Does the Bible need a handbook?

[ebia]

I suspect that if you have been asking for it for 30 years then its not in faith, but rather asked in hope or frustration.

What's wrong with that? Read any of the more depressed Psalms or Ecclesiastes lately?

 

[AgnosticMike]

remember, God Himself sent someone to help the Ethiopian Eneuch. Later, Jesus tells us He will send the Councelor. This tells me we don't need a handbook to understand what God says but they help us understand the times and customs, etc.

G'day Cali

That's if the story is true. Seems a bit far fetched to me. Still it could be.

I've been asking for the paraclete (counsellor) for years even claiming the Biblical promises of Luke. No answer. There's a couple of possibilities. God is lying, the promise is fabricated, God really can't hear our prayers, God's not interested or he can't be bothered. There are probably some more you can think of too.

It does seem that everyone has their own idea on the key doctrines. And everyone claims they have the right answer. Very confusing. When I read the Bible different parts contradict other parts. Jesus' version of the gospel contradicts the apostles which in turn contradicts the evangelical church's version etc.

 

[AgnosticMike]

God doesn't change and will not say he'll do something and not do it. There are countless ones of us who have asked in faith for wisdom and received it. We are not special in any fashion and do not receive special treatment from God.

I suspect that if you have been asking for it for 30 years then its not in faith, but rather asked in hope or frustration. Hope and a sandwich will get you a meal. Faith and a sandwich will feed your family for a week.

Is there a special recipe for prayers too? Does God only answer the prayer of faith and ignore the ones of hope or frustration?

I know the faith prayer doesn't work for those living in the subsistence areas of the world. Many of them are Christians and pray fervently and die of starvation.

 

[Tavita]

See Christians don't agree on the fundamentals. Trans sub is fundamental to Catholics. Just becasue you don't have it on your list, doesn't mean it or any other doctrines aren't fundamental to other Christians.

So therefore, what's the big deal? Just because a catholic believes in transsubstantiation and I don't doesn't mean I don't think he's not saved, and he's not walking before the Lord in a worthy manner. Those things aren't important when it comes to realizing that other people are saved or not in God's eyes. Now if a catholic was to tell me that he hadn't committed his life to Jesus first then I'd be wondering about his salvation, because that is a fundamental.

You might love those you dissagree with, although I'd like to know how you love them. Love is not something we mentally do. Please inform me.

Love is an action word, I agree. Okay, I get together with a catholic and we talk about our differences but we don't make a big deal about it, or argue, or judge each other to hell, we then put it aside and carry on as friends. If I see them in hardship I'll help, if they want me to pray for them, I will. If they want me to be a godmother to one of their kids and I have to go sit in a catholic service, no problem. It's simple really. I'm sure you have christian friends from different denoms.

I see a lot of christians (and me included) that get into the theology sections etc, to talk about and debate on their differing beliefs, but I think it's fun and it helps me to see other's in a new light and gives me a bit of understanding as to why they believe like they do.

Instead of standing back and critizing each other for differing non-fundamental beliefs we ought to be looking for what we do agree on, and loving each other at the same time.

 

[AgnosticMike]

So therefore, what's the big deal? Just because a catholic believes in transsubstantiation and I don't doesn't mean I don't think he's not saved, and he's not walking before the Lord in a worthy manner. Those things aren't important when it comes to realizing that other people are saved or not in God's eyes. Now if a catholic was to tell me that he hadn't committed his life to Jesus first then I'd be wondering about his salvation, because that is a fundamental.

No big deal, its just that you said, erroneously, that Christians agree on the fundamentals. Well that simply isn;t true. It is true that the Christians you agree with agree on the fundamentals that you believe only.

Love is an action word, I agree. Okay, I get together with a catholic and we talk about our differences but we don't make a big deal about it, or argue, or judge each other to hell, we then put it aside and carry on as friends. If I see them in hardship I'll help, if they want me to pray for them, I will. If they want me to be a godmother to one of their kids and I have to go sit in a catholic service, no problem. It's simple really. I'm sure you have christian friends from different denoms.

I just have friends. It's like a wise aboriginal once said when asked if he was a black fella (fellow) or a white fella. He replied, I'm just a fella.

Good to see you don't hold other Christian's heresy against them, many do. I know people who would not set foot inside a Catholic church because they consider the place evil. I have friends that would not march at our Easter parades because Catholics were marching.

I see a lot of christians (and me included) that get into the theology sections etc, to talk about and debate on their differing beliefs, but I think it's fun and it helps me to see other's in a new light and gives me a bit of understanding as to why they believe like they do.

That's a wise thing to do. It helps me to see the landscape of opinion and makes me even more cautious about making a decision. I always say, that I can't be wrong. Becasue if you're not claiming any knowledge or truth you cannot be right or wrong.

Instead of standing back and critizing each other for differing non-fundamental beliefs we ought to be looking for what we do agree on, and loving each other at the same time.[/quote]

 

[AgnosticMike]

Instead of standing back and critizing each other for differing non-fundamental beliefs we ought to be looking for what we do agree on, and loving each other at the same time.

Just a PS to my last post. I noticed an ad at the bottom of the site page saying:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.co...oBCTcyOHg5MF9hc8gBAdoBUmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2hyaX A NEw World Order: Coming
USA & Papacy Behind it: Are you Ready for it? Learn Bible prophecy

Notice that the supporters of this site believe in Catholic Conspiracies. SOme believe the Pope is the Anti Christ. That is a fundamental doctrine of many fundamentalists. I'm sure you don't agree with that.

I think that Christians try and make out that there is unity where there is not. To me it is deceptive.

Regards

Mike

 

[LilLamb219]

I think that Christians try and make out that there is unity where there is not. To me it is deceptive.

The only true unity comes from our triune God who calls His sheep to be the "Church". The true Church can't be seen and we can't always know who is in the Church because there are many liars and hypocrites claiming to be members. So, it's up to God to bring true unity to His Church and He does so with His Word. When man attempts to create unity, sin prevails and that unity (the one man thinks he created) basically falls apart.

 

[Tavita]

No big deal, its just that you said, erroneously, that Christians agree on the fundamentals. Well that simply isn;t true. It is true that the Christians you agree with agree on the fundamentals that you believe only.

Well, we'll just have to differ on that one because I do see the major denoms agreeing on the fundamentals... I guess it's a case of what you and I believe the fundamentals are... sounds familiar doesn't it?

I just have friends. It's like a wise aboriginal once said when asked if he was a black fella (fellow) or a white fella. He replied, I'm just a fella.

Yeah, I just have friends too really, a lot of them aren't christian at all... and most of the Koori's I know demand to be called black fella's .. .. maybe they're not wise.

Good to see you don't hold other Christian's heresy against them, many do. I know people who would not set foot inside a Catholic church because they consider the place evil. I have friends that would not march at our Easter parades because Catholics were marching.

That's very sad really.

That's a wise thing to do. It helps me to see the landscape of opinion and makes me even more cautious about making a decision. I always say, that I can't be wrong. Becasue if you're not claiming any knowledge or truth you cannot be right or wrong.

Mike, I don't make a decision about what I believe based on what I read in here or anywhere else, but the Bible. What I read in here gets me to thinking, but it's gotta be checked out against the Word. And if you're fully persuaded in what you believe then you should have the courage of your convictions and make a stand.

 

[Tavita]

Just a PS to my last post. I noticed an ad at the bottom of the site page saying:

A NEw World Order: Coming
USA & Papacy Behind it: Are you Ready for it? Learn Bible prophecy

Notice that the supporters of this site believe in Catholic Conspiracies. SOme believe the Pope is the Anti Christ. That is a fundamental doctrine of many fundamentalists. I'm sure you don't agree with that.

I think that Christians try and make out that there is unity where there is not. To me it is deceptive.

Regards

Mike

Yeh, I've heard most of the catholic conspiracies, and no I don't agree the Pope is the antichrist.
But I've got to agree with LilLamb219's great response to you when it comes to unity.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Well, we'll just have to differ on that one because I do see the major denoms agreeing on the fundamentals... I guess it's a case of what you and I believe the fundamentals are... sounds familiar doesn't it?

Well we first have to see if there is dissagreement or not. I'm not sure that you do disagree with me. Which major denominations agree on what fundamentals. We have already aestablished that there is disagreement between the Catholic denomination and the evangelical denominations on salvation, namely transubstansiation. Evangelicals believe in salvation by grace (amonst some other variations) opposed to salvation by a ritual in the elements. I wasn't aware that you disagreed with that. Please clarify.

Yeah, I just have friends too really, a lot of them aren't christian at all... and most of the Koori's I know demand to be called black fella's .. .. maybe they're not wise.

I'm not sure that you're in a position to question their wisdom.

Mike, I don't make a decision about what I believe based on what I read in here or anywhere else, but the Bible. What I read in here gets me to thinking, but it's gotta be checked out against the Word. And if you're fully persuaded in what you believe then you should have the courage of your convictions and make a stand.

Well I do. If I read the Bible and what it said at face value I would definitely be an Atheist. Even if I read the Bible myself, I am reading an interpretation. Sometimes the meanings of words and stories have been lost in antiquity and left to the opinion of academics. In many cases people have to determine where the end of a sentence goes. That often changes the meaning radically. The Greek had no full stops. Then we have to contend with the changes from Aramaic to Greek then to English.

I could give you so many of the problems I have encountered by reading the Bible many times. Each time I read it the problems increase.

 

[food4thought]

It does seem that everyone has their own idea on the key doctrines. And everyone claims they have the right answer. Very confusing.

Many differences can be found in the way that the Bible is interpreted because there are numerous ways that an individual verse can be applied to our lives. I think you are seeing a common mistake we all have, which is a tendency of applying scripture to a particular situation in our own lives and calling it an interpretation. The Bible strictly forbids this (2nd Peter 1:20).

Interpretation is taking the meaning of the words in the context of the passage, the book, and the Bible as a whole and finding the intended meaning of the author of the book to the intended recipient(s).

Application is taking a Scripture and finding insight and meaning from what it says to a problem or event in life. Both are valid, yet only interpretation is good for taking doctrine from.

Hope that helps a little.

Most (not all) of the differences between interpretations are due to what is called hermeneutics. This is the science of Biblical interpretaion. Some people look at the Bible as being primarily literal, with allegorical/spiritual interpretaions being secondary or even invalid. Others look at the Scripture as primarily allegorical/spiritual, and think that literal interpretations are usually inadequate or even wrong.

You will find all kinds of variations and differences among these two main groups, especially in prophecy, making the whole thing very confusing for someone on the outside looking in.

I am sorry for this, but that IS the situation. Just as in any other avenue of inquiry, you will have to take in the information and make up your own mind. Honestly, a "handbook" won't help much, but a clear presentation of the gospel will. Scripture will only truly open up to you by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and you simply have to believe the gospel in order to receive Him. Until then, I am afraid that you will continue to run yourself around in intellectual circles.

If you would like, PM me and I would love to share the gospel with you.

God bless you in your search!

 

[AgnosticMike]

Many differences can be found in the way that the Bible is interpreted because there are numerous ways that an individual verse can be applied to our lives. I think you are seeing a common mistake we all have, which is a tendency of applying scripture to a particular situation in our own lives and calling it an interpretation. The Bible strictly forbids this (2nd Peter 1:20).

Interpretation is taking the meaning of the words in the context of the passage, the book, and the Bible as a whole and finding the intended meaning of the author of the book to the intended recipient(s).

Application is taking a Scripture and finding insight and meaning from what it says to a problem or event in life. Both are valid, yet only interpretation is good for taking doctrine from.

Hope that helps a little.

Most (not all) of the differences between interpretations are due to what is called hermeneutics. This is the science of Biblical interpretaion. Some people look at the Bible as being primarily literal, with allegorical/spiritual interpretaions being secondary or even invalid. Others look at the Scripture as primarily allegorical/spiritual, and think that literal interpretations are usually inadequate or even wrong.

You will find all kinds of variations and differences among these two main groups, especially in prophecy, making the whole thing very confusing for someone on the outside looking in.

I am sorry for this, but that IS the situation. Just as in any other avenue of inquiry, you will have to take in the information and make up your own mind. Honestly, a "handbook" won't help much, but a clear presentation of the gospel will. Scripture will only truly open up to you by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and you simply have to believe the gospel in order to receive Him. Until then, I am afraid that you will continue to run yourself around in intellectual circles.

If you would like, PM me and I would love to share the gospel with you.

God bless you in your search!

Obviously you understand the difficulties. However I would not always say that it is due to personal taste. Having studied hermanuetics I understand the subjective difficulty of this process. I would not say it is a science. Hermenutics is not a science, rather the study of interpretation.

What I have found is that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a passage will still be subject to all manner of interpretation. Take the docrine of anihilation. The reality is that Scripture teaches both. However, most cannot stomach this and choose either way. The same can be said of eternal security and hundreds of other doctrines including salvation to which there is a host of different gospels. I have been keeping a tab on each gospel that I am fed. It really is amazing.

So I am familiar with a number of the gospel messages.

Regards

Mike

 

[ebia]

Many differences can be found in the way that the Bible is interpreted because there are numerous ways that an individual verse can be applied to our lives. I think you are seeing a common mistake we all have, which is a tendency of applying scripture to a particular situation in our own lives and calling it an interpretation. The Bible strictly forbids this (2nd Peter 1:20).

That's your intepretation of 2 Peter 1:20.

[...]you simply have to believe the gospel in order to receive Him. Until then, I am afraid that you will continue to run yourself around in intellectual circles.

If you would like, PM me and I would love to share the gospel with you.

Do you think we could actually agree on what "the gospel" is? I suspect not.

Are we talking about the word as used by Isaiah, or Jesus (quoted in, say, Mark) or Paul, or its use to describe the first 4 books of the N.T., or the way 20th century Evangelical Christians use it, or....

 

[AgnosticMike]

Obviously you understand the difficulties. However I would not always say that it is due to personal taste. Having studied hermanuetics I understand the subjective difficulty of this process. I would not say it is a science. Hermenutics is not a science, rather the study of interpretation.

What I have found is that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a passage will still be subject to all manner of interpretation. Take the docrine of anihilation. The reality is that Scripture teaches both. However, most cannot stomach this and choose either way. The same can be said of eternal security and hundreds of other doctrines including salvation to which there is a host of different gospels. I have been keeping a tab on each gospel that I am fed. It really is amazing.

So I am familiar with a number of the gospel messages.

Regards

Mike

G'day food

Just another note on hermaneutics and science. I probably didn't explain myself very well there. The core elements of "classic science" are refutability and replicability. Or in other words reliability and repeatability. Hermaneutics is to some extent a subjective process or a philosophy. This is why it doesn't fit into the catergory of science. I may be wrong but others may want to comment and correct me.

Regards

Mike

 

[Tavita]

Well we first have to see if there is dissagreement or not. I'm not sure that you do disagree with me. Which major denominations agree on what fundamentals. We have already aestablished that there is disagreement between the Catholic denomination and the evangelical denominations on salvation, namely transubstansiation. Evangelicals believe in salvation by grace (amonst some other variations) opposed to salvation by a ritual in the elements. I wasn't aware that you disagreed with that. Please clarify.

I see the denominations of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican (and High Anglican), Baptist, Pentecostal, Prespyterian, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Uniting Church and Non-Denominational amongst some others, as believing in the Nicene Creed. I won't say all believers in every denom believe in the Nicene, but the majority of the denominations do. You may disagree with me and that's okay, but that is my belief. Evangelicals and Catholics both believe in salvation by grace. Catholics do not believe they are saved through the Eucharist. They may see it as a means of sanctification, but not salvation.

I'm not sure that you're in a position to question their wisdom.

Yes, you're right.

Well I do. If I read the Bible and what it said at face value I would definitely be an Atheist. Even if I read the Bible myself, I am reading an interpretation. Sometimes the meanings of words and stories have been lost in antiquity and left to the opinion of academics. In many cases people have to determine where the end of a sentence goes. That often changes the meaning radically. The Greek had no full stops. Then we have to contend with the changes from Aramaic to Greek then to English.

I could give you so many of the problems I have encountered by reading the Bible many times. Each time I read it the problems increase.

I've never had a problem reading the Bible, except for when I didn't have Holy Spirit in my life. I guess I'm just not critical enough, huh? If there are inconsistencies I've just put it down to translation problems and left it at that. I've gotten many many lessons in life from the stories, and have had fun doing word searches and meanings, and to tell you the truth, the Bible amazes me no end.
I believe that God is the author of the book, and even though it's been translated from one language to another to another, He's big enough to look after it. I know some people don't think He does a very good job but then I think it's His job to look after that too.

Mike, do you think after reading it for so long with a critical eye, it may be just a bit too hard to see how it can speak to you in a positive and personal sense? ... I'm asking in good faith, not to assume I know anything about you.

 

[food4thought]

What I have found is that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a passage will still be subject to all manner of interpretation. Take the docrine of anihilation. The reality is that Scripture teaches both. However, most cannot stomach this and choose either way. The same can be said of eternal security and hundreds of other doctrines including salvation to which there is a host of different gospels. I have been keeping a tab on each gospel that I am fed. It really is amazing.

So I am familiar with a number of the gospel messages.

Regards

Mike

Yeah, I think it was a reach to call hermeneutics a science, but then again the same argument could be made against evolution... but that's another subject for another thread .

As for annihilation, I'm not aware of a passage in the New Testament that would teach annihilation...

Eternal security is definitely one that could be argued either way from any individual group of passages, but everyone believes that Jesus will never cast us off... the only problem is that many don't like the idea that they might might be able to renounce it...

The gospel is most clearly preached in 1st Corinthians 15. These are the main things.

Yes, there are disagreements within the church on all these things, but most of them are trivial. Order of service and worship style divide more church bodies than actual doctrine! People are people...

 

[AgnosticMike]

Yeah, I think it was a reach to call hermeneutics a science, but then again the same argument could be made against evolution... but that's another subject for another thread .

As for annihilation, I'm not aware of a passage in the New Testament that would teach annihilation...

Eternal security is definitely one that could be argued either way from any individual group of passages, but everyone believes that Jesus will never cast us off... the only problem is that many don't like the idea that they might might be able to renounce it...

The gospel is most clearly preached in 1st Corinthians 15. These are the main things.

Yes, there are disagreements within the church on all these things, but most of them are trivial. Order of service and worship style divide more church bodies than actual doctrine! People are people...

I wasn't talking about the teaching of Annihilation as specific to any section of the Bible, rather the Bible in general.

As for the gospel in 1 cor 15. Are all the essentials present there in your opinion? This definition of the gospel fall short of the many tenents of the Nicene Creed. So do you fell that the idea that Jesus is God is not an essential? Is this one of those trivial ones. What about the virgin birth? I know many Christians who don't see this as necessary at all.

Regards

Mike

 

[food4thought]

I wasn't talking about the teaching of Annihilation as specific to any section of the Bible, rather the Bible in general.

As for the gospel in 1 cor 15. Are all the essentials present there in your opinion? This definition of the gospel fall short of the many tenents of the Nicene Creed. So do you fell that the idea that Jesus is God is not an essential? Is this one of those trivial ones. What about the virgin birth? I know many Christians who don't see this as necessary at all.

Regards

Mike

It appeared in your post that you were refering to a specific idea that you got from passages that seemed contradictory...

Take the docrine of anihilation. The reality is that Scripture teaches both

Sorry I misunderstood.

This definition of the gospel fall short of the many tenents of the Nicene Creed. So do you fell that the idea that Jesus is God is not an essential? Is this one of those trivial ones.

1Cor 15 does not encompass the entirety of the doctrine of Christ, but it does lay out the basis for salvation in the simplest sense. If you believe this and place your trust in Him, the Bible says that you will be saved (cross-reference Rom 10:9-10) . Of course, as you learn more of what the Bible teaches, the Holy Spirit will testify of the truth. Creeds are more for distinguishing heresey from right doctrine than for evangelism.

What about the virgin birth? I know many Christians who don't see this as necessary at all.

Of course this is necessary to the understanding of who exactly Jesus was according to the Scripture, but it is not a pre-requisite that someone know this before they are saved! As for those who say they are Christian but deny certain doctrines that are clearly taught in the Bible... I do not judge them. It is not my job to say who is saved and who is not, I am only supposeed to preach the truth that the Bible teaches. If some do not believe what it clearly says, let God deal with their salvation; I will simply call them out by the Scripture as false teachers.

Hope this clears things up a little for you.