How Important Is Docterine When Finding a Mate?

[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.


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?



The solution cannot be the same as the problem.

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.

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.

I'm only responding twice to your same post because I saw some edits I wanted to address because in what I posted and quoted, it didn't come up.

Yet if you have no authority you cannot say that your interpretation is not a subjective mess. When one says God is their authority what is that based on? Feelings, conscience, logic and reason? What is it? People use that all the time and come to different conclusion such as you.

If the church is the physical institution that represents the body of Christ, then there has to be one church, there has to be a realism that one either comes to or rejects. Christianity is fractured, so when I hear people talking about how God is the only authority it just seems to me to be another affect of the fracture.

 

[intricatic]

I'm only responding twice to your same post because I saw some edits I wanted to address because in what I posted and quoted, it didn't come up.

Yet if you have no authority you cannot say that your interpretation is not a subjective mess. When one says God is their authority what is that based on? Feelings, conscience, logic and reason? What is it? People use that all the time and come to different conclusion such as you.

If the church is the physical institution that represents the body of Christ, then there has to be one church, there has to be a realism that one either comes to or rejects. Christianity is fractured, so when I hear people talking about how God is the only authority it just seems to me to be another affect of the fracture.

I never claim to have authority. I never claim to have things correct in terms of doctrine, but reproof doesn't come from people except as it has been given to them by God.

Fractured - the politics are always that way. It's always about power and authority, as if that was what Christianity is based on. When I say God is the only authority, I mean that in a perfectly blunt way; God created the world, God redeemed the faithful through the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. God did it, people either believe or reject it. God exists and is personal; too strong an emphasis on what can be seen with the eyes or heard with the ears leads to the deception that the only thing that exists is the physical component of the thing itself. The physical is important, but the physical decays and rots away over time. Christ is physical, and He didn't decay or rot away; he ascended into Heaven. I'll take as my authority those who sit at the top of the created order, not those who think they do.

Consequently, if Christianity is fractured, which I would agree that it is, would that not be a symptom of a deeper problem? If God spoke to men today, Christianity would still be just as fractured as it was in the days of the Old Covenant, when the prophets were being stoned and killed and the faithful were few and far between. What exactly is the problem?

 

[intricatic]

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

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.

It all comes down to the idea that people are not God, and God is not people. God is Christ; God is the Father, God is the Holy Spirit, but people are influenced by the Godhead. There is always a probability of error when resting on people, but when resting on God, there is no probability of error on God's part. On ours? Sure; we screw things up all the time, we lie, we cheat, we steal, we try our best to avoid responsibility for the things that we do. This is a universal condition of all mankind to some extent or another. The human-centric representation of the body of Christ is an oxymoron; by human-centric, I mean focused on man. We don't have faith in men, we have faith in one Man. Paul said; 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.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ..." (1 Cor. 1). This does imply unity, this does not imply a human-centric unity. The One Church theory in terms of organized religion is ludicrous for the same reason one might say that Christianity is fractured. If there were one Church, there would be little, or no contention in the Church. God is not a small God.

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.

This is personal experience; you can't effectively reason from silence. You have no experience of coming back to the Church and faith in any other way, save for the way you experienced it. The fact that you cannot imagine another way does not validate the idea that there is no other way. God does work through people, I would never discount that. God does what He does, and sometimes people do the right thing that falls in line with what God is doing, other times, not so much. One cannot simply say that God works through Church authority and leave it at that. Church authority can be, and is often wrong just as you can be, and are often wrong, and I can be, and am often wrong. Such is life in the world as a human being.

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.

Exactly! The question is; when the saints prayed that their souls would be redeemed, was it to a Church leader? No; it was to the Redeemer.

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.

The Church, or God working through the Church to preserve His message to mankind? That's the question I always mull over when I look at the screwed up things the Church is currently doing.

Paul said, in Galatians 2, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

True faith is not something centered on the person who holds faith, but centered on the faithfulness of God, and His sovereignty. God redeems; God sanctifies; God leads; God is that ball of fire in front of the progression of exiles, through the wilderness. They're walking to the promised land, but many of them will eat poisoned quail on the way. (Numbers 11, Exodus 13) Many of them will rise up in opposition of the leaders God has chosen. (Numbers 16) Many of the leaders God has chosen will act in defiance of God. (Exodus 32) (Numbers 20) Such is life. If God were not faithful, we would all be screwed.

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.

The best physical thing is often nowhere near as good as the worst spiritual thing. It's the best we have; but the body of Christ is not the organization we know to be the Church. It has no IRS tax exempt status. It has no contention within it, no controversies. It unites all of us, regardless of whether we disagree or agree, so long as we're members of that one body. The eye does not think it is more important than the foot, and the hand does not think it is more important than the ear, because all parts are necessary and important to the whole. We must always bear in mind who's body this is we are talking about, because that is what ties it all together.

 

[Im_A]

It all comes down to the idea that people are not God, and God is not people. God is Christ; God is the Father, God is the Holy Spirit, but people are influenced by the Godhead. There is always a probability of error when resting on people, but when resting on God, there is no probability of error on God's part. On ours? Sure; we screw things up all the time, we lie, we cheat, we steal, we try our best to avoid responsibility for the things that we do. This is a universal condition of all mankind to some extent or another. The human-centric representation of the body of Christ is an oxymoron; by human-centric, I mean focused on man. We don't have faith in men, we have faith in one Man. Paul said; 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.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ..." (1 Cor. 1). This does imply unity, this does not imply a human-centric unity. The One Church theory in terms of organized religion is ludicrous for the same reason one might say that Christianity is fractured. If there were one Church, there would be little, or no contention in the Church. God is not a small God.

We know that already, and that is not even part of the topic unless you are assuming that all church authority thinks of themselves as God which would be really strange if you did because you have no reason to.

This is personal experience; you can't effectively reason from silence. You have no experience of coming back to the Church and faith in any other way, save for the way you experienced it. The fact that you cannot imagine another way does not validate the idea that there is no other way. God does work through people, I would never discount that. God does what He does, and sometimes people do the right thing that falls in line with what God is doing, other times, not so much. One cannot simply say that God works through Church authority and leave it at that. Church authority can be, and is often wrong just as you can be, and are often wrong, and I can be, and am often wrong. Such is life in the world as a human being.

Yet nothing you said for yourself in your faith is validated. All you have is your own interpretation method, your feelings, your emotions to interpretate with, and I trust someone who has dedicated their lives in servitude with my spiritual problems than I would the church goer.

Plus I never said it I can't imagine another way so I don't even know why your bringing this up. So why are you bringing that up with my experience?

Exactly! The question is; when the saints prayed that their souls would be redeemed, was it to a Church leader? No; it was to the Redeemer.

You missed my point so I'll state it in this manner. They were praying for their souls, even though they were more pious than you and me combined...point being, the if your looking to find piousness to take fully church authority, your foolish for doing so because even the saints themselves didn't feel pious, and there's more to church authority than just going to the pious.

The Church, or God working through the Church to preserve His message to mankind? That's the question I always mull over when I look at the screwed up things the Church is currently doing.

The question shouldn't be there just because people are not pious and do screwed up things.

Paul said, in Galatians 2, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

True faith is not something centered on the person who holds faith, but centered on the faithfulness of God, and His sovereignty. God redeems; God sanctifies; God leads; God is that ball of fire in front of the progression of exiles, through the wilderness. They're walking to the promised land, but many of them will eat poisoned quail on the way. (Numbers 11, Exodus 13) Many of them will rise up in opposition of the leaders God has chosen. (Numbers 16) Many of the leaders God has chosen will act in defiance of God. (Exodus 32) (Numbers 20) Such is life. If God were not faithful, we would all be screwed.

None of this discredits the Church and church authority. If you think it does, then I'd have to see your reasoning because I see no valid argument here against church.

The best physical thing is often nowhere near as good as the worst spiritual thing. It's the best we have; but the body of Christ is not the organization we know to be the Church. It has no IRS tax exempt status. It has no contention within it, no controversies. It unites all of us, regardless of whether we disagree or agree, so long as we're members of that one body. The eye does not think it is more important than the foot, and the hand does not think it is more important than the ear, because all parts are necessary and important to the whole. We must always bear in mind who's body this is we are talking about, because that is what ties it all together.

I'll respond to this when I get off of work. I must jet. I just realized the time. For now, I'll say, I disagree with you. Christianity needs a formal centralization of the religion. Without it, you would not be able to rebel against it today.

 

[timbo81]

eh as long as they identify as christian, that is a practicing one in the true sense of the word.

I more have problems with specific churches than entire demoninations.

Like there are anglican churches that are very very liberal and others that still stick to doctrine.

Catholics though I don't find compatiable enough to consider dating. I can't really recall meeting a truly commited catholic woman my age either. So I haven't had to consider it anyway.

 

[Im_A]

I'll respond to this when I get off of work. I must jet. I just realized the time. For now, I'll say, I disagree with you. Christianity needs a formal centralization of the religion. Without it, you would not be able to rebel against it today.

Adding more to my reply to the ending of what I said I would reply more to of your post intricatic:

The best physical thing is often nowhere near as good as the worst spiritual thing. It's the best we have; but the body of Christ is not the organization we know to be the Church. It has no IRS tax exempt status. It has no contention within it, no controversies. It unites all of us, regardless of whether we disagree or agree, so long as we're members of that one body. The eye does not think it is more important than the foot, and the hand does not think it is more important than the ear, because all parts are necessary and important to the whole. We must always bear in mind who's body this is we are talking about, because that is what ties it all together.

​

The church shouldn't be compared to the body in my opinion. I have heard and used this comparison before. The foot doesn't claim ultimate truth and then question the salvation of the hand because it doesn't agree with it dividing ultimate truth in so called reforms or progression etc.

Yes I remember who's body that is...which is why I think it is that more important.




​

 

[CoachR64]

I think this thread is a clear indicator of the point I was trying to make all along... different needs for different people. Some people grow in Christ through rules, rituals, etc... Some have other needs. That doesn't make one a heretic, liar, etc... It makes our walk with Christ personal, which is what a relationship is. It is not supposed to be like everyone elses...

Look at Christ talking to Peter about John, and telling Peter it is non of his business what he has in store for John. Everyone's path is unique.

Coach

 

[Im_A]

I think this thread is a clear indicator of the point I was trying to make all along... different needs for different people. Some people grow in Christ through rules, rituals, etc... Some have other needs. That doesn't make one a heretic, liar, etc... It makes our walk with Christ personal, which is what a relationship is. It is not supposed to be like everyone elses...

Look at Christ talking to Peter about John, and telling Peter it is non of his business what he has in store for John. Everyone's path is unique.

Coach

The only difference for me in this bunch is, I'm not convinced yet that I specifically have to have a Christian as a mate. Maybe someday I'll come to that conviction, or maybe I'll find one in the process that I am on, or maybe I won't. Either way, I'm just not at the point that I am convinced that I need a Christian, even though I at times have wondered, even before lately that maybe a religious person is one that would do me best...even beyond some other issues I think about. We'll see what happens.

 

[Luther073082]

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?

Scripture is enough when its understood correctly.

But the problem is we are 2000 years removed from the NT scriptures, their culuture and circumstances plus the scriputres where written in a completly different language.

Another problem I have with evangelicals is they worship their english translations of the bible as the word of God. The word of God is in greek and hebrew and pays respect to specific circumstances especially within the culture it was written in. Let me emphasize this enough

GOD'S WORD IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!!!!

and

YOU HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY READ GOD'S WORD UNLESS YOU CAN READ GREEK & HEBREW!!!!

Do you understand how much can be lost in translation? Do you know how much can be missed or mis-understood in the translations?

I use this example a lot because I studyed french in high school.

If I say "Dit salut a ma petite amie Melissa" and I tell you to translate it and tell me what it means, it could mean two things.

petite amie litterally means little friend. However since there is no word for girlfriend or boyfriend in french, little friend commonly the term used to describe the person you are dating.

So if you just have that sentence, its completly unclear as to if I'm introducing you to my girlfriend Melissa or if I'm introducing you to my machine gun whom I've nicknamed Melissa.

We can guess that maybe I'm talking about my girlfriend. But there is no way for sure of knowing unless you can read further into the story. On top of that you wouldn't know that little friend could mean girlfriend unless I told you. So if I had left out the name Melissa and literally translated it to "say hello to my little friend." and then the little friend said "Hello" you would spend the whole story wondering who this little friend was, why she was so important to me, and you might spend some time wondering how little she was. In short it wouldn't make any sense unless you took it to someone who knew what they where talking about who could say. "oh yeah little friend means girlfriend."

Now since the languages of the bible are far older, they are not latin based, they use a completly different alphabet from us, and they are dead languages. and so there is even more of these problems which can't always be resolved by the context they are used in. Plus english words don't always properly capture what one greek word might be trying to describe.

Submit in english means just to place yourself under someone or in obedience to them. But the greek term that is used means to do those things out of love. Well thats a lot more descriptive now isn't it?

 

[Mikeb85]

Submit in english means just to place yourself under someone or in obedience to them. But the greek term that is used means to do those things out of love. Well thats a lot more descriptive now isn't it?

This is very true... Greek is a very complicated yet precise language - there are many Greek words which simply can't be properly translated into English.

 

[Blank123]

Scripture is enough when its understood correctly.

But the problem is we are 2000 years removed from the NT scriptures, their culuture and circumstances plus the scriputres where written in a completly different language.

Another problem I have with evangelicals is they worship their english translations of the bible as the word of God. The word of God is in greek and hebrew and pays respect to specific circumstances especially within the culture it was written in. Let me emphasize this enough

GOD'S WORD IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!!!!

and

YOU HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY READ GOD'S WORD UNLESS YOU CAN READ GREEK & HEBREW!!!!

Kirk seriously stop talking down to me please. I'm not the idiot you seem to think I am. If you cannot stop I will leave this conversation.

That being said... Can you provide me evidence of one example of doctrine that is in the Greek/Hebrew that does not exist in our English translations?

Do you understand how much can be lost in translation? Do you know how much can be missed or mis-understood in the translations?

I use this example a lot because I studyed french in high school.

If I say "Dit salut a ma petite amie Melissa" and I tell you to translate it and tell me what it means, it could mean two things.

petite amie litterally means little friend. However since there is no word for girlfriend or boyfriend in french, little friend commonly the term used to describe the person you are dating.

you don't have to tll me that - i'm studying French It may not be clear to the novice exactly what kind of relationship is there but it is clear that there is a relationship. whether it is with your pet gun or an actual person would probably be cleared up with more communication - or pulling out some pictures of the two of you locking lips

Submit in english means just to place yourself under someone or in obedience to them. But the greek term that is used means to do those things out of love. Well thats a lot more descriptive now isn't it?

actually just to take the word from Ephesians 5:22 the word for submit there can mean:

1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one's self, obey
4) to submit to one's control
5) to yield to one's admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject


its root word, tasso can be translated as:


1) to put in order, to station
a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one
b) to appoint, ordain, order
1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority
2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon


whether or not its being done out of some motive such as love will be made clear from the context, just as in English.

 

[Luther073082]

That being said... Can you provide me evidence of one example of doctrine that is in the Greek/Hebrew that does not exist in our English translations?

Its not about it being in our English translations, its about if its understood or read properly in our english translations.

An example is the submit word.

Another example is if you look at the genologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. If you compare them they are not the same, they start the same and then they diverge.

However it is with understanding Greek and understanding biblical culture that we are able to understand that there is no word for father in law in greek and a son in law was also regarded as a son. And so its now widely accepted that the geneology in Luke refers to Mary's genology even though it led to Joseph.

If you handed a person a english bible without this vital piece of information and they where to study it, the only logical conclusion that could be reached from what they know is that the bible contradicts itself.

you don't have to tll me that - i'm studying French It may not be clear to the novice exactly what kind of relationship is there but it is clear that there is a relationship. whether it is with your pet gun or an actual person would probably be cleared up with more communication - or pulling out some pictures of the two of you locking lips

I'm making a point that literal translation doesn't capture the understanding.

 

[Blank123]

Its not about it being in our English translations, its about if its understood or read properly in our english translations.

An example is the submit word.

which i've already addressed.

Another example is if you look at the genologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. If you compare them they are not the same, they start the same and then they diverge.

is that a language issue?

If you handed a person a english bible without this vital piece of information and they where to study it, the only logical conclusion that could be reached from what they know is that the bible contradicts itself.

not true. I've already told you about my friend who sat down with the Bible and refused to learn from outside sources and he came to salvation from that. I've also heard testimonies from people in places such as China, where Biblical Christianity and Bibles are outlawed, and with no previous understanding of Scripture they were able to come to saving belief from one page of Scripture they came across.

ETA: if the same doctrine that is in the Greek/Hebrew Bible exists on our English Bibles then really you have to concede that our Bible is enough. Sure it might be helpful to learn Greek and Hebrew, and I'm not disputing that. But to come to saving faith and to learn how to grow and mature in our walks with the Lord the Bible is enough. Unless of course you can provide some evidence of some doctrine from the Greek/Hebrew Bible that is not in our English translation that is vital to our Christian walks.

 

[Mikeb85]

not true. I've already told you about my friend who sat down with the Bible and refused to learn from outside sources and he came to salvation from that. I've also heard testimonies from people in places such as China, where Biblical Christianity and Bibles are outlawed, and with no previous understanding of Scripture they were able to come to saving belief from one page of Scripture they came across.

And many, many people have come to belief and salvation without ever even reading the Bible, or even being able to read...

 

[Blank123]

And many, many people have come to belief and salvation without ever even reading the Bible, or even being able to read...

only through believing the gospel that is found in Scripture. There is no other gospel by which we are saved.

 

[Luther073082]

not true. I've already told you about my friend who sat down with the Bible and refused to learn from outside sources and he came to salvation from that. I've also heard testimonies from people in places such as China, where Biblical Christianity and Bibles are outlawed, and with no previous understanding of Scripture they were able to come to saving belief from one page of Scripture they came across.

Go up to him and tell him to explain the differing geniologies.

Either

A. He hasn't read it

or

B. He received said information from an outside source.

Do you know exactly what your friend belives in theologically?

Also i want to point out this from the lexicon

"In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating."

-- Noted in the Lexicon. Something thats not understood in english.

But again you are getting this from an outside source.

You can throw away sound and solid teaching all you want. But fact of the matter is, Paul did write about teachers and teachers are necessary to proper understanding of the one true faith.

If you someone can come to a proper understanding just by giving them an english translation then you need to answer me two questions.

1. Why have teachers, why have Sunday school, why have a sermon? Why have anything if we can figure it all out on our own?

2. Exactly what translation do we give to them?

 

[Blank123]

Go up to him and tell him to explain the differing geniologies.

Either

A. He hasn't read it

or

B. He received said information from an outside source.

Do you know exactly what your friend belives in theologically?

my point was that Scripture was enough to lead him to salvation. Can you argue that point? Do you believe an outside source is necessary for salvation?

Also i want to point out this from the lexicon

"In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating."

-- Noted in the Lexicon. Something thats not understood in english.

But again you are getting this from an outside source.

mmhmm. i didn't say outside sources are not helpful. I said they are not necessary to be saved and grow as a Christian.

You can throw away sound and solid teaching all you want. But fact of the matter is, Paul did write about teachers and teachers are necessary to proper understanding of the one true faith.

reference please.

If you someone can come to a proper understanding just by giving them an english translation then you need to answer me two questions.

1. Why have teachers, why have Sunday school, why have a sermon? Why have anything if we can figure it all out on our own?

one reason is that people are sheep. we love to be told what to believe and what to think. its easier than reading the Scriptures for ourselves.

However those who would test what they were being taught against Scripture were actually praised:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. - Acts 17

2. Exactly what translation do we give to them?

the one that teaches the gospel.

 

[Luther073082]

my point was that Scripture was enough to lead him to salvation. Can you argue that point? Do you believe an outside source is necessary for salvation?

Well if all we are talkinga about is salvation, then access to the scriptures isn't even necessary. Just Christ and faith.

However if we are aiming to try to understand God then yes outside sources are necessary because an American living in 2009 could not possibly understand the scripture correctly without teaching.

Trying to do so without teaching could cause a lot of problems. The references that say Jesus is God are very subtle (at least in the english) but they are certainly there.

When I was a kid, I read the bible plenty and I had no idea that Christians belived Jesus was God. The references where too subtle in there for me to catch it, and I didn't have the influence for someone to lead me in that direction.

I would check to make sure your friend truely accepts and belives in the holy trinity based on scripture.

mmhmm. i didn't say outside sources are not helpful. I said they are not necessary to be saved and grow as a Christian.

If one's only goal is to be saved, then they are not even a Christian. A person can not carry a goal of something that has already happened.

reference please.

1 Cor 12:28
Eph 4:11
HEBREWS 5:12
Galatians 6:6 - Talks about those who are being taught.
James 3:1 - (states that not all people should be teachers)

one reason is that people are sheep. we love to be told what to believe and what to think. its easier than reading the Scriptures for ourselves.

However those who would test what they were being taught against Scripture were actually praised:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. - Acts 17

I've never suggested that people should not check the scriptures to find out the truthfulness of what they are being taught.

But to ignore teaching all together is also ridiculous.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

If one's only goal is to be saved, then they are not even a Christian. A person can not carry a goal of something that has already happened.

I see what you're getting at, but you just so opened a huge can of worms. *waits for thread to asplode*

 

[Blank123]

Well if all we are talkinga about is salvation, then access to the scriptures isn't even necessary. Just Christ and faith.

which gospel then would lead us to faith in Christ? The one found in the Bible or another found elsewhere?

I would check to make sure your friend truely accepts and belives in the holy trinity based on scripture.

oh he does - he's one of the soundest guys i know. Don't forget about the Holy Spirits role in all of this.

If one's only goal is to be saved, then they are not even a Christian. A person can not carry a goal of something that has already happened.

i said to be saved and grow as a Christian.

1 Cor 12:28
Eph 4:11
HEBREWS 5:12
Galatians 6:6 - Talks about those who are being taught.
James 3:1 - (states that not all people should be teachers)

thanks.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. - 1 Cor 12

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, - eph 4

yep i acknowledge there are teachers. I never disputed that.


12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5

thats more like what i was looking for. But look a little more closely. He's talking about the immature in Christ, those who are already saved and have yet to move on to solid food. How did they get saved? By some gospel not found in Scripture? What will they do when they move on to solid milk, will they still need that teacher? What is that teachers role? to tell them what to believe or how to study Scripture so he may stand on his own two feet?

1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. - Galatians 6


thats not quite what you're arguing though. it doesn't say a teacher is necessary outside of Scripture for knowledge of salvation or to grow as a Christian - it does say the student should share in all good things with his teacher. I'm not disputing that point either. All Christians, just as the passage says, should be sharing together on the good and the bad.

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body. 3 Indeed,[a] we put bits in horses’ mouths that they may obey us, and we turn their whole body. 4 Look also at ships: although they are so large and are driven by fierce winds, they are turned by a very small rudder wherever the pilot desires. 5 Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. - James 3

i'm not disputing that either. not all should teach. Not all were given the gift of teaching, and not all are prepared to teach through lack of their study of the Bible.

I've never suggested that people should not check the scriptures to find out the truthfulness of what they are being taught.

But to ignore teaching all together is also ridiculous.

i didn't say we should ignore all teaching. I said it was unnecessary in terms of salvation and growing as a Christian. If all Christian teachers in this world were to spontaneously combust we would be fine because we have everything we need in Scripture to teach us.