open up your bible and give me a small "thesis",you both declined because it didnt support your position.
Be honest ebia.You prefer people to agree with you even if it means contradicting scripture.Me and others can simply read it for what it is.Im aware im going to get people like you who disagree but reality is,your position is based on your opinion,mine isnt.Theres a framework for mine.
And didnt you say you need to be qualified to read scripture?Glad if you have readjusted this approach however.
Anyone can do it.
And reinventing wheels,means the wheels arent wheels anymore.

 

[wayseer]

i asked both you and wayseer in the book of daniel thread to open up your bible and give me a small "thesis",you both declined because it didnt support your position.

Again you are 'cutting and pasting' and selectively using text to support your own agenda. Neither I nor Ebia said anything of the sort.

Be honest ebia.You prefer people to agree with you even if it means contradicting scripture.

I cannot allow your charge that Ebia is being less than as honest go without comment. Ebia is more than open to challenge and is not concerned with any position held as long as such position is hermeneutically supported. Most of what we have to deal with is largely unsupported personal opinion.

I have yet to see where Ebia has 'contradicted' scripture. Your charged in unfounded and unwarranted.

Me and others can simply read it for what it is.

Nothing is read 'for what it is'. Do you read the newspaper 'for what it is'? Do you accept what politicians tell us on the nightly TV as 'what it is'? Do you accept neighbourhood gossip for 'what it is'? I doubt it.

Then I would imagine that you would do research and check out the facts. No?

Im aware im going to get people like you who disagree but reality is,your position is based on your opinion,mine isnt.

But you have not demonstrated what you have said as anything more than your personal opinion.

And didnt you say you need to be qualified to interpret scripture?

It always helps to know what you are doing.

There are any number of ways of going about supporting you opinion - but it does take some time and effort.

 

[ebia]

i asked both you and wayseer in the book of daniel thread to open up your bible and give me a small "thesis",
you both declined because it didnt support your position.

I declined, but that's not one of the several reasons I declined.

There's a big difference between being asked write a "thesis" on a passage within a debate like that, and a thread without an agenda except to explore a passage.

Be honest ebia.You prefer people to agree with you even if it means contradicting scripture.

What makes you think you can tell me what I prefer?

Me and others can simply read it for what it is.Im aware im going to get people like you who disagree but reality is,your position is based on your opinion,mine isnt.Theres a framework for mine.

We all have frameworks in which we are working.

And didnt you say you need to be qualified to read scripture?

Me? No, absolutely not. No idea who or what you are thinking of.

Anyone can read scripture if they can read. However, the more insight we can bring to it from, say, historical scholarship or whereever, the better. Anyone can pick up, say, Luke's gospel and get a huge amount out of it, and contribute to a reasonable discussion. However, bringing along some historical understanding of the world in which Jesus operated and Luke wrote will help clarify things that are otherwise obscure, avoid some misunderstandings, get some connections one otherwise won't have got, understand some metaphors and genres, etc.

And reinventing wheels,means the wheels arent wheels anymore.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[interested in life]

I declined, but that's not one of the several reasons I declined.

There's a big difference between being asked write a "thesis" on a passage within a debate like that, and a thread without an agenda except to explore a passage.

Whats my agenda? i asked you to open it up and tell me what daniel 2 says.Thats it.I didnt even ask for a thesis,i hate typing myself.A simple explanation would of sufficed.

What makes you think you can tell me what I prefer?

Well its obvious.What makes you think i cant discern by reading your words?

We all have frameworks in which we are working.

Yes i agree.I asked for your sources regarding the later date.You seemed to lose interest.Im glad that interest has been reactivated.

Anyone can read scripture if they can read.

Well spotted sir.

However, the more insight we can bring to it from, say, historical scholarship or whereever, the better. Anyone can pick up, say, Luke's gospel and get a huge amount out of it, and contribute to a reasonable discussion.
However, bringing along some historical understanding of the world in which Jesus operated and Luke wrote will help clarify things that are otherwise obscure, avoid some misunderstandings, get some connections one otherwise won't have got, understand some metaphors and genres, etc.

Supply the extra sources next time please.I think you are under the impression that noone knows where your lateral thinking is coming from.