Scripture as my measure

[GQ Chris]

God's Word can be trusted. Most Men can't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well said Harry. The scripture twisting tradition is alive and well.

God's Word can be trusted. Most Men can't.

Rome's first Pope seems to agree with that

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understandwho-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting/4761 strebloo
as also the rests of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>

4761. strebloo streb-lo'-o from a derivative of 4762; to wrench, i.e. (specially), to torture (by the rack), but only figuratively, to pervert:-- wrest.

 

[SullivanZ]

What aboutz M. Luther or W. Tyndale

http://www.christianforums.com/t7382164-126/#post52293555

Nope, not them either.

Hmm, isn't that strange?

 

[Yab Yum]

It's through our own studying of Scripture ...

Who watches the watchmen?

 

[sunlover1]

Who watches the watchmen?

God?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nope, not them either.

Hmm, isn't that strange?

I suppose that depends on whether one is RC/EO or Protestant

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Alright, so it is not an issue of 'do we accept Scripture as authoritative' but rather an issue of 'does Scripture contain every apostolic tradition' and 'do these traditions actually conflict with Scripture or not', as well as what to make of groups which vary in interpretation.

It seems that there is a lot of pointless arguing over 'is Scripture authoritative' when I doubt anyone here rejects it as authoritative.

Perhaps the point is this:

Does God have to agree with me or do I need to agree with God? Or put the same question this way: Is it God's responsibility in His Scriptures to agree with my "Tradition" or is it my "Traditions" responsibility to agree with His Scriptures? Which supersedes which - God's Scripture or my Tradition?

In Catholicism, RCC Tradition does (as currently interpreted by the RCC alone and as defined and chosen by the RCC alone). Scripture is actually a by-product or subset of such and a creation of RCC Tradition. Here's how one of my Catholic teachers so clearly put it: "Of course Catholic Tradition and the Bible always agree - the Bible would be wrong otherwise." Scripture in viewed "through the lens" of RCC Tradition (as currently defined, chosen and interpreted by the RCC alone) because it is subject to it. Scripture is accountable to Tradition.

In Protestantism, "Tradition" (primarily) is the ECUMENICAL and HISTORIC consensus on the meaning of Scripture - which legit meaning of the words applies in the text. The text supersedes the tradition. Tradition is accountable to Scripture, which is why Protestants are apt to call Scripture the Rule - the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura).





.

 

[Standing Up]

I have seen Scripture used as an incentive to alleviate suffering and provide for those in need. I have also seen it used to condone murder (the killing of 3 civil-rights workers in Mississippi in the late 1960's). In both cases it has been the church's leadership that has used it.

We've gotten lazy. Instead of reading the Holy Bible ourselves, we have acquiesced to the notion that if we attend church regularly and listen to someone else as they read a few verses of Scripture, that will suffice. There are even some denominations on the radical fringe which tell their members that they are to read the commentaries written by their church's leadership concerning passages of Scripture rather than reading Scripture itself.

I accept Scripture as our 'yardstick'. Our mindset is to be in accordance with Galatians 5:16-26. Our actions are to be in the practical vein as described in Matthew 25:31-46. Our attitude toward what we do is to have the humility exhibited in Luke 17:7-10. Where we put our trust for our salvation should conform to Romans 3:19 to 5:10.

But we are not to put blind trust in what others tell us that Scripture says. We're to open the book ourselves and read not only whatever verses they used for their argument, but the verses that come before and the verses that follow after them. The minister who insisted that we in the laity were all to consider the deaths of those civil-rights workers as falling under the heading of 'slaying the wicked' used verses of Scripture as 'evidence' of his being correct. But we know that Scripture actually condemns such actions. He was one of those who thought that he had 'cowed' his congregants into accepting whatever he told them rather than going to Scripture itself to verify or refute his teachings.

There's an old saying: "Just because a mouse lives in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie." We need to take this to heart. There are those who genuinely want to do as God would have us do. But there are others whose nature is such that they have no problem whatsoever in perverting Scripture so as to make it serve their wants and desires. It's through our own studying of Scripture that we can recognize these 'wolves in sheeps clothing' when we encounter them.

Who watches the watchmen?

God?

IMO, that's an interesting sequence because it is right on. And it shows the problem. IOW, the NT was set up for us to be a priesthood of believers--we go to God. The Spirit will direct and inform. We have scripture. We may discern.

BUT, what happened instead was the same history as Israel in the OT. We refused God's voice and set up a line of NT priest who intercedes. Some now have the clergy/laity split. The priest reads the bible for us. He interprets it. He allows us to approach God in communion. That, however, was not the intent.

So, who watches the watchmen? God -- the believer goes directly to God through Christ. Humble yourself, and all of that. We walk by faith.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The NT was set up for us to be a priesthood of believers--we go to God. The Spirit will direct and inform. We have scripture. We may discern.

Scriptures do not show everyone individually interpreting the scriptures.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It's impossible to elevate the scriptures too highly:

careful now...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Scriptures do not show everyone individually interpreting the scriptures.

I agree...


It has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture as our measure or rule, of course.


If you have a "problem" with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable "interpreter" of Scripture (and I don't blame 'ya!) I suggest you take that up with the only one that so insists: the RCC (see, for example, the Catechism of itself # 85). The LDS once did but dropped that a long time ago, the RCC now stands alone on that count.






.

 

[laconicstudent]

It's impossible to elevate the scriptures too highly:

I agree. I keep mine on a small home-made altar with an athame which I use to sacrifice small pigeons and other tweety birds to the Holy Book. Last week I caught a rabbit and burned it to the Bible as well.

We all need to realize that John 1:1 means that the Bible IS God. We need nothing but the Bible, and we should all worship our Amazon.com: NIV Compact Thinline Bible (9780310937661): Zondervan: Books


/ends demonstration of why that is very wrong

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So why not use the 1st council of Nicea as a starting point for your rule? It is a clear formulation of Christian doctrine based on scripture, and it was agreed upon universally by all organized bodies of Christianity at that time.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I agree. I keep mine on a small home-made altar with an athame which I use to sacrifice small pigeons and other tweety birds to the Holy Book. Last week I caught a rabbit and burned it to the Bible as well.

We all need to realize that John 1:1 means that the Bible IS God. We need nothing but the Bible, and we should all worship our Amazon.com: NIV Compact Thinline Bible (9780310937661): Zondervan: Books


/ends demonstration of why that is very wrong

WHA??/ NIV is a false idol merely posing as the KJV, which alone is the TRUE WORD OF GOD!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I think it is also worth mentioning that the 1st council creed is used as a 'rule' here in the GT forums, I wonder why they didn't just say 'those who use Christian scriptures" intead...

 

[laconicstudent]

WHA??/ NIV is a false idol merely
posing as the KJV, which alone is the TRUE WORD OF GOD!

*screams* HERESY!!!!

*more moderate tone* My NIV has "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and by this I KNOW that the NIV is the Only True Word of God(TM). All other versions are Satanic Vain Traditions of Man Lies of Satan!!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

WHA??/ NIV is a false idol merely posing as the KJV, which alone is the TRUE WORD OF GOD!

*screams* HERESY!!!!

*more moderate tone* My NIV has "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and by this I KNOW that the NIV is the Only True Word of God(TM). All other versions are Satanic Vain Traditions of Man Lies of Satan!!!!

Well LLOJ has:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4507371/
Question on Greek in Reve 12 and John 1

John 1:1 In beginning was the Word and the Word was toward/near/proV <4314> the God and God was the Word

Textus Rec.)
John 1:1 en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
W-H )
John 1:1 en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
Byz./Maj.)

Reve 12:5......And is snatched-away the offspring of her near/toward/proV <4314> the God and toward the throne of Him.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

A conversation was derailing another thread and so
I'm moving the discussion here.
We're discussing using Scripture as a measuring tool.
We're not calling this practice by any formal name,
just it is what it is, using Scripture to measure.
Here's how the conversation began:

Seeing as the Scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit through appointed men, I believe that it should be the measuring stick. It's the only thing I know to be true. It is from God. So, if someone claiming that they are giving a revelation from God, then I am going to measure it by the one thing I know that is from God and is true.

Besides, if what man are claiming to be from God, then they should have no problem of someone measuring their statements from what we know of to be from God.

 

[Standing Up]

So why not use the 1st council of Nicea as a starting point for your rule? It is a clear formulation of Christian doctrine based on scripture, and it was agreed upon universally by all organized bodies of Christianity at that time.

Couple of problems.

1) The definition of "from the Father" changed a few hundred years later to "Father and the Son". And then exploded in 1054.

2) The definition of Trinity has been changed also (can't develop that yet in clear terms).

3) Nicea excommunicated and declared heretical the rule of faith as regards the days/dates of the death, burial, resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that the church once observed. The church being at earlier times Jesus, Peter, Paul, Mary, and the others.

So, no, Nicea doesn't "work" for at least 1/2 the church (RC) or the saints who came before Nicea.

PS. The idea of infallible ECs is as accurate a concept as infallible Pope

PPS. As to GT using Nicea, I'd guess it's pretty loose since RCers are still allowed to post, but maybe it was changed. Not sure.

 

[Standing Up]

Seeing as the Scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit through appointed men, I believe that it should be the measuring stick. It's the only thing I know to be true. It is from God. So, if someone claiming that they are giving a revelation from God, then I am going to measure it by the one thing I know that is from God and is true.

Besides, if what man are claiming to be from God, then they should have no problem of someone measuring their statements from what we know of to be from God.

What she said.