How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[Blank123]

Like I said, it was the Church that spawned the Bible, not the other way around. The Apostles founded the Church before they wrote the New Testament, and there was no official canon of scripture for 4 centuries...

the apostles *did* have the OT which is what Paul was referring to when he wrote:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 tim 3

the rest of the canon was written mostly by one apostle, and most of it was about Christ's death and resurrection (which is sorta cornerstone to the gospel) and pointing us back to the OT which was the foundation for the NT.

Of course not. But the Bible, taken outside the context of the Church, can be misinterpreted, abused, etc... Why is there such division in protestant Christianity if they all believe in sola scriptura?

thats a red herring. I'm not comparing churches or denominations. but now that you bring it up...

10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 cor 1

and

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. - 1 cor 3

holding to any man or any church above God or His Scripture is sectarianism and clearly against Scripture. Anyone inside or outside of protestantism who is guilty of that is in the wrong. Truth can be twisted inside and outside of protestantism. Truth can also be upheld regardless of the church or person teaching it.

 

[Blank123]

Only when properly understood from its origional languages and its proper context. As well as taught within the proper context of other verses of scripture.

The problem is that an educated clergy is needed to teach these things because people arn't born understanding the proper context of things. No one speaks or reads biblical greek (Which is a much more ancient form of modern Greek) as their mother tongue. Only those who are raised as Jews are taught as children to read Hebrew.

Plus its important to understand the history of the church, especially the apostolic church from which we should model ourselves after as well as we can.

So once you can read greek and hebrew and understand everything in their proper context then scripture, are a complete expert on the 2000+ year history of the church, and you have years and years to properly study those scriptures in order to interprete scripture with scripture.

Then yes provided all of those things scripture might be enough. Although I'm not sure then, because God did hand the Jews scripture and they understood Hebrew and studyed it for years and they still didn't get it.

But since we are not really any of those things, the church is required.

so are you saying the Holy Spirit will not teach His people? Instead the onus is on us to become experts in language and history if we want a hope of understanding?

 

[Luther073082]

so are you saying the Holy Spirit will not teach His people? Instead the onus is on us to become experts in language and history if we want a hope of understanding?

I'm saying the Holy Spirit uses experts to teach.

If the Holy Spirit did it without the use of teachers then why would the bible talk about teachers in it? Look in Paul's letters and one of the main spiritual gifts & roles in the church that he mentions is "teachers"

If the holy spirit just shows you the truth without anyone else, then why have teachers? why have a sermon? Why have sunday school? Why have a church?

This is another problem I have with evangelicals, they individualize their faith too much. There is so little emphasis on God's church and too much emphasis on you doing it yourself. The church is more then an place to worship and organize volunteers.

 

[Llauralin]

so are you saying the Holy Spirit will not teach His people? Instead the onus is on us to become experts in language and history if we want a hope of understanding?

To the first question - not the way you mean, no. Kind of like the Holy Spirit doesn't generally teach us to speak our native tongue, or read, write, cypher, build, garden, or pretty much anything else in that sense. Of course there's the other sense, where God does teach us to read and speak and understand Nature - but as a people; and then parents get to be a kind of co-creator, in having a child, and then in teaching him or her. Understanding the Gospel is not altogether foreign to the rest of human experience.

But that's not strictly true - usually, but perhaps not strictly. St Innocent, bishop of Alaska reported, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, that he once met an Aleut man on a little island who had never met a Christian, couldn't read, and didn't know Russian, who knew that he (Innocent) was coming, and also knew the Gospel. When pressed, he mentioned that an angel had been visiting him for several years, teaching him the faith.

But God does not waste miracles. And most of us are not in a situation where we have no possible way of knowing the Gospel apart from sending an angel (and even then he was an exceptional case - there weren't angels teaching any of the other villages) or telling us directly. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, it's actually not all that difficult to go find someone who knows Greek or Hebrew or Church Fathers or whatever else. In the grand scheme of things it's not that difficult to find spiritually advanced elders who know what's what. So we're obliged to go do something besides sit in our house with our Bibles in order to better understand the Faith. That's good. God made humans interdependent for good reason - we're meant to be that way, and the Church is no exception. In fact, it's even more interdependent than the secular world; we're one body after the all. And if the heart still needs the brain, and visa-versa one part needs another, I don't see any reason for surprise when faced with the reality that I may need somebody who knows Greek to help me understand something about Scripture. In fact, I already have - I've needed somebody who knew Greek to translate the Scriptures.

But "hope of understanding" is different in different cases. We can know something right away: Christ died and rose again, giving us hope of eternal life. And then there's other stuff we can learn from reading the Bible, and other things we can learn from our pastors, other things from experience, other things from Science, and other things from Greek and Hebrew, etc, etc. But God doesn't ask of us more than we can do, and how much scholastic theology we want to know is up to us, for the most part. Because Christ has commanded us primarily to show love for God and our neighbor; there isn't a great commandment to know everything there is to know about theology.

 

[Blank123]

I'm saying the Holy Spirit uses experts to teach.

If the Holy Spirit did it without the use of teachers then why would the bible talk about teachers in it? Look in Paul's letters and one of the main spiritual gifts & roles in the church that he mentions is "teachers"

If the holy spirit just shows you the truth without anyone else, then why have teachers? why have a sermon? Why have sunday school? Why have a church?

Let me turn that question back to you. If all Scripture is sufficient for correction, rebuke, doctrine, and instruction in righteousness that the man (or woman) may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work as Scripture says it is, why is a church necessary to teach us salvation? Paul seemed to think that Scripture was quite sufficient on its own to teach. Why do we need these so-called experts?

 

[Llauralin]

Let me turn that question back to you. If all Scripture is sufficient for correction, rebuke, doctrine, and instruction in righteousness that the man (or woman) may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work as Scripture says it is, why is a church necessary to teach us salvation? Paul seemed to think that Scripture was quite sufficient on its own to teach. Why do we need these so-called experts?

Most translations don't say sufficient. They say something more like "good" or "useful," etc. EDIT: in fact, your translation doesn't say sufficient either! It says profitable. Have you ever heard a Christian argue that Scripture was not profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, etc?

 

[Blank123]

Most translations don't say sufficient. They say something more like "good" or "useful," etc. EDIT: in fact, your translation doesn't say sufficient either! It says profitable. Have you ever heard a Christian argue that Scripture was not profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, etc?

yes, i have actually. I was told that the other day here on CF.

 

[Llauralin]

yes, i have actually. I was told that the other day here on CF.

Huh. Odd. Anyway, my main point is that profitable and sufficient are not the same thing.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

I would have to say Scripture is self sufficient.

 

[Llauralin]

I would have to say Scripture is self sufficient.

And by that you mean...? (possibilities including that it can copy itself, translate itself, distribute itself, bind itself, interpret itself, apply itself...)

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

And by that you mean...? (possibilities including that it can copy itself, translate itself, distribute itself, bind itself, interpret itself, apply itself...)

Pretty much.

 

[Llauralin]

Pretty much.

Impressive

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Impressive

Scripture is indeed.

 

[CoachR64]

If the holy spirit uses only experts to teach the Bible and only experts can understand it all and explain it to us morons.... why did Christ use a bunch of uneducated rag tag blue collar men to build his church upon?

Also, you never answered my questions, Luther. How is your faith and trust of Martin Luther being infalliable in doctrine different than those placing that same faith and trust in Muhammed, Joseph Smith, the Pope, etc,,,,?

Coach

 

[Blank123]

Huh. Odd. Anyway, my main point is that profitable and sufficient are not the same thing.

true, however it does say that it will complete the person.

 

[intricatic]

Scripture alone is the only important thing. What men have to say about scripture varies, even within denominational lines, so I find it absurd to think that authorities should have any place in defining faith - at least not by blind faith. They must be proved by what scripture says. I even distrust translators.

 

[Im_A]

Scripture alone is the only important thing. What men have to say about scripture varies, even within denominational lines, so I find it absurd to think that authorities should have any place in defining faith - at least not by blind faith. They must be proved by what scripture says. I even distrust translators.

See, that is problematic for me. On one hand, you have someone telling you what the scriptures means because its what men have to say about scriptures, what humanity has come to in that regard. Some don't like that ability for people to have that authority but yet the counter to that is the individual then becomes exactly what the person is complaining about. The individual becomes the authority, that man(meaning both sexes) is thus making their own opinion based on their own authority.

This is why I think church authority is important for the church. Some type of structure, some type of accountability. If it wasn't for church authority, there would be no dogma(I use that in a neutral sense) to even defined oneself as a Christian. The creeds were established by church authority.

How does one really know which is right within Christianity? When one, all the denominations use the same source, the Bible but come to conflicting views? One denomination will say another is wrong, and then other will have a counter to that using the same source. Then the one side will say, their interpretation is wrong, and then the other side will say, their interpretation is wrong.

This could go even deeper into the individual. The bible is clear that something happened to humanity because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. Paul is clear about how mankind struggle with the old man, and the new man. Paul also instructs that the way to know it is the Holy Spirit that the spirit confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. So when you have so many confessing that, what is the truth within the church? What is the standard when opposing sides stay faithful to the Bible? Plus with the battle between the old and new man, how does one know which one they are listening to?

This is why I am really starting, at least for myself, to be convinced that church authority is critical to the Christian life, on equal level with the Bible. Sure one has the Bible, but if you don't have the body of Christ which is the church, what does one have?

 

[intricatic]

See, that is problematic for me. On one hand, you have someone telling you what the scriptures means because its what men have to say about scriptures, what humanity has come to in that regard. Some don't like that ability for people to have that authority but yet the counter to that is the individual then becomes exactly what the person is complaining about. The individual becomes the authority, that man(meaning both sexes) is thus making their own opinion based on their own authority.

Who's claiming to be an authority? I'm stating a concept about God's authority superseding human authority, and the weakness of human authority to effectively follow after God's when the principle behind it is human-centric.

This is why I think church authority is important for the church. Some type of structure, some type of accountability. If it wasn't for church authority, there would be no dogma(I use that in a neutral sense) to even defined oneself as a Christian. The creeds were established by church authority.

We have a God who's Word is... living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4)

Who are we truly accountable to?

How does one really know which is right within Christianity? When one, all the denominations use the same source, the Bible but come to conflicting views? One denomination will say another is wrong, and then other will have a counter to that using the same source. Then the one side will say, their interpretation is wrong, and then the other side will say, their interpretation is wrong.

The solution cannot be the same as the problem.

This could go even deeper into the individual. The bible is clear that something happened to humanity because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. Paul is clear about how mankind struggle with the old man, and the new man. Paul also instructs that the way to know it is the Holy Spirit that the spirit confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. So when you have so many confessing that, what is the truth within the church? What is the standard when opposing sides stay faithful to the Bible? Plus with the battle between the old and new man, how does one know which one they are listening to?

Good questions. I don't think it would help to go to a Church authority, who likely suffers through the same questions and problems as I do, and expect them to see beyond my own questions. That doesn't make any sense to me.

This is why I am really starting, at least for myself, to be convinced that church authority is critical to the Christian life, on equal level with the Bible. Sure one has the Bible, but if you don't have the body of Christ which is the church, what does one have?

God? I'd rather be alone and on God's side, than in a crowd of people opposed to God. Not saying that's how the Church must by necessity be, it is the Body of Christ due to the sanctification of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit (new man / old man), but people are still people, no matter how pious they may appear to be.

Have you ever read the story of Elijah, when he was fleeing from Jezebel's wrath? Well, in many ways, because of politics, the Church can descend into just that kind of a situation for those who follow after Christ. It's not shocking, it's not surprising, it's human nature. I surmise it can only get worse as time goes on. Blind leading the blind, and whatnot. There are no perfect people, there are no perfect Churches, but there is a perfect God and a perfect Lamb. We're not talking relativism here, we're talking realism.

The Bible can be understood; the fact people don't understand it and use it to justify their own agendas does not render the Bible a subjective mess.

 

[radhead]

It's not important.

It's fun for debate. But it's not something that anyone should be focused on as a Christian. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing people with strong beliefs. I don't care if their beliefs (non-essential) are the same as mine or not. But it's the essential Christian beliefs that are of primary importance.

 

[Im_A]

Who's claiming to be an authority? I'm stating a concept about God's authority superseding human authority, and the weakness of human authority to effectively follow after God's when the principle behind it is human-centric.

Without a physical entity, how do you know that you are effectively following after God?

We have a God who's Word is... living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4)

Who are we truly accountable to?

If it wasn't for the physical entity, the human centric physical representation of the body of Christ, you'd have no Bible to base your life in. To me, that is an obvious critical aspect of the faith.

The solution cannot be the same as the problem.

I agree...which is why I'm asking because I don't see an answer in your posts. I mean please don't be offended because I'm not meaning that in an ill-fashion...I personally don't see an answer.

Good questions. I don't think it would help to go to a Church authority, who likely suffers through the same questions and problems as I do, and expect them to see beyond my own questions. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If it wasn't for church authority, I wouldn't be at the place I am of actually coming back to church and faith. Sure one can say it was because of God, but let's say with that, if it wasn't for the physical instrument, I would not be where I am currently at today. 2 priests have had such a monumental affect on this. Simply because they prayed for me, one after only one meeting and kept me on their prayer bulletin for around close to 2 years now, and the other because he's welcomed a non-religious man like me in the church so much.

God? I'd rather be alone and on God's side, than in a crowd of people opposed to God. Not saying that's how the Church must by necessity be, it is the Body of Christ due to the sanctification of Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit (new man / old man), but people are still people, no matter how pious they may appear to be.

See to me, its not a matter of piousness that makes me think that church authority can be credible for matters of faith. We all sin. The most pious person sins. When I read about saints who prayed that their soul would be redeemed, that to me is piousness that is not seen too much anymore but putting that aside piousness means nothing to me at the end of the day(in piousness in the normal things we deal with as people...not the crazy things that sometimes we hear about church authority doing). We all do good, we all screw up. Life goes on either way.

If it wasn't for the church, there would be no book called the Bible. There would be no creeds that are important for the religion. There would be no structure. Christianity is a religion that was brought together by centralizing the religion. Some say political reasons, probably so, doesn't change too much for me. I also see the argument that the church centralized also because it needed to understand the right beliefs when Christianity was spread out and having so much pagan influence. So because of that, matters of the faith and church authority seems to mirror each other. One should use discernment of course but I trust a person who has dedicated their life in the servitude of a church to go to them for advice, help in matters of faith, religion etc. I would also have to assume that by doing that, God is there amongst us.

These feats in my opinion would almost be automatic to show the church as the best physical thing we have besides gathering together, and right on par with the Bible in relation to Jesus.