The $64,000 question

I did read it.

You said, "In the end it is trusting the John 16 and 1John 2 promise of the Holy Spirit "guiding us into all truth" combined with objective compelling models of "exegesis" in the case of each text and looking at the big picture for each doctrine."

In other words, your answer appears to be 1, 2, & 3.</font>[/QUOTE]True. I also point out that the "alternative of believing your own magesterium on top of that" solves nothing. Every church STILL has their own even the RCC.

Indeed AND they ALSO claim that their magesterium ALSO agrees with them.

Yes they are correct.

And yes they do hold up.

The only way you could "prove" they do not is to show that everyone is wrong. Merely showing that SOMEONE is wrong does not prove EVERYONE is wrong.

In the mean time - the word of God is true. The Spirit "OF Truth guides you into ALL truth" - but you have to have a love of the truth - a desire to accept the Word of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The many false Christs that had arisen in Christs day - did not "make Jesus wrong". The fact that others can be wrong - did not negate the fact that the true would come along.

The fact that many can choose to ignore the word of God when it speaks of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit - does not negate the objective, compelling and convincing doctrine of the Trinity as it is found in scripture.

The idea that "if someone objects then the Word of God must be insufficient" is false.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Once again, I reiterate trying's question. How do you know? You have yet to offer anything besides your oversimplistic reply that you know you are right.

 

Ron, I think we avoid this because we know where you are going and there is not an answer that would satisfy you. It is hard to answer when you know that your answer will meet with a "But How do you". What I will say is there is a commonality in Jesus Christ that is the important thing. Peter and Paul had a disagreement. It was so course that Paul and Silas (or was it Barnabas) split up. It was a doctrinal type of issue and they did not see it the same way. I think our challange is to study God's word and find the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We all agree on that and the rest seems to be less important. Yet we study on and through prayer make our conclusions and trust when our life is over what we saw through a glass darkly will be made known. To claim, as the RCC does that they are the true church and have the true interprttaion of all scriptura and the correct and only doctrine, seems to counterdict the scriture which lets us know that we have a very very limited view and knowledge of the full Truth. Hope that made some sense.

Your friend and glass darkly looker,
Brian

 

I think the answer to the question is that there is a core of doctrines that is agreed to by all Christians (with the exception of some pseudo-Christian cults). This core includes the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, his resurrection on the third day, salvation by faith, and a few other things that we really need to recognize in order to be saved.

Now, you might argue that the pseudo-Christian cults I mentioned also claim to be guided by the principles you offered, and you'd be right. But their claim is demonstrably false. Any reasonable, scholarly reading of scripture will quickly dissipate the doctrinal claims of, say, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

Apart from the core doctrines of the Gospel, there are many, many side issues that are not vital for salvation. I don't believe that anyone's salvation revolves around the question of tongues, unless they somehow negate the Gospel by their position on the subject. I, personally, tend to believe that tongues are not God's will for our time, but would never denigrate the beliefs of fellow Christians whose faith and experience tell them otherwise.

So I guess the answer to your question, "how do we know," is that we don't - except in the very core of the Gospel, which is made crystal clear in scripture. Everything else is subject to interpretation, and we must respect each other's beliefs in those areas in Christian love.

 

Amen! I believe the fact is we cannot know WE are correct in our interpretations and beliefs. As a matter of fact, with study, our interpretations should change (ie; as we GROW in the Lord).

FAITH in our understanding of an interpretation is greatly (IMO) influenced by our foundation or background. For example, those from a RCC background would feel comfortable trusting in traditions they have grown with, Pentacostal folks are comfortable with speaking in tongues, etc. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that all within their group is correct.

When I shifted my perspective from a Western Christian one to a more Jewish outlook, my "window" of scripture (and interpretation) changed. However, this IMO deepend my faith and understanding.

But since T2U, you're not getting the response from your question you are seeking, perhaps tell us why you believe YOUR interpretations are correct? If its because of the "establishment of the church" at Matth. 16:18-19, then that is still "interpretation" of a passage.

I mean, we all believe we are at least somewhat correct right? We don't say "I think I'll follow this path because its going in the wrong direction".

Folks that leave one "denomination" or established movement to another do so to fill a void (be fed), or because they question their movement, which I believe is a good thing to do. Since we are followers of 'The Way' we shouldn't expect to stay in one place.

Cotton

 

Bob, you are misrepresenting the question.

I am not saying that everyone is wrong.

I am asking: How do you know that you are right?
</font>[/QUOTE]Your flaw is that in order to say that the Bible failed - you would have to show that none of the groups CLAIMING that the Bible and the Holy Spirit are instructing them - is actually correct.

If even ONE is correct - then it is NOT a problem with the Bible and Holy Spirit "not being sufficient" rather it is a problem in that some are using it wrong.

See?

By starting out saying "Hey you say the Bible and the Holy Spirit instructs us - but there is somebody out there that differs with you so they must not instruct" you are using flawed logic.

Using that argument you ALSO can not say "Magesterium Instructs" because these SAME groups (including Catholics) STILL differ.

The "test" you are using is flawed.

That is not correct.

The "proof" is not that the Holy Spirit exists and is instructing -- the PROOF is that using sound methods of exegesis - and yielding to the Holy Spirit - case by case - each doctrine comes to light.

Failure to get one of them - is not proof that the Holy Spirit does not work. As Christ speaks to HIS OWN disciples in John 16 they STILL do not "get all doctrine".

The text says "I HAVE many MORE things to teach you but you can not bear them now... so the Holy Spirit of truth will GUIDE you into all truth".

Your litmus test of the form "yes but you don't have all truth now - you are incorrect on something - so the Holy Spirit does not work"

is bogus.

The mechanism above has been identified repeatedly and so ALSO has the flaw in your argument been exposed repeatedly.

Is that your intent?

In Christ,

Bob

 

You can never "know" you're right. Faith is about believing, not proving. We're imperfect, limited, flawed human beings. On top of that, each person is created unique, and, like each sibling will have a slightly different relationship with parents, each of us will have a slightly different relationship with God.

There are the basic doctrines (the Baptist Distinctives and fundamentals of faith) that define us. But, everything else is a matter of interpretation and application. On these matters, we will, by virtue of our individuality, always differ. It is on those issues that we must simply say "I believe...", live by that faith, and leave it at that. Where we go wrong is when we try to "prove" matters of interpretation and application. Where we go more wrong is when we insist that it is only our interpretation and application that are correct, putting emphasis on such interpretation and application, and taking it off basic doctrines, where it should have been in the first place.

 

Hmm..sounds quite a bit like some of the questions I was asking you in the works thread (where did that go anyway?).

I'll turn it around: How do you know your interpretation is right (quick hint: you cannot defer to the idea that the catholic church interprets scripture for you as you will still have to interpret the interpretation which still makes the question valid)?

Thanks,
jason

 

I don't think you would be banned in saying it. I am sure it has been said before. But I did say you cannot defer to the catholic church because that in itself is another interpretation. So, how do you know your interpretation is right?

jason

 

Bob,

I don't see where T2U has said that either the Bible or the Holy Spirit has failed. I am not a rocket scientist, but I would talk a guess and say that he believes the problem lies in man and our fallen nature, including our thinking, reasoning, logic, etc. If he doesn't believe this, I do!

In Christ,
Neal

 

#1. T2U got the 1,2,3 answer from me the "First time".

#2. T2U declares that none of the the promises found in God's Word "work" as listed in 1-5.

#3. I have continually hammered away at T2U's implied alternate that "we all listen to our own magesterium" where in the case of the RCC - it is the RCC.

This has been the obvious part.

My response has been that T2U is not "Showing" that these fail by "simplistically" using the made-up rule that if Catholics differ from Anglicans the rule does not work.

They both claim to follow their magesteriums.

They both claim to follow the Bible (at least a little).

They both deny the integrity of the Word of God when it comes the the "Account" of our Creator making mankind.

Yet they still "differ".

In Christ,

Bob

 

We're biblically warned from doing this. Those who do it aren't acting in a state of righteousness. Unfortunately, it's easy to blanket judge people whose hearts we don't know, and since we don't see any reprocussion, we think it's okay when we do it. Bottom line is that those who choose to judge peoples' salvation re opening themselves up to judgement.

Then we must accept that these are right for the Baptist faith. For example, a believer's baptism, by immersion, is a distinctive, based on biblical interpretation. It's a required belief for us. But (and here's where I'm gonna get yelled at) there is also some biblical support for baptising people in a household under tha age of accountablility (i.e., infants). SO we must accept that WE interpret baptism the way we do as a requirement to be Baptist. But it is not a requirement to be Christian. I'm not going to judge a Presbyterian based on how he/she baptizes.

Are you kidding? There are Baptists who don't agree with other Baptists. Just see any topic about hair or pants.

Thank you. That is very kind of you.