Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Consider: first assume that one is indeed and earnestly relying on God in their reading - has anyone over time reading the Scriptures changed their position on the "real presence" ? First believing then not, or vice versa ?
Guilty as charged; vice versa
I vaguely remember something called sleep lol.I should be asleep
Here I used it to be gentle and fair. I DO believe that theActually, as a Christian I do not accept the existence of the "subconscious" - it's a secular invention. I don't find it anywhere but in psychological theory (and notice, the inventors of psychology didn't believe in the existence of the "psyche" as used in the Scriptures or Christian writings).
So, to employ the example from the other thread:
If a "man of God" shows ONE drawing to 10 ppl, will those 10 ppl see it the same then? Nope. Analogy fail.Consider the elements of a drawing. One can take two curved lines, two straight lines and three colors (say brown, green, and yellow). From these seven elements, an almost infinite number of different pictures can be composed.
Or, imagine a picture of a king made of jewels. One may take the jewels and re-arrange them and describe a completely different face.
In both instances, the elements are the same and the outcomes are different.
Interesting theory.. but we're not subjecting God's Words to anything.The rejection of Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of reading Scripture; it is a check against both the "rule of faith" and spiritual development.
You're implying that IF I am indeed relying on God while reading that IConsider: first assume that one is indeed and earnestly relying on God in their reading - has anyone over time reading the Scriptures changed their position on the "real presence" ? First believing then not, or vice versa ?
Ahhhhh. Now I understandwell now, i wouldn't go that far...
I have been known to concede some common ground for the sake of argument however...
No time for sleepI should be asleep
I vaguely remember something called sleep lol.
Note to self: In my next life, small family
Here I used it to be gentle and fair. I DO believe that the
"Private interpretation" argument is stupid.
(there, no worries lol) But I will, once again, explain why..
If a "man of God" shows ONE drawing to 10 ppl, will those 10 ppl see it the same then? Nope. Analogy fail.
The outcomes will ALWAYS be different, we're all operating from different
pasts, different mindsets, different [insert POV].
The rule of faith is the revealed truth about God; it is the cornerstone from which the foundation and building commences, which determines the "shape" that the Scriptures take in our heart as it grows toward Him. It is a wholeness from which the Scriptures were produced by the inspiration of God. It preceeds the Scriptures and 'births' them as fruit which in turn, upon this foundation give fruit.Interesting theory.. but we're not subjecting God's Words to anything.
You're implying that IF I am indeed relying on God while reading that I
will change my position on "real presence"?
YES.. i have changed my position.
Was RCC all my life.. went to church periodically, made all of the
"sacraments" prayed on my rosary and went to CCD.
As a young adult.. I READ THE BIBLE.. Why wasn't I reading the
bible all my life in the RCC? Pfft, nother story altogether..
My eyes were opened after reading it. I saw a few things that I could
not reconcile with RCCism. Left that religion behind and began seeking
God and His Ways instead..And now here I am all growed up.
Ahhhhh. Now I understand
You're just a peacemaker!
I once read somewhere that your kind are "blessed" of God.
"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.
Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion
Read and discuss!
I'm hearing ya sister.(If I knew then what I know now ... nah; this is just fine )
Heck, common sense tells us that we all have different points of view.What Irenaeus is pointing out (and history attests to this, in fact) is that the Scriptures can and have been disarranged/rearranged to teach a different Christ. As we can (and do) each have a different context from which we "see", constant metanoia is needed for our ability to really "see". It is the "rule of faith" which is to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures, not our personal inherited "contexts".
I made a new thread to discuss thisThe rule of faith is the revealed truth about God; it is the cornerstone from which the foundation and building commences, which determines the "shape" that the Scriptures take in our heart as it grows toward Him. It is a wholeness from which the Scriptures were produced by the inspiration of God. It preceeds the Scriptures and 'births' them as fruit which in turn, upon this foundation give fruit.
At least the kids dont realize that yet.. well some of them maybe lol.I'm not all growed up - got a long way to go
May we all come to grow eternally in Him.
[/QUOTE]Whatever your earlier position, did you defend it to others ? Or was it an interior position only. Was it something you lived as a direct God-given teaching to you ?
The questions can be left unanswered, no offense if so
Kinda personal, sorry
Ahhhhh. Now I understand
You're just a peacemaker!
I once read somewhere that your kind are "blessed" of God.
I'm hearing ya sister.
Couldn't and wouldn't want to go back and redo after knowing them lol.
But dang, what WERE we thinking?
Heck, common sense tells us that we all have different points of view.
But it's not going to change whether we READ about God, HEAR from
God or even SEE God.. RE: story of the blind men and the elephant.
We will always always always understand God differently. We will
never be clones, praise God.
We will all continue to try to understand Him on a deeper level but will
never know fully, face to face, until that which is perfect is come.
I made a new thread to discuss this
At least the kids dont realize that yet.. well some of them maybe lol.
I was raised in a very conservative RCC hating area of the country.
But that didn't stop me from believing that which I had been taught
all of my life...Reading Scripture though, not a moment's hesitation
and I was done with that church. No sect will ever win my allegiance again!
Not sure if that helps.
(I do wonder if this particular change in belief impacts other ways of "seeing", but that's a different thread)
Regardless of the term, what Mathison is describing is a real epistemological difference. Don't like the term, don't use it. Like any term it is simply a way to encode a concept, a point of view, into a manageable linguistic package. But the point is, yes there is a very real difference in how one approaches and uses Scripture and the term is simply one of convenience to make it clear how one likely interprets Scripture (or tries to). There is a very real difference between someone who rejects any other epistemological sources outside of ones personal interpretation of Scripture and a church who recognizes the need and usefulness of other sources, but limits their ability to bind one's conscience on essential matters.
For more information, I'd refer you to the first video in this series. It covers all these views along with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.
As for the article, I've discussed these elsewhere somewhere here in GT and it's basically making the same silly claim that there's really no difference between the two points of view in the end, because you still need an authority. But this is absurd because there are real tangible differences that can be demonstrated. Also, what Mathison calls sola scriptura recognizes the place and authority of the church, and so the argument only succeeds in trashing up some hay and avoiding the real issue the Reformers died for. Protestants are completely aware that the real issue is one of authority, but insist that sola scriptura is the only effective method to resolve the question, what happens when the church becomes radically corrupt and refuses to reform? Of course the RCC and EO would no doubt claim such a thing is ultimately impossible and point to Matt 16:18 as proof. Other Christians look at the entire course of God's interaction with humans as recorded in Scripture and see that although God will indeed preserve His elect, He does not make any promises to any one tribe that it is or even will remain His unique source of grace as He not only constantly warns them of corruption, but repeatedly took power away from a tribe or group only to give it to another. For us folks, the idea that Christ setup a "One True Church" in the sense that only a single sect (like RCC or EO) represents this One True Church, is simply not a biblical concept and thus, since parts of the church can always fall from grace, why we must have a way to deal with corruption when it inevitably arises (which amusingly enough, both RCC and EO agree exists and which each points at the other as an example of this). We believe that only sola scriptura can effectively deal with this situation as we move farther and farther away from the sources of these unwritten traditions and as the pile of them continues to grow and grow.
But again, see links for more info since I think you're basically beating a dead horse here brother and I really don't feel the need to repeat what we've discussed over and over in other threads. Take the term or leave it, the terms express a difference as real as the differences between RCC and EO Christians. Sola scriptura, again, take it or leave it. If you do reject it, as you no doubt do, just be prepared to submit to the authority of The Church on any given belief or practice, regardless of the arguments against them. You can appeal to Scripture, reason, other tradition, quote Fathers till you're blue in the face, appeal to science and even common sense. In the end, you are basically agreeing to do and believe whatever you are told, because you believe that The Church simply can't completely fall into corruption. And we're back to the tautology we've repeated again and again:
Truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church.God bless and hope this helps!
I was thinking Roman Catholicly LOLClearly, I was not thinking rationally
Truth is always important, and the only way to "see" truthOf course, but we do (I hope) desire to come to know God as He is.
Are false teachings re: Christ unimportant ?
I fake it!I tell themIf I can't be honest about my own spiritual shortcomings, I am failing my children (and all my brothers and sisters).
I think that for this question I would turn TO Scripture for the answer..Kinda - but I was wondering more about (for all of us) if in turning to God, any understanding from the Scripture we had later (from continuing to turn to God) changed ?
IMO they're acting as fools.Real presence seems to be an understanding that persons of professed deep faith disagree on.
tadoflamb said:to me, it describes the modern day phenonema of the 'me and Jesus' or 'me
tadoflamb said:If anything, it's easier to peg the solo scripturist as holding themselves as the authentic interpretter of Sacred Scripture .
Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV
(peace)
occurs 429 times in 400 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 16 inexact matches (Gen 15:15 - Lev 6:12)
Ezekiel 37:26 And I cut to them a Covenant of Peace, covenant of age He shall become with them.
And I give them and I increase them, and I give them sanctuary/04720 miqdash of Me in midst of them for age.
Matt 5:9 Happy the peacemakers that they, sons of God shall be being called.
In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone." Does everyone agree with this bolded statement? Why or why not?
Regardless of the term, what Mathison is describing is a real epistemological difference. Don't like the term, don't use it. Like any term it is simply a way to encode a concept, a point of view, into a manageable linguistic package. But the point is, yes there is a very real difference in how one approaches and uses Scripture and the term is simply one of convenience to make it clear how one likely interprets Scripture (or tries to). There is a very real difference between someone who rejects any other epistemological sources outside of ones personal interpretation of Scripture and a church who recognizes the need and usefulness of other sources, but limits their ability to bind one's conscience on essential matters.
For more information, I'd refer you to the first video in this series. It covers all these views along with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.
As for the article, I've discussed these elsewhere somewhere here in GT and it's basically making the same silly claim that there's really no difference between the two points of view in the end, because you still need an authority. But this is absurd because there are real tangible differences that can be demonstrated. Also, what Mathison calls sola scriptura recognizes the place and authority of the church, and so the argument only succeeds in trashing up some hay and avoiding the real issue the Reformers died for. Protestants are completely aware that the real issue is one of authority, but insist that sola scriptura is the only effective method to resolve the question, what happens when the church becomes radically corrupt and refuses to reform? Of course the RCC and EO would no doubt claim such a thing is ultimately impossible and point to Matt 16:18 as proof. Other Christians look at the entire course of God's interaction with humans as recorded in Scripture and see that although God will indeed preserve His elect, He does not make any promises to any one tribe that it is or even will remain His unique source of grace as He not only constantly warns them of corruption, but repeatedly took power away from a tribe or group only to give it to another. For us folks, the idea that Christ setup a "One True Church" in the sense that only a single sect (like RCC or EO) represents this One True Church, is simply not a biblical concept and thus, since parts of the church can always fall from grace, why we must have a way to deal with corruption when it inevitably arises (which amusingly enough, both RCC and EO agree exists and which each points at the other as an example of this). We believe that only sola scriptura can effectively deal with this situation as we move farther and farther away from the sources of these unwritten traditions and as the pile of them continues to grow and grow.
But again, see links for more info since I think you're basically beating a dead horse here brother and I really don't feel the need to repeat what we've discussed over and over in other threads. Take the term or leave it, the terms express a difference as real as the differences between RCC and EO Christians. Sola scriptura, again, take it or leave it. If you do reject it, as you no doubt do, just be prepared to submit to the authority of The Church on any given belief or practice, regardless of the arguments against them. You can appeal to Scripture, reason, other tradition, quote Fathers till you're blue in the face, appeal to science and even common sense. In the end, you are basically agreeing to do and believe whatever you are told, because you believe that The Church simply can't completely fall into corruption. And we're back to the tautology we've repeated again and again:
Truth is what we say is truth because we're the One True Church because we say we're the One True Church.God bless and hope this helps!
1. You seem INTENT on discussing issues other than the one of the thread. I'm not sure why, especially since it's your thread!
2. I know nothing of "Solo Scriptura." It seems to be bad grammar that some unknown person you note made up. I can't address it since it hasn't been shown it exists - beyond some theorization of some unknown person.
3. I don't know how you mean "authority" here. Catholic and Mormons use it in the sense of POWER - the unmitigated power to lord it over others without any accountability. IF you rather herein mean that Scripture is the rule in norming - then you are discussing Sola Scriptura. If you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, there is a thread on that (read the opening post here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ ). If you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss principles of hermeneutics, start a thread on that.
4. You seem to simply not comprehend the difference between norming and arbitration. It has been explained to you over and over, in several threads - doing so again I fear will be seen as spamming even though it is ABSOLUTELY essential to responding to your question. I don't know why this is a point you don't understand, but I'll take responsibility for that. Sorry. Without that, your question (however off topic) cannot be addressed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?