How do we sort out different intepretations, and seeming contradictions?

[Mary Meg]

The bible is quite clear though.

It's the doctrines that baptists and the like, have confused you on. (I'm not looking to poke people or get into it with hostility, but to use scripture and truth with love)

Salvation is in the very sense:
hearing- Romans 10:17
Believing - Hebrews 11:6
Repenting - Luke 13:3
Confessing - Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 8:36-37
Being Baptized for the remission of sins, putting on Christ, entering the kingdom and receiving the Holy Spirit- Acts 2:38; John 3:3 and 5; Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21
Remaining faithful- Revelations 2:10

You cannot put on Christ without being baptized Galatians 3:27

You cannot enter the kingdom without baptism John 3:3 and 5

You cannot receive spiritual blessings if you cannot put on Christ Ephesians 1:3

You cannot obey the gospel if you are not baptized Romans 6:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Mark 16:16 says "believe and be baptized". "And" joins believing/baptized as a necessity with both.

Believe, in scripture for salvation, is NOT the english noun, but the Greek Koine verb (action required)

John 3:16 "whosoever believeth" believeth -Koine Greek verb/action

You have to do something aka James 2:14 and following tied in with the entire Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11 shows that everyone DID something

The protestant world merely stops at Ephesians 2:8-9 but they don't see verse 10. We have to "walk" (verb) in the good works that were "ordained" by God (refer to James 2 again)

Thank you for your time reading this, and may you be able to find the truth.

Thanks... so what group are you from?

 

[GodLovesCats]

One question you have to ask yourself is, "Why am I a Baptist?"

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

This is the Word for you...
James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."

 

[Mary Meg]

One question you have to ask yourself is, "Why am I a Baptist?"

I've answered that recently.

Why are YOU a Baptist?

 

[Acts2:38]

Thanks... so what group are you from?

I attend Christs church. We would be referred to as the church of Christ.

You keep on with your studies and hard questions. You clearly have been studying in an unbiased fashion, which in return has lead you to see what exactly is going on. Measure up these churches before you join them. Compare them to scripture and only scripture. Are they scriptural? or do they hold doctrines and traditions of men?

 

[GodLovesCats]

You can't learn about the Bible just by reading it. That would be like saying you can't learn about history, since only very old people lived in it.

 

[Acts2:38]

You can't learn about the Bible just by reading it. That would be like saying you can't learn about history, since only very old people lived in it.

I'm just assuming this was directed at me.

I said "study". Keep up with studies. Then I said "compare" groups using the scripture and see how they measure up to what scripture says.

Also, the bible is our sole authority. Pending on the the bible version you have, it is written anywhere between 6-12th grade level reading/understanding. Why wouldn't someone be able to understand it by just reading it. What you said is, forgive me for saying, silly.

I don't know if you are aware, but from my personal experience, people in Malawi (Africa) that I know, read the scriptures and understood it enough to ask to be baptized, on their own.
And those Malawi people are not the only ones, I know of some in surrounding regions of Delhi, India who have had the same experience. They happened across one of the churches I use to attend before I moved away to another state and asked for more indepth studies. That is how we came to know them and their story.

One can compare doctrines of groups by reading the scripture. Not just cherry picking around with verses, but actually reading it all.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Acts, if only study the Bible is how to understand it, this thread would not exist because the OP studied it and was still confused. Does that not happen often on this forum?

I am not aware of any past places you lived in. Are you an American citizen or just living here?

 

[FenderTL5]

...The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet he will enter God's kingdom...

On the other hand, is there any person in history who can claim to have died with Christ any more accurately than the repentant thief?

 

[timothyu]

Some will read the scripture or hear the teachings of Jesus and say that sounds good and they go after eternal life. Others will read it and say that sounds good and change their way of living to match the Kingdom. Which is more productive?

 

[Acts2:38]

Acts, if only study the Bible is how to understand it, this thread would not exist because the OP studied it and was still confused. Does that not happen often on this forum?

I am not aware of any past places you lived in. Are you an American citizen or just living here?

No, I don't believe they were confused about what they read (although it would be better to straight up ask her).

The OP studied it and found that the scripture said something else:
"but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different " the OP'er stated.

Without asking this individual just what exactly they meant, the context of this shows that they understood what the bible said, because it was saying something different than what the OPer grew up to know with the denominational churches.

I don't take this as confusion. They clearly see what they have read. They see it is contrary to what they have been taught in the denominations.

The OPer came to this conclusion on their own by reading scripture friend.

The only other thing I see here is that they are having a bit of trouble letting go of the false doctrines they were taught all this time up to this point.

As far as the last question, I don't understand about my living condition as an American citizen or not, relates. Please elaborate or bring up your point in how it relates to my findings and personal witnessed experiences I mentioned.

 

[timothyu]

Without asking this individual just what exactly they meant, the context of this shows that they understood what the bible said, because it was saying something different than what the OPer grew up to know with the denominational churches.

Perhaps that is the purpose of a human institution vs scripture. The fallacy of man becomes more evident when compared to scripture. Religion is needed in contrast to scripture, because one is of God and one is of man.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Some will read the scripture or hear the teachings of Jesus and say that sounds good and they go after eternal life. Others will read it and say that sounds good and change their way of living to match the Kingdom. Which is more productive?

Obviously the former, because the latter is just doing works. Going after eternal life requires believing the Word, not just living it.

 

[timothyu]

believing the Word, not just living it.

...or as an option, living it, not just believing it. How else do the grains stand out in a field of tares?

 

[Acts2:38]

Perhaps that is the purpose of a human institution vs scripture. The fallacy of man becomes more evident when compared to scripture. Religion is needed in contrast to scripture, because one is of God and one is of man.

I see what your saying, but we were warned about that none the less.
1 Timothy 4:1-3
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Hebrews 6:4-6
Matthew 7:21-23
So on and so forth. Religion isnt needed in "contrast" to scripture, it is desired for those who have "itching ears" and the likes.

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[timothyu]

it is desired for those who have "itching ears" and the likes.

Agreed, hence the multitudinous denominations.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is not surprising that we find what seem to be contradictions in the Bible. More and more we are learning about the diversity of views in the early church. Just look at the gospels of Mark and John, for example. And then Paul also has some pretty distinctive views.

I dont expect any of it to be always consistent but that does not undervalue it. I actually appreciate it more.

 

[kcnalp]

The thief on the cross was under the OT mosaic law, not the NT Covenant. Christ wasn't dead yet for the NT covenant to begin.

So, if someone is dying and cannot be baptized he is going to Hell?

 

[Acts2:38]

So, if someone is dying and cannot be baptized he is going to Hell?

Do you not have faith in God?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Also, if we are going to play the "what if" game, then let me throw this thought back at you for consideration.

What if someone dies before they can repent? Luke 13:3

What if someone dies before they can confess? Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 8:36-39

What if someone dies before they can believe? Hebrews 11:6

What if someone dies before they get the chance to hear the word? Romans 10:17

We need to get out of the whole "what if" shenanigans because those don't work here.

 

[Sketcher]

James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?

We don't. Rather, when we look at James' example of Abraham, we look at not only what he said about Abraham, but also Paul, and also what the author of Genesis and the author of Hebrews said about Abraham to get the full context. When someone just reads James 2:24 and says, "Aha! You have to have works! Therefore you have to abide by this list of works to get saved," they are lazy and wrong. Abraham's example of faith is one where he believed God enough to do the obedient works of taking Issac to the mountain for a sacrifice, building the altar, and putting him on it. If he hadn't, his faith would have fallen short of believing that God would give him his son back to keep his promise that a nation would be reckoned through him.

Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.

Being "born of water" as I understand it is being born physically (John 3:6) - water being a way of referring to amniotic fluid. So that's not something that any of us consciously does. We have our mothers and doctors to thank for that.
Being "born of the Spirit" is something that God has to do for us (John 3:8). All we can do is believe on Christ, confess him as Lord and our only hope, and ask for forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. (And Calvinists might say we can't even do that.)

Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

Well, any claim that the works referred to will save a person has to be examined as to whether it squares, first of all. Let's examine what Jesus said first:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" - Matthew 25:34-40​

What about someone who is inconsistent? Say you clothe 1 out of 10 people who needed clothes. Is that one enough to save you? Or let's say that you give someone food or drink but refuse to invite him in. Are you saved, or damned? If you do good work at the food bank for 30 years but never step into a prison to come and visit someone, is that good enough? And what about the people who will definitely not inherit the kingdom of God?

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8​

If you commit idolatry and witchcraft, but feed and clothe someone in need, is that enough to save you? If you regularly commit sexual immorality but visit those in prison, is that enough to save you? If you commit murder, but give a thirsty person something to drink, is that enough to save you?

Jesus was right. But we need to look at how we understand what he said in order to come to the truth. We also need to look at what he said in John 6:28-29:

Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."​

The works Jesus referred to are examples of good works, that are to be done in faith, and that are to originate from the Spirit's work within us after we have been born again. Paul does not disagree with this. As you said, in Romans he refers to judgment in chapter 2, then he goes on to preach about the righteousness that comes from faith in the following chapters. Romans is a progression where he unveils the message and progressing from that, how we are to live, which is done chapter by chapter.

People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

I'm not sure if you have heard of the parable of several blind people and an elephant. The one at the tail feels the tail, and claims the tail is the elephant. The one at the trunk feels the trunk, and claims the trunk is the elephant. Another in the middle feels just that enormous middle of the body, claiming that is the elephant. And they all argue with each other as to what that elephant is really like.

When you're getting confused by reading these different scriptures, remember that they are all parts of the elephant. They all work together, while some passages emphasize different aspects of the Gospel message, they do not hijack the whole Gospel message.