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.
Love Jonezing said: ↑
Paul testified that, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all," 1 Corinthians 14:18. How do you interpret this? How many languages did he speak or how many languages were he referring too?
Citation needed? (Preferably a citation that makes sense from the collective understandings of Christianity since its inception, not some post-Reformation hogwash.)
Citation needed? (Preferably a citation that makes sense from the collective understandings of Christianity since its inception, not some post-Reformation hogwash.)
Citation needed? (Preferably a citation that makes sense from the collective understanding of Christianity since its inception, not some post-Reformation hogwash.)
Are you trying to say that all reformations are hog wash? What kind of citation are you looking for? Does the scriptures alone....all things written in the law and prophets, also called sola sciptura )make it so we can trust God, as we do seek his approval according to his loving commandment(2 Timothy 2:154)?
Do we need more than he has revealed.And remember he infallibly informs us we do not need any man to teach us by. but as it, Gods' faith as it is written(that in which the gates of hell could never prevail against) teaches us according to his promies that he will and not maybe teach, comfort and guide us we therfore abide in Him ( 1John 2:27-28) our high Priest
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
great article. It's as if they (the fundamentalist) believe God took over the bodies of the authors of Scriptures and forced them to write the words they wrote against their will.
What are you even talking about? None of that makes sense in context of the history of how the Church came about, how the Church has existed for millennia, how the Scriptures came about, and how the Scriptures have been fostered for millennia. Anything interpreted outside of the Church (the Body of Believers) makes no sense; the Bible is about the salvation of individuals and about the salvation of mankind as a whole (community). It makes little sense to have personal interpretation, when there can be no reliable agreement between personal/private interpretations. You absolutely have to go by what has been taught about those Scriptures for the millennia of the Church's and the Bible's existence; if you don't do that, you're fighting a losing battle for your salvation because Scriptural interpretation belongs to the community, not to conflicting individualities. God gave you a brain for a reason; use all available resources (yes, including prayer) to understand Scriptures.)
If you read my post you would know that I said that I would rather come here than to go to a website. So please don't ignore me and then demand that I read your post. Please stop jumping to conclusions. How many time do I have to say that I am listening?I'm not assuming. It is based on how you respond. You keep saying the same things over and over again. Your responses do now show a progression or increase of understanding. You also asked questions that in my opinion, are loaded, such as your question to me asking if I believe the Bible to be inspired, as if you think I don't. If you had taken the time to do your own research on your own time, you would have discovered what high and honored place we put the Scriptures in. But, it is evident to me you have not done any such research on your own.
So, I ask again, will you listen, and learn, and progress in your understanding?
What evidence? I have seen no evidence, just conjecture."does not mean that I should just naively accept it. Show me. If you go back and see, you will see I put scriptures in my post to prove my point."
You have not proven your point. The only point you have proven is exactly what we are trying to tell you, you cannot take Scripture out of context. We have shown you and given you evidence, and all you have done is again, avoid our reasonable objections to your position by going around in circles by repeating your self over and over again.
What evidence? I have seen no evidence, just conjecture.
...Are you ignorant of the context of my original statement, or are you intentionally taking what I've said out of context? I'm explicitly talking about the Protestant Reformation, which should be patently obvious. I've never heard of what happened in the First Century referenced as a "Reformation". You also have the incorrect concept of the Church, in terms of Scripture, but the fact that you are not in one of the three older Churches makes it obvious why your understanding would be warped and lacking.
What evidence? I have seen no evidence, just conjecture.
I interpret it just like he says. He spoke more tongues then all of them. For me tongues can be unto God and unto man.Love Jonezing said: ↑
Paul testified that, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all," 1 Corinthians 14:18. How do you interpret this? How many languages did he speak or how many languages were he referring too?
No worries. Thanks@Love Jonezing
My paragraph that you quoted was NOT directed at you, but at the other Protestant poster.
I believe the bible is to be read in context. However, allow me to say that the bible was not entirely written by the church nor was it written only for the church. God's word is a light that all may see and repent.
You know, that is an awesome question. For the record, I am not bible only. However, "traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith" (gotquestions.org).There are two general fallacies with Sola Scriptura (Bible only); reasons why it simply isn't true.
Historical fallacies...
Other fallacies...
- The first New Testament writing did not appear for 20 years. The Christians during this interval relied on apostolic teaching, not on the Bible.
- The full set of Bible books (the canon) was not determined for hundreds of years.
- Is there a Biblically mandated switchover at which time Christians go from relying on the teaching authority of the apostles and bishops, then switch to Bible only, to Sola Scriptura?
- The Bible itself doesn't teach Sola Scriptura.
- Even if the Bible did teach Sola Scriptura, we would first need a source outside the Bible to inform us that the Bible is to be our teaching authority. Here's why: how do we know whether to accept the claims of the Bible, or the Koran, or the book of Mormon? Merely because a book claims to be the authority for truth is not good enough reason.
- Everyone has different interpretations of the Bible.
- Many of the heresies from the past and into the present day are based on the Bible.
Huh, what did I reject that was in context? Please let me know what scripture that was. Please look back at all the scriptures everyone quoted. Please tell me which one did I take out of context in regards to Mary.so, you say that the Bible is to be read in context, but then reject the context for which it was written.......
No worries. Thanks
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?