God Says Scripture Is Not Of Any Private Interpretation!!

[SackLunch]

So, SackLunch, nothing in your last post implies anyone has to abandon sound, tried and tested, mainstream science, like evolution.

So why all the fuss and noise about it?

When science attempts to discredit and discard God, then yes, there is a problem with that. When science tries to explain origins without the presupposition that God did in fact create the universe and the human race, then yes, there's a problem with that.

Why? Because according to John 1:3, the world was created by Jesus Christ. That is the crux of the argument. The very God who created you also died for your sins and mine. He extends His hands to you right now, saying, "Come, inherit eternal life. Accept Me, and you will live." This is God's true and trustworthy promise.

 

[AirPo]

No, I'm just quoting what God said in the Bible. As evangelist Jack VanImpe says, "God wrote it, I'm just quoting it!"

And then interperting it incorrectly.

 

[SackLunch]

So god's book is not open for private interpreation?
Well that get's rid of all christian denominations except for one...
Which one sacky boy?

In Christianity's beginnings, there were no denominations. There was one Church. Paul preached from Scripture, as Jesus had before. And it was this teaching and this doctrine that was preached. Paul even warned to keep our doctrine sound. And in 1, 2, and 3 John, much is discussed regarding admonitions against false doctrines and false teachers.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

When science attempts to discredit and discard God,

Discredit? Science isn't about crediting. It's about describing what is. Discard God? Science doesn't make any comment about Him at all.

then yes, there is a problem with that. When science tries to explain origins without the presupposition that God did in fact create the universe and the human race, then yes, there's a problem with that.

But that's a philosophical presupposition. I work with the presupposition that God created the universe. Science tells me how He did it. To think that a scientific description that doesn't invoke God is actively excluding Him is to make a category error. Science is the study of the creation, and the creation only. It does not address the creator, for the same reasons that motor mechanics and piano construction don't.

Why? Because according to John 1:3, the world was created by Jesus Christ. That is the crux of the argument. The very God who created you also died for your sins and mine. He extends His hands to you right now, saying, "Come, inherit eternal life. Accept Me, and you will live." This is God's true and trusworthy promise.

And not one bit of that is contradicted by evolution. Not one bit. No part of science ever comments on whether God exists, whether what it describes is or is not God's activity, or what God says, does, or is like. In the same way that science would describe a boiling kettle without reference to whether I'm making tea or coffee, it describes the evolution of species without reference to whether God's behind it or not.

 

[coyoteBR]

In Christianity's beginnings, there were no denominations. There was one Church. Paul preached from Scripture, as Jesus had before. And it was this teaching and this doctrine that was preached. Paul even warned to keep our doctrine sound. And in 1, 2, and 3 John, much is discussed regarding admonitions against false doctrines and false teachers.

Incorrect. There are fights and desagreements between Peter and Paul, and the followers of Jesus went to one side or other, from times to times; there are, since those early years, sects like the gnostics; there was no agreement about the divinity of Jesus or the ressurection; in fact, the Gospel of Mark did not mention anything about the ressurection originally, such part was added later.

So, with interpretation, SackLunch?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

In Christianity's beginnings, there were no denominations. There was one Church. Paul preached from Scripture, as Jesus had before. And it was this teaching and this doctrine that was preached. Paul even warned to keep our doctrine sound. And in 1, 2, and 3 John, much is discussed regarding admonitions against false doctrines and false teachers.

Some church history for you. Very much in the spirit of the verse you quoted, the church, for the first 1500 years of its history, saw itself as the repository of truth - it's interpretation was the correct one, not interpretations that individual church members dreamt up sat on the bog in the morning.

And that church, that repository of truth and protection against "private interpretations" is the Catholic and Orthodox churches we have today. It was the Reformers' "private interpretations" that gave rise to all the protestant denominations.

Now, going by your faith icon, and your posts, I suspect you're actually an evangelical protestant. So, despite your protestations in your OP, you are actually following a movement that started with the private interpretations, contrary to the Church's, of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.

To be consistent, you should be swimming either the Tiber or the Bosphorus, really.

 

[z3ro]

In Christianity's beginnings, there were no denominations. There was one Church. Paul preached from Scripture, as Jesus had before. And it was this teaching and this doctrine that was preached. Paul even warned to keep our doctrine sound. And in 1, 2, and 3 John, much is discussed regarding admonitions against false doctrines and false teachers.

Um, you do realize that when they were talking about scripture in the NT, they were exclusively talking about the OT, right? I mean, it's not like they were writing letters, thinking those letters would be made into scripture.

 

[SackLunch]

Incorrect. There are fights and desagreements between Peter and Paul, and the followers of Jesus went to one side or other, from times to times; there are, since those early years, sects like the gnostics; there was no agreement about the divinity of Jesus or the ressurection; in fact, the Gospel of Mark did not mention anything about the ressurection originally, such part was added later.

So, with interpretation, SackLunch?

During the early church, when Paul was preaching, there was no Methodist. There was no Catholic. There was no Presbyterian. There was no Lutheran. There was only Christianity.

Sure, there were disagreements. But there were no denominations during that time when Paul was preaching. And Paul exhorted the people to watch their doctrine closely, that it matches with what God says in the Scriptures.

 

[Phred]

The Bible did not come about by man's words. The Bible is inspired by God. Furthermore, it is not open to interpretation or reinterpretation. It says what it says. God says what He says, whether we like it or not.

Wow... what a screwy logic trail. The Bible says it's the word of god thus it must be right. That's like me claiming to be god and since I do claim to be god I must be God. Furthermore, you can't read anything without interpreting it. You can't translate something without interpreting it. And lastly, you keep pointing to God and saying "because HE says so" yet you can't offer the slightest verifiable evidence that this deity even exists.

You've built an entire worldview upon guesses and desires but you wish to pretend it's so much more.

.
​

 

[And-U-Say]

During the early church, when Paul was preaching, there was no Methodist. There was no Catholic. There was no Presbyterian. There was no Lutheran. There was only Christianity.

Sure, there were disagreements. But there were no denominations during that time when Paul was preaching. And Paul exhorted the people to watch their doctrine closely, that it matches with what God says in the Scriptures.

Have you ever answered a question? In your entire life? The question is... which one? Answer the question!

 

[SackLunch]

Um, you do realize that when they were talking about scripture in the NT, they were exclusively talking about the OT, right? I mean, it's not like they were writing letters, thinking those letters would be made into scripture.

That seems irrelevant to me. Yes, they were referring to OT Scripture. Paul was exhorting the people to stick to the sound doctrine of Scripture. But this included the testimony of Jesus Christ, so it's not like everything Paul said was based solely on the OT. Paul was explaining the new testament we have in Jesus Christ and referring back to the Old Testament for guidance.

 

[Mystman]

Have you ever answered a question? In your entire life? The question is... which one? Answer the question!

I doubt it. I asked a simple enough question in post #13, but still no awnser.

Or in other words;

Sacklunch knows the Absolute Truth as it is presented by the bible, and he will rub that in our faces, but he's not about to share said Truth with us.

 

[z3ro]

That seems irrelevant to me. Yes, they were referring to OT Scripture. Paul was exhorting the people to stick to the sound doctrine of Scripture. But this included the testimony of Jesus Christ, so it's not like everything Paul said was based solely on the OT. Paul was explaining the new testament we have in Jesus Christ and referring back to the Old Testament for guidance.

But there was no new testament at that time, so whenever you read that it refers to scripture in the NT, it exclusively refers to the OT, based on the intent of the authors. Or are you interpeting what they said to include the NT?

 

[corvus_corax]

Im still waiting....
(1)"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

(2)"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

(3)"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."

Remember, no "interpretation" please. Plain reading, no eisegesis, no modern day cultural influence, no personal bias, and DEFINITELY no denominational influences are allowed.
The bible says it, you believe it, and that settles it, right?

'Fess up. Those women should keep quiet in church with their long hair, except when they're speaking in tongues or possibly handling snakes, right?

I mean, that's a straightforward non-interpretive reading of the scripture.

SackLunch, please put up or shut up.
You still have YET to respond to my three points above, just as you have YET to answer many of the other questions posed to you in this thread

Of course, he may have me on ignore

EDIT- original questions are in Post #6 on this thread

 

[Battie]

That seems irrelevant to me. Yes, they were referring to OT Scripture. Paul was exhorting the people to stick to the sound doctrine of Scripture. But this included the testimony of Jesus Christ, so it's not like everything Paul said was based solely on the OT. Paul was explaining the new testament we have in Jesus Christ and referring back to the Old Testament for guidance.

The factions did not have names, but they did exist. You can get a good feel of this by examining how Paul addresses different branches of the early church in his letters. People from different regions had their own concerns and disagreements, just as we do today. There was also great debate about things such as the Law. Some Christians felt it must be obeyed absolutely, others used it just as a guide, and still others decided they could live any way they wanted to. There were also extremists like the Gnostics whom Paul need to address.

And those are only a few of many examples. Examining the way the Gospels were written can also shed light on the factions of the church. I cannot find any indication in the New Testament that the early church was perfectly united.

By the way, I still would kind of like for you to respond to post #7, please.

 

[SackLunch]

But there was no new testament at that time, so whenever you read that it refers to scripture in the NT, it exclusively refers to the OT, based on the intent of the authors. Or are you interpeting what they said to include the NT?

Jesus Christ IS the New Testament.

 

[Battie]

Jesus Christ IS the New Testament.

Back that up with Scripture. You have no basis for claiming that Christ is a collection of writings. They are about Him, but they are not a second incarnation of Him.

And if they were, would that mean that all the books were not included in the New Testament were parts of Christ that the early church left out?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Jesus Christ IS the New Testament.

Wow... just wow. I've never seen a fundamentalist say "The Bible is God" in such a refreshingly direct way.

 

[SackLunch]

I doubt it. I asked a simple enough question in post #13, but still no awnser.

Or in other words;

Sacklunch knows the Absolute Truth as it is presented by the bible, and he will rub that in our faces, but he's not about to share said Truth with us.

I have answered that question, and I have shared the Truth with you. Jesus Christ said He IS the Truth. He is the embodiment of absolute truth, and those who make the decision to confess their sins and ask Him into their hearts and lives will be saved.

Read http://www.billygraham.org/SH_StepsToPeace.asp.

 

[Battie]

I have answered that question, and I have shared the Truth with you. Jesus Christ said He IS the Truth. He is the embodiment of absolute truth, and those who make the decision to confess their sins and ask Him into their hearts and lives will be saved.

Read http://www.billygraham.org/SH_StepsToPeace.asp.

SackLunch, please answer the question more completely. You started this thread with an OP suggested that no one was interpreting the Bible correctly but those who agreed with you.

If this is what you believe, tell us point blank. If this is not how we are supposed to read it, explain what you meant to say.

Every Christian here is witnessing in his own way, and if the point of this thread really was to preach about Christ, however noble that may be, it should not be in C&E.