Enough is Enough Already! Let's Be Honest!

[woobadooba]

I can see where it is a big problem if you don't know which Church represents the True Church.

IMHO ~ It is not the Vatican.

Well, if you are referring to the Apostles, then I can agree with this. However, don't forget that they took everything to the scriptures in prayer. And they didn't do it in a biased manner. 2Tim. 3:16-17

Also remember the example of the Bereans, who were taught by the apostles, but yet were commended because they didn't just take their word for it; they took their teachings to the scriptures to see if those things that they were saying were so.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

This tells us:

1. All teachings about God must be examined in the light of the Holy Scriptures

2. The scriptures can be understood

 

[ILoveYeshua]

.

 

[tall73]

To me a lie has to have the intent of deceit. If they are convinced of their beliefs they are not lying, though they may be plain wrong.


Moreover, just because one believes this, and one believes that, does not rule out the need to find out to the best of our ability the actual intent of the passage. In other words, we can honestly hold differing opinions, but both cannot be right (or neither could be). So this is not relativism, or everyone just do what is right for them. In this aspect i agree with woobadooba.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Well, if you are referring to the Apostles, then I can agree with this. However, don't forget that they took everything to the scriptures in prayer. And they didn't do it in a biased manner. 2Tim. 3:16-17

Also remember the example of the Bereans, who were taught by the apostles, but yet were commended because they didn't just take their word for it; they took their teachings to the scriptures to see if those things that they were saying were so.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

This tells us:

1. All teachings about God must be examined in the light of the Holy Scriptures

2. The scriptures can be understood

The Bereans were using the Septuagint (original OT), as the Orthodox still do.

You are not suggesting that they had the NT are you?

Do you use the Septuagint?

Forgive me....

 

[woobadooba]

The Bereans were using the Septuagint (original OT), as the Orthodox still do.

You are not suggesting that they had the NT are you?

Do you use the Septuagint?

Forgive me....

Yes, they were. The NT had not been compiled at the time. Thus there was no NT.

No, I don't use the Septuagint. I don't know Greek.

 

[woobadooba]

To me a lie has to have the intent of deceit. If they are convinced of their beliefs they are not lying, though they may be plain wrong.

There are those who are wrong, but still believe in a lie. Now does this mean they are intentionally telling lies simply because they are wrong? Not necessarily. But this doesn't mean they are not telling lies, since they are in fact inculcating ideas that are contrary to the truth.

The interesting thing however, is that they may be completely open to the truth, and when confronted by it, will gladly receive it, because they are Christlike in the sense that they foster a spirit of humility.

Nevertheless, there are those who may not be telling lies intentionally, but refuse to give up their false ideas because they are too proud to admit that they could be wrong about anything. And these are the people to whom I am referring as being sons of the devil. Jn. 8:43-47

Hence, they despise the truth, because it doesn't measure up to their ideal.

 

[Leah]

Woobadooba, When a Christian has an opinion concerning an interpretation of a particular scripture, that is not a lie. That is a BELIEF, and right or wrong, it is NOT a lie. You believe your particular beliefs and everybody has a right to theirs. I know you believe that yours is the only correct interpretation, but those who you accuse also believe that theirs is the only correct interpretation. Do not be so quick to judge. It is entirely possible that the others may be correct and you may be the one who is wrong.

But isn't that the problem? Having an opinion and speaking the truth are two different things and I think some may have gotten them confused. Since when is an opinion not based on the Word of God correct?? And how is it that some of you think that having a right or wrong opinion doesn't need to be addressed and/or challanged?? As if we're supposed to just accept it and everything's hunkey dorey?? Not so.

Challenging someone about their beliefs doesn't mean be an arrogant, harsh, know-it-all showoff; it's to know if they're for God or against Him. Sure you could say "well, what you think doesn't matter because I don't need to prove myself to you" or something along that line. But then that would defeat the purpose of being united in one body in Christ. We're all here to SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE one another, and how can you do that if you don't know where someone's heart and mind is when it comes to God?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

It happens when people are looking at history too. I'll give you an example.

Roman Catholics insist on dogmatically telling me that Mary was Bodily Assumed.

Problem: there is no primary historical evidence that even suggests this event happened. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent admits this.

They also insist this is part of "Tradition" and that the Apostles taught this.

Problem: there is nothing in the writings of the Apostles that speak of this claimed event. If you are going to claim that the Apostles taught something then you had better give me an explicit citation from the writings of Apostles. This is common sense and can be applied universally. For instance, if you are going to claim Des Cartes taught something then you had better go to Des Cartes' writings and show me where he taught it. Claiming that somebody taught X is worthless if you cannot verify that they actually taught it.

After pointing the facts out I once got this response: "Like the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary is grounded in the theology of Infinite Grace, and is really not the substance of historical debate."

Let's be honest here-any historical claim is the substance of historical debate!

Can they not just be honest with themselves and with me and admit that this dogma rests solely on papal infalliblity and does not rest on historical fact?

Diane

 

[tall73]

There are those who are wrong, but still believe in a lie. Now does this mean they are intentionally telling lies simply because they are wrong? Not necessarily. But this doesn't mean they are not telling lies, since they are in fact inculcating ideas that are contrary to the truth.

The interesting thing however, is that they may be completely open to the truth, and when confronted by it, will gladly receive it, because they are Christlike in the sense that they foster a spirit of humility.

Nevertheless, there are those who may not be telling lies intentionally, but refuse to give up their false ideas because they are too proud to admit that they could be wrong about anything. And these are the people to whom I am referring as being sons of the devil. Jn. 8:43-47

Hence, they despise the truth, because it doesn't measure up to their ideal.

Here is how I would classify them:

1. Sincere (may be wrong or right)
2. lying (know they are wrong but say it anyway, fairly rare)
3. Stubborn.

The last ones may not in fact be lying. They are simply wrong. Or they may be stubborn and right but they are not open to re-examination.

The point is that we should all be willing to look at what the text actually says. So only the sincere ones, right or wrong, are in fact approaching it in a helpful way.

And I think this is what you are expressing.

 

[Jillkinseng]

interesting point

 

[woobadooba]

Here is how I would classify them:

1. Sincere (may be wrong or right)
2. lying (know they are wrong but say it anyway, fairly rare)
3. Stubborn.

The last ones may not in fact be lying. They are simply wrong. Or they may be stubborn and right but they are not open to re-examination.

The point is that we should all be willing to look at what the text actually says. So only the sincere ones, right or wrong, are in fact approaching it in a helpful way.

And I think this is what you are expressing.

99% of what I am expressing; but I still hold to the idea that you don't have to be an intentional liar to tell a lie.

 

[tall73]

99% of what I am expressing; but I still hold to the idea that you don't have to be an intentional liar to tell a lie.

lol, alright, let's put it this way:

You don't have to be an intentional liar to tell something that is not true. That I could agree with. But lie shows INTENT. And that I don't agree with.

I am not saying that anyone who is sincere is right.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No, I don't use the Septuagint. I don't know Greek.

We do.

Forgive me....

 

[woobadooba]

We do.

Forgive me....

Ok, but what does this have to do with what we are talking about here? The Septuagint isn't the only source that we can delve into to understand what Jesus wants us to know.

I am sure there are translations out there, like the RSV, that bring out the true meaning of the text, meaning, a person doesn't have to know Greek to know God.

God can speak to us in any language. Why limit Him to the Greek?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The point is....

Scriptures are not to be read outside the context of "The Church".

She wrote it, It is her testimony of Christ God.

Anybody who picks up a life insurance policy is going to read it differnetly and have questions.... you must go to the company that wrote it for detail.

Forgive me....

 

[A. believer]

I don't believe I misinterpreted your post.

You don't believe you misinterpreted my post, and yet I, the one who wrote the post, am saying that you did. So should I now accuse you of lying?





You misinterpreted my post when I said,

But I think we need to repent of the assumption that fellow Christians are necessarily being dishonest when they see things differently, especially if there is no clear indication that their interpretations are meant to self-servingly indulge their sinful nature.



​

And then you responded by saying,

So we should repent for calling people dishonest for rejecting the obvious by indulging in their sinful nature

In other words, I referred to cases where there's no indication that their beliefs are motivated by a desire to indulge the sin nature, and you interpreted me to be saying that we shouldn't call them dishonest when they are indulging their sin nature.

Here is the thrust of your post: We need to be sensitive to the fact that everyone has presuppositions, and try to work together to come to a mutual understanding of what it is we are discussing concerning what is written in the Bible.

And I agree with this.

Good.

And as for the comment that I had made concerning our approach to the Bible, that wasn't meant to be a rebuke to you. I was just simply sharing an idea with you that I believe to be true, that we should not go to the Bible to support what we already believe, but to discover what we really ought to believe.

But you're not really quite understanding what I'm saying, and this is clear from the following comment you made,

And the whole point of studying the Bible is to learn how to examine our presuppositions in the light of scripture, to hear what God has to say, not to interpret scripture in the light of our presuppositions in an attempt to prove what we already believe.

It's true that the goal is to have our presuppositions informed by Scripture, but what I was referring to in regard to a discussion between two sincere Christians is the presuppositional framework we think Scripture upholds. The most obvious example is the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Both sides can point to a number of Scriptures that seem to support their position, and each side uses those Scriptures as their presuppositional lens. They then go on to interpret the other Scriptures, even those that seem to oppose them, by trying to reconcile them with that overarching presuppositional framework. Now I've adopted the Calvinist position because I became convinced that the view of God's sovereignty taught by the Calvinists is woven throughout the story of redemptive history from the first page to the last. And in regard to the verses that Arminians use to refute Calvinists, I eventually came to recognize how this collection of verses refuted only a strawman version of Calvinism, and not the real thing. But this is a difficult process, and I have a real problem with people on both sides of the debate who presume that everyone who sees it differently is maliciously denying the obvious .

You also implied that I was being insensitive for calling these people liars for misrepresenting God's word. But aren't they? If the obvious is disclosed to them, and they persist in denying it in order to support some other idea for which there is no scriptural basis, are they really being truthful? In other words, are they taking an honest look at the scriptures? No!

So why should I apologize for calling them liars?

The issue is not the "insensitivity" of your position, but its lack of humility, its simplism, and its downright wrongheadedness. It generally stems from false modernist epistemological notions of the potential for "objectivity" in knowing.

So I didn't misinterpret your post.

And I say you did. And I know I'm not lying. Are you?

And in response to further developments in this discussion with others, I believe one really ought to make a distinction between "lying" and being the unwitting propagator of lies.

 

[woobadooba]

lol, alright, let's put it this way:

You don't have to be an intentional liar to tell something that is not true. That I could agree with. But lie shows INTENT. And that I don't agree with.

I am not saying that anyone who is sincere is right.

I understand what you are saying here, but still I have to disagree with it, because even if a person shows no intent to lie, but teaches something that is contrary to the truth, he is still telling a lie.

And he can be totally unaware of this; but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a lie, since it is not the truth.

The question now however, is how do you tell if a person is lying intentionally, as compared to someone who just doesn't realize that he is wrong?

 

[A. believer]

There will always be disagreements on certain things. Sure! But, if one is Spirit led? Ultimately, it will not be over essential things, given time. It may take many debates to get the unity that God desires. For one must be exposed to truth before one can believe it.

Yes, but in the meantime, let's not suppose that everyone who doesn't see the "obvious truths" we see is being dishonest. In fact, we may need to consider the possibility that we're wrong and what we had thought was "obvious" not only isn't so obvious, but might not even be correct. This isn't to say that we should never be confident of anything. But if things seem too simple to us, but not so simple to a great many other people, perhaps we haven't sufficiently considered their position.

To "repent," means to "change one's thinking." We all need to repent at times. For, along the way we all have received some wrong information.

Indeed, we do. And in this case, I think we need to start by repenting of the notion that what we think is "obvious" necessarily is. That was my point.

That is why we all need each other. Yet, if a person is not standing right before God? The truth can be standing right in front of him, and he will never see it. He, because he refuses to be humble before God, will see truth as being distorted as much as he desires to distort who and what God truly is.

Absolutely. There are plenty of malicious heretics who willfully propagate lies. And there are plenty of others who are willfully self-deluded because they like the lies better than the truth. I'm not saying that all opinions are of equal value or that everyone who firmly believes something has right motives. I am saying, though, that Woobadooba's OP is presumptuous and simplistic.

 

[A. believer]

What does my giving out reps to Woobadooba or anyone else have to do with you?

I see that my post made you angry, so I'll try to explain and see if you can put yourself in my place. If you posted something, and someone responded to your post, but instead of responding to what you said, he responded to a distorted version of what you said, and then someone else came along and patted them on the back for it, even after they had been corrected by the person they'd misrepresented, wouldn't you find it irritating?

 

[woobadooba]

You don't believe you misinterpreted my post, and yet I, the one who wrote the post, am saying that you did. So should I now accuse you of lying?

Absolutely not, because if you take a closer look at what I've been saying throughout this thread, and even in my opening post, you would see that you are the one who has misunderstood me.

And by the way, let's not play these foolish games. The thread is about scriptural dishonesty, not misunderstood discussions.

You misinterpreted my post when I said,

But I think we need to repent of the assumption that fellow Christians are necessarily being dishonest when they see things differently, especially if there is no clear indication that their interpretations are meant to self-servingly indulge their sinful nature



​

.


Did you or did you not imply that I should apologize for stating that these Christians were/are being dishonest?

Yes, or no?

It's true that the goal is to have our presuppositions informed by Scripture, but what I was referring to in regard to a discussion between two sincere Christians is the presuppositional framework we think Scripture upholds.

But who ever said every Christian is sincere? And how do you tell the difference?

The most obvious example is the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Both sides can point to a number of Scriptures that seem to support their position, and each side uses those Scriptures as their presuppositional lens. They then go on to interpret the other Scriptures, even those that seem to oppose them, by trying to reconcile them with that overarching presuppositional framework.

In short, they superimpose their own meaning on the text, rather than allowing the text to bring meaning to what they really don't understand.

The question is: why do they persist in doing this when the scriptures make it so obvious that they are wrong?

But this is a difficult process, and I have a real problem with people on both sides of the debate who presume that everyone who sees it differently is maliciously denying the obvious .

It appears that you haven't read my other posts in this thread. It would do you well to do that before implying that this is how I feel. So here you misunderstood me again.

The issue is not the "insensitivity" of your position, but its lack of humility, its simplism, and its downright wrongheadedness. It generally stems from false modernist epistemological notions of the potential for "objectivity" in knowing.

Hmmmm. And does this comment of yours foster a sense of humility?

I believe one really ought to make a distinction between "lying" and being the unwitting propagator of lies.

We are going through this process now.