Deception in Theology

[All Becomes New]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

 

[RandyPNW]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

True, but I think you're making one important mistake in this. Normally, schools do have their students follow them, and denominations have their faithful devotees. But it is individuals who can turn on a dime, switch sides, or take pieces of any number of sides.

Nor are these schools all "wrong," just because they have a bit of an imbalance. The priorities in the time of their original movements may not fit priorities today, and seem a bit out of sorts. But the fact these groups largely kept the faith until complete apostasy is, I think, somewhat encouraging.

It means that people "held the fort" for a long time, and weren't "half-baked" or "flaky" in their commitment to Christ and to his Church. But I do think that over time a careful look at some of the more questionable beliefs needs to be looked at.

And yes, the majority tend to fall away into rote acceptance. But as I'm saying, individuals will always be ready to reform, or break off and start over again. Why brand all as "losers" just because over time the "leaven has leavened the whole lump?"

 

[Joseph G]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

Couldn't agree more. The obsession with theological wrangling of "besting the other" is the breeding ground for the "practice" of "religion" (and its resultant heresies and idol worship) - a damnedable substitute for a RELATIONSHIP with the risen Christ through His Holy Spirit.

Here is how I've found victory in this life. Daily morning devotions between my dead self, an empty vessel, and His Holy Spirit first in prayer, then in Bible study, then in prayer again.

And on Sundays the first hour in worship, fellowship, and careful verification of the sermon taught against the Holy Bible in my hot little hands. If the pastor stays on track, then I stays in the Church!

The second hour - a men's study with my mouth firmly shut listening to the teaching and testimony of my elders - speaking only when spoken to.

This all works like a charm, dealing a deadly blow against temptation to exalt myself, and experiencing the joy of laying back and watching all the fruit He bears through me.

Focusing on only one thing at all times - striving to have the heart of a servant like Him.

One caveat. How do I pick my Church and who I submit my eyes and ears to in mutual edification? Simple... a Church and a congregation that is Bible-believing and Spirit-filled - and unashamed of loudly proclaiming as much - no matter it's name. And not so coincidentally, a local Body of Christ whose love for each other and the lost is obviously genuine to all.

Against all that, there is no debate.

Can I get a witness?

God bless us all!

biblegateway.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

Well, yes. Even those who vociferously proclaim they follow no tradition. They are the most blinded by tradition because they cannot see the traditions they do indeed follow.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Sometimes, often indeed, reading the Bible 'for yourself' leads to crazy ideas and it might have been far better to seek the advice of others who actually know more.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

Or the non-denominational denominationalists and their traditions.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

There are plenty who seek the truth. It's a rare bird indeed that would be uninfluenced by any tradition, and that person might be in the process of inventing their own rather wild tradition.

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

This applies to ALL Bible readers. Especially those who think they have figured out how to read the Bible without tradition.

So what's a guy to do? We can't avoid tradition. So we recognize we have a tradition. The natural context of the Scriptures are the communities who authored them. And the Holy Spirit still advises and guides.

As I stand in an acknowledged tradition, I share some information on how to understand Scripture within that tradition:

Library : Vatican II and the Interpretation of Scripture

Vatican II and the Interpretation of Scripture The purpose of this essay is to review the broader theological perspective proposed by Vatican II for the interpretation of Scripture, a perspective which, at the same time, defines the limits of the human sciences as applied to biblical hermeneutics.

www.catholicculture.org

Dei verbum

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei verbum

www.vatican.va

 

[Always in His Presence]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Sorry, can't get past the audacity and pompousness of the first two sentences.

The kindness response is that it is a fundamentally flawed to start a premise stating that 'everybody' - if so that would include the author and therefore the author is flawed also.

 

[All Becomes New]

Sorry, can't get past the audacity and pompousness of the first two sentences.

The kindness response is that it is a fundamentally flawed to start a premise stating that 'everybody' - if so that would include the author and therefore the author is flawed also.

Hyperbole is a thing. It's in scripture a lot.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sorry, can't get past the audacity and pompousness of the first two sentences.

The kindness response is that it is a fundamentally flawed to start a premise stating that 'everybody' - if so that would include the author and therefore the author is flawed also.

Maybe the author includes himself in that 'everybody'. If so not pompous at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

Maybe the author includes himself in that 'everybody'. If so not pompous at all.

I just try and be Biblical honestly. I call myself non-denom because I do not stick to one tradition. I "borrow" from different traditions based on what I think the Bible says. For example, I think that the MJ are right that Jesus was Jewish and all that comes with that and we need to remember that. I believe that EO and Catholics are right when it comes to theosis or deification. I believe that Protestants are right that we are justified by faith alone. etc.

 

[jas3]

So what's a guy to do? We can't avoid tradition. So we recognize we have a tradition. The natural context of the Scriptures are the communities who authored them.

Exactly. There's humility in acknowledging one's own tradition and that there are saints who have come before us who were both culturally closer to the authors of Scripture and personally more pious than we are. The arrogance is in thinking one can be a "blank slate" and read the Bible for himself and get it right where no one else has.

 

[All Becomes New]

saints who have come before us who were both culturally closer to the authors of Scripture and personally more pious than we are.

You realize the implication of this is that there is no church that is "close to the authors of scripture," right?

 

[jas3]

You realize the implication of this is that there is no church that is "close to the authors of scripture," right?

How so?

 

[All Becomes New]

How so?

2,000 years.

 

[jas3]

2,000 years.

Do you have a complete thought, or am I supposed to guess what you're trying to say?

 

[All Becomes New]

Do you have a complete thought, or am I supposed to guess what you're trying to say?

I already covered it in the OP. Tradition for the sake of tradition is something Jesus was explicitly against. He grounded Truth on the Word of God, not tradition, which is fallible, as Christ points out. Insert your own tradition into this.

 

[jas3]

I already covered it in the OP.

I don't see anything about 2,000 years in the OP, so I'll take a guess at what you mean. You seem to think that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc. traditions are all wrong in certain respects, and that we today can't distinguish between the veracity of one over the other, or over an individual nondenominationalist. To put it another way, all churches as they exist in the present are equally removed from the writing of the New Testament and have no advantage over a nondenom individual.

But that is exactly the problem that Holy Tradition solves. We aren't stuck trying to reconstruct a religion from the Bible. We know what those who weren't 2,000 years removed from the authorship of the New Testament believed. If you want to ignore them and think you can do better on your own, that sounds an awful lot like the eye saying to the hand, "I don't need you."

 

[All Becomes New]

But that is exactly the problem that Holy Tradition solves. We aren't stuck trying to reconstruct a religion from the Bible. We know what those who weren't 2,000 years removed from the authorship of the New Testament believed. If you want to ignore them and think you can do better on your own, that sounds an awful lot like the eye saying to the hand, "I don't need you."

You mix false traditions with true ones. That's the problem. That is the same problem Jesus had with the Pharisees. So often we are arrogant to think our tradition is pure and that tradition corrects errors not knowing that your tradition evolves over the span of 2,000 years.

 

[jas3]

You mix false traditions with true ones.

How would you know, being 2,000 years removed from the original traditions yourself?

 

[All Becomes New]

How would you know, being 2,000 years removed from the original traditions yourself?

History bears it out. If you don't think the Orthodox church has changed at all in 2,000 years you are deceived and I pity you.

 

[jas3]

History bears it out. If you don't think the Orthodox church has changed at all in 2,000 years you are deceived and I pity you.

"Has changed" and "has mixed false traditions with true ones" are very different things. I would agree with the former in a qualified sense, but fully reject that history bears out the latter.

But as long as we're on the subject of the historicity of traditions, we can say with absolute certainty that picking elements of various churches you like to construct your own personal theology while remaining outside any one church's hierarchy has its roots in the Enlightenment, not the Apostolic age.

 

[All Becomes New]

"Has changed" and "has mixed false traditions with true ones" are very different things. I would agree with the former in a qualified sense, but fully reject that history bears out the latter.

But as long as we're on the subject of the historicity of traditions, we can say with absolute certainty that picking elements of various churches you like to construct your own personal theology while remaining outside any one church's hierarchy has its roots in the Enlightenment, not the Apostolic age.

Tell me where in the Bible Paul or any other author spoke of taking the bread in the same way as Judas. Tell me when icon veneration (idolatry) started.