Understanding Scripture?

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[awitch]

If his heart is open, and he seeks until it is satisfied, he will find the truth.

Does God give credit for sincere seekers then?
I've been seeking for about 20 years now and I still identify as a Pagan. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow...?

 

[awitch]

If someone not associated with the Church cites scripture or suggests what it means and their ideas differ from what the Church teaches their ideas are wrong. It's simple logic. Either one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong. It can be no other way.

That's a pretty big gamble.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[awitch]

How do you think God could communicate his message?

That depends.
If there is a God who has a particular message for humanity, and if our eternal souls are hinged on accepting that message, and if God is benevolent and truly wants to save everyone, then:

I think the most effective would be to simply imprint the message in its entirety with complete accuracy on each person at birth and let them reject it.

I would think communicating directly would eliminate the need for corrupt, mentally ill, or mistaken intermediaries.

If we're to rely on scripture, I would think it would be written to be unambiguous. Ever parable would be explicitly labeled as such.

And finally, self-destruction of any modified messages. If someone tries to change scripture by updating it, it bursts into flames or crumbles to dust. Anyone who tries to pass off a perverted interpretation is instantly silenced.

 

[HTacianas]

That's a pretty big gamble.

It's not a gamble at all. When the apostles first began to preach they preached with the authority of Jesus Christ. The apostles then chose their successors who also taught with the authority of Jesus Christ.

There is only one message of christianity and that message has not changed. It has been guarded and taught by the church since the beginning. Anything opposed to that message is just someone's misguided opinion.

 

[bling]

That depends.
If there is a God who has a particular message for humanity, and if our eternal souls are hinged on accepting that message, and if God is benevolent and truly wants to save everyone, then:

I think the most effective would be to simply imprint the message in its entirety with complete accuracy on each person at birth and let them reject it.

I would think communicating directly would eliminate the need for corrupt, mentally ill, or mistaken intermediaries.

If we're to rely on scripture, I would think it would be written to be unambiguous. Ever parable would be explicitly labeled as such.

And finally, self-destruction of any modified messages. If someone tries to change scripture by updating it, it bursts into flames or crumbles to dust. Anyone who tries to pass off a perverted interpretation is instantly silenced.

First off: The New Testament is a tool for Christians and was written to Christians to help them.

Secondly: It is not some black and white written “message” God is trying to get you to believe, but the messenger, who is “Love”. To see, accept, experience truly Godly type Love is to see God/Christ.

God is not passing out Bibles, but sent the Spirit of Christ to dwell in and through true Christians. You can easily know and/or find out if someone (a true Christian) “Loves” unconditionally and unselfishly yourself and all others, so follow that Love.

This messed up world (including satan running around, death, hell, tragedies of all kinds and sin) is not here for your pleasure, but to provide the very best scenario for you (if you are just willing) to accept His Love as pure charity (since it is pure sacrificial charity).

 

[Hawkins]

That depends.
If there is a God who has a particular message for humanity, and if our eternal souls are hinged on accepting that message, and if God is benevolent and truly wants to save everyone, then:

I think the most effective would be to simply imprint the message in its entirety with complete accuracy on each person at birth and let them reject it.

No. The most effective way would be for God to show up openly and to inform each and every individual of what He wants. The odd here is that if this is so humans can't be saved by faith.

Fundamentally the Bible is an assessment of faith instead of an assessment of intelligence. If it has a supernatural superiority the intelligent will notice, subsequently it is the intelligent to be saved. That's why the Bible is written as human accounts of testimonies. By first reading of the Bible itself the intelligent won't notice its superiority. If you have the wisdom (and faith but not intelligence) you may need to compare the Bible with other human documents written in the same format, which is our history books as human accounts of testimonies.

The primary message is simple, which is "you need to believe Jesus Christ in order to be saved". If you are a person of faith, you will believe this right away without any further explanation. You don't need to understand the whole Bible to believe so. On the other hand, it is your intelligence which demands a "further explanation" - it is the theology behind the obvious message.

1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NIV2011)
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

"In order to believe such that one needs to understand the Bible" is thus a wrong premise. It is actually obvious that a lot of believers in history are not experts of the biblical theology.

In order to understand in-depth knowledge of the Bible, you may need to rely on our church (a general term) as it holds a standard on how the Bible can be better interpreted. The most important part is you need the guidance from the Holy Spirit Himself. Possibly other guiding forces also exist unnoticeably that we can't be sure that one can actually read the Bible in an independent state. Earth is never a safe place spiritually speaking. That's the "why" of the importance of our church and the guiding force from the Holy Spirit. (in the case of the existence of other spirits, the Holy Spirit can be reckoned through our church where you stay with other second born Christians).

 

[ViaCrucis]

For Lutherans the Bible is not some cryptic and magical book which requires some sort of special cipher. The Bible is instead an authentic witness to God's word in history, specifically to God's Word (Jesus). Understanding Scripture is twofold: 1) The historic witness and consensus of the Faithful who have received Scripture since the beginning, since the Bible is not something that magically fell out of the sky but was debated, discussed, and eventually bound together in the context of Christians actually believing, confessing, and living together in in the faith; 2) Academic and scholarly discipline, i.e. learning and knowing the original languages, studying them, and properly exegeting the texts so that we are hearing what the texts actually say instead of what we merely want them to say.

It's not about our personal interpretations (though no one is unbiased and so everyone is going to bring their own ideas to Scripture), it is about letting Scripture be Scripture--saying what it says by actively trying to understand what the text is saying; and with this comes an acceptance of the entire history of biblical study and discipline that has existed since the beginning of the Church. The idea of throwing out the ancient fathers of the Church, the Creeds, and the historic ecumenical councils and trying to reinvent the wheel, as it were, would be totally anathema for Lutheranism. But neither do we throw our hands in the air and say that simply because our spiritual parents thought something that this makes it infallible. As such there is always a meeting place between Tradition and Scholarship, between the past and the present; looking to what came before and always studying, reading, and wanting to be true to the word as we have received it.

There's a tendency, both among Protestants and non-Protestants to treat Luther as though he were an innovator; whether for good or for ill. Generally to say that Luther was the "every man" who simply took to the Scriptures and came away with his own ideas, for supporters of Luther that is seen as a gift of the Holy Spirit and for the opponents of Luther that is his grieving and acting against the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The truth is that none of this is true of Luther--Luther was an educated theologian, he was an academically trained theologian, educated in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and was educated and acquainted with the writings of the fathers, and the canons and pronouncements of the councils. Luther was educated at the universities at Magdeburg and Eisenach, starting at the age of twelve (which was young, but not that young for the time period). I'm not saying Luther was a brilliant master of academia compared to everyone else in Europe--but he most certainly was a well trained and educated man.

Luther, in translating the Bible into German, didn't do so because he thought he had some spiritual power to do so, but because he had the academic know-how as someone trained in Greek and Latin, and thus relying upon the critical works of Erasmus of Rotterdam to produce a translation into the German tongue.

Luther didn't think that just any Joe Schmoe should be out there trying to interpret the Bible for themselves, he believed that educated, properly trained exegetes ought to be engaging in that work.

Luther wasn't just some pretentious little monk nailing a list of complaints to the church door in Wittenberg, he was the priest for the town church and a professor at Wittenberg's university posting an open academic debate for the other academics at the school. The 95 Theses were written in Latin, and were intended to be debated in Latin, the language of academia. Frederick the Wise of Saxony specifically asked for Luther to join the university's faculty as the head of the department of theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Serving Zion]

That depends.
If there is a God who has a particular message for humanity, and if our eternal souls are hinged on accepting that message, and if God is benevolent and truly wants to save everyone, then:

I think the most effective would be to simply imprint the message in its entirety with complete accuracy on each person at birth and let them reject it.

I rather say yes to this, (fyi). I have been uncovering serious truths of the apostate doctrine of Original Sin, and how Romans 5:12 says that sin spread to all. The mainstream Western Christianity would say children are born sinners, needing salvation, whereas the scriptures don't say that, but that our desires tempt us, and then sin is conceived. James 1:12-15. The world itself is what puts the corruption in us.

As I have explained though, that knowledge is the result of information within a perspective.. it is clear that babies have not the message of the information, but we can see they have a pure, undefiled perspective.

This is why such emphasis is made through scripture, to forsake the flesh' desires, to become again as a child, to not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind etc. In a spiritual sense, as we talk about The Kingdom of God being among us, and within us, and Jesus says The Kingdom belongs to the little ones such as they, that when a grown up is convicted in their spirit by the purity of the child's perception (judgement), they are confronted: either repent and be approved, or pretend that the conviction is not real: close their eyes, block their ears, harden their heart (Matthew 13:15) .. trust in the knowledge they have that the child is innocent and does not understand why the spiritual conviction is coming forth, thereby they deny the spiritual reality (Matthew 21:16) and hide behind deceit by taking the child's words according to a carnal perspective. In so choosing, they become dead in their spirit, needing to have new life breathed into them (consider 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, John 5:24, 1 John 1:5-7).

One of the gravest findings in this pursuit, is that when a grown up refuses the truth of the spiritual conviction coming forth from the children, so walking in the darkness of deceit and denying truth in God's view, is they become the child of the devil - the "father of lies who was a murderer since the beginning". Then of course they aren't of The Spirit of Truth, but have chosen to pursue the perspective of an unholy spirit - that inevitably speaks the demonic words into the lives of those in proximity.. so it spreads, and we find ourselves walking through the valleyof the shadow of death.

Anyhow, while I was preparing scripture for you, I found that Ephesians 5 is very rich in speech, particularly as this translation assists to convey meaning in this context:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=TLV

 

[Phil 1:21]

That depends.
If there is a God who has a particular message for humanity, and if our eternal souls are hinged on accepting that message, and if God is benevolent and truly wants to save everyone, then:

I know this may not be a popular thing to point out, but scripture makes it abundantly clear that God does not save everyone.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know this may not be a popular thing to point out, but scripture makes it abundantly clear that God does not save everyone.

I don't think that case can be made as strongly as you are making it here. Scripture strongly suggests there may or will be people who are not saved, but it does not say God does not save everyone. Indeed,

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10

To exclude even the possibility that all might be saved is to deny the all-comprehensive saving power and grace of God in Jesus which is for the whole world.

I'm not a universalist, but it is essential that we don't say things that can't or shouldn't be said. Fundamentally we can only trust God, hoping and trusting in Him to save us and all men. It's not for us to know the end, but instead to trust God and His mercy, and to preach the Gospel of what He has done for us in Jesus, indeed what He has done for the whole world--for everyone.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phil 1:21]

I don't think that case can be made as strongly as you are making it here. Scripture strongly suggests there may or will be people who are not saved, but it does not say God does not save everyone. Indeed,

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10

To exclude even the possibility that all might be saved is to deny the all-comprehensive saving power and grace of God in Jesus which is for the whole world.

I'm not a universalist, but it is essential that we don't say things that can't or shouldn't be said. Fundamentally we can only trust God, hoping and trusting in Him to save us and all men. It's not for us to know the end, but instead to trust God and His mercy, and to preach the Gospel of what He has done for us in Jesus, indeed what He has done for the whole world--for everyone.

-CryptoLutheran

I understand what you're saying, although to state that some are not saved is the same as saying God doesn't save everyone. Unless there's something I'm missing. To be honest, scripture states that most will not be saved. While I understand it's not a popular thing to state, it is scriptural truth nonetheless.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I realize my previous posts may have been a bit non-encouraging to the OP, so I'd like to clarify something. Just because you've been searching for 20 years does not mean you won't be saved. God takes everyone He saves through a different journey. Some are very short; others long. I've known people who didn't come to faith until their 80s. So keep searching for Jesus and never give up.

 

[FireDragon76]

1. If the Bible is meant to set God's expectations for everyone, provide a proper road map for life

This is not the Lutheran take on the Bible. We do not believe the Bible is an exhaustive guide to human conduct. The Bible is primarily a narrative about God's relationship to humanity, mediated principally through a people, the Jews, and finally through Christ.

In many ways I would actually agree with what alot of the Orthodox folks would say on the matter, except we don't believe the Church is restricted to a particular culturally-conditioned form of religious institutions.

 

[Uber Genius]

If the Bible is meant to set God's expectations for everyone, provide a proper road map for life, and be the key to Jesus, and therefore, heaven, isn't this requirement of "having the Holy Spirit" self-defeating? With everyone's eternal soul on the line, shouldn't the Bible be readily understandable by anyone, and especially non-Christians?

So rather than self-defeating I would describe the issue as circular.

So the HS does provide illumination. But the HS is NOT required to understand some basics about God. In fact the Bible is not required at all.

Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

However, it is not entirely a knowledge project either. We see that Demons and Satan believe in Jesus and the Father and they shutter.
They don't trust God.
They don't want a relationship.

Faith is not believing in things for witch (opps which) there is no evidence. Faith in the Bible is properly interpreted trust. We come to a point where we believe that Jesus exists and is interested in a relationship. And we have enough info to act.

Just like choosing a spouse - there is a point when you have enough data to know if they are right for you. Beyond that point you are just stalling.

The striking difference between paganism and Christianity is that God loves you and wants to adopt you as an heir to the throne. Further God wants to share his rulership of the world with you. These are laughable concepts in all pagan religions as gods are to be appeased at best. There is no relationship as gods don't deign to lower themselves to engage humans.

When I ask, "How do I get the Holy Spirit?", I'm often told I need to pray or accept/welcome/invite Jesus (or some variatoin of that). But why would I do that when I don't believe yet? It's almost like in order to truly believe in Christianity, I have to understand the Bible, but to understand the Bible, I have to already believe.

Clearly there is an order of operations. And the circularity has been dealt with earlier.

We can't choose to believe. If I told you I would give you $1,000,000 to believe and elephant was in your room with you, you couldn't force yourself to believe. The people in the Bible believed as a result of evidence and experiences that could not be falsified. They struggled often to believe and the Bible is the most transparent religious book of all religious books on this point. But the claims are evidential.

Further we have cosmological, teleological, moral, and transcendent arguments for theism that are as old as Plato. These require nothing but your intuition about facts in the external world.

A sincere search will accumulate new beliefs and shed false ones just like taking any new college course would. But the key is sincerely and carefully engaging the ideas. But if you aren't doing the work and just pretending, you will get nothing out of your engagement. God is not mocked. Only people that want to find him do so.

Again, if one must have the "Holy Spirit" to understand scripture, isn't it a waste of time for Christians to proselytize by citing lots of scripture? As a non-Christian without the "Holy Spirit", I can't understand it anyway, right?

Yes. Clearly.

No need to ask again. This statement about requiring the HS to understand scripture to the level that you could be saved, commits the fallacy of begging the question.

The HS does draw us to God. And convict us through our conscience (which every person has regardless of belief). The HS does reveal things in the scripture, but the claim that the way the HS works is that you first put your trust in something for which you have insufficient belief and then you will be given additional evidence IS NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. It is a function of engaging with intellectually immature well-meaning Christians. It is a fallacy.

But you are not off the hook.

Romans 1:20 suggests that everyone knows certain features of this world stand as evidence of God's existence.

Here are three videos that might help codify this statement above.

Argument from beginning of the universe 13.7 billion years ago:

Argument from fine-tuning of universe for life.

Argument from our intuition and experience that moral values and duties such as torturing babies for fun is always wrong, not just a matter of what culture "votes" as wrong.

Hope these comments help.

 

[awitch]

The striking difference between paganism and Christianity is that God loves you and wants to adopt you as an heir to the throne. Further God wants to share his rulership of the world with you. These are laughable concepts in all pagan religions as gods are to be appeased at best. There is no relationship as gods don't deign to lower themselves to engage humans.

Interesting. I think it's exactly the other way around, but I suppose that's a topic beyond the scope of this thread. Your input is appreciated, though.

 

[Uber Genius]

I think it's exactly the other way around

So I have a couple friends who are Indo European Paganists. We have logged hundreds of hours in discussion of differences between the two beliefs systems, albeit under the influence of good and plentiful single-malt scotch and fine full-bodied cigars. They are appalled by the inference that God is loving and would be thoughtful at all of humans. Please elucidate your version of paganism and its entailments. If you prefer to do this conversationally rather than on this thread, by all means ping me.

 

[awitch]

So I have a couple friends who are Indo European Paganists. We have logged hundreds of hours in discussion of differences between the two beliefs systems, albeit under the influence of good and plentiful single-malt scotch and fine full-bodied cigars. They are appalled by the inference that God is loving and would be thoughtful at all of humans. Please elucidate your version of paganism and its entailments. If you prefer to do this conversationally rather than on this thread, by all means ping me.

I would probably suggest private messages because I don't want to be flagged for promotion.