My comments below.
. John wrote:
> You know how I feel about the scriptures.
No, I really do not. Do you believe that the Scriptures are the infallible
Word of God? Are the Scriptures a standard to which all believers must
align themselves?
> You know how I feel about the scriptures.
No, I really do not. Do you believe that the Scriptures are the infallible
Word of God? Are the Scriptures a standard to which all believers must
align themselves?
You mean "Do you, John, believe as I do about the scripture, that it is a legal documents to which we must all align ourselves?" No.
The revelation of God's will within our scripture is infallible. How could it not be? It is [the biblical message - whether Catholic or Protestant] the "Word of God" because God takes possession of it, using that "Bible" [whether Catholic or Protestant] to providentially accomplish His will in us. It [the Bible, whether Catholic or Portestant] is not the only avenue available to God for accomplishing His purposes in us.
John wrote:
> But scripture is one thing and my understanding
> of scripture is another. One is"infallable" and the
> other is not -------- and that is the case for us
> all.
If this were true, then the Scriptures are no standard at all. Are you
saying that our understanding of Scripture is ALWAYS prone to error and
therefore none of us can be sure that we understand the Scriptures, ever?
Actually, David, it is all the more critical that the biblical message as pretains to the revelation of God within that message be "infallible." My understanding of scripture is not infallable and it is quite obvious that yours is not, as well. The fact that the Bible is "infallable" is no reason to assume that we do not insist upon our own standards of faith and practice. Such is an unavoidable bias.
If this is your position, then the Scriptures are not profitable for reproof
and correction because someone could always just say that the person giving
the correction misunderstands the Scripture. No David. I do not confuse one's understanding of scripture with scripture, itself. If I thought that yours, Judy's, or Dean's understanding of scripture was scritpure itself, I would become an atheist in a matter of minutes. But I know that Christ loves me as I stan d before Him this day; that He died for me just as I am and that He is working within me and in the community of those surrounding me to bring me to the quality of life I hunger for ------- and I believe this, in part, because of the Bible [whether Catholic or Protestant.] As you can tell, with God it is all about "me." Praise God.
If this is your position, then the Scriptures are not profitable for reproof
and correction because someone could always just say that the person giving
the correction misunderstands the Scripture. No David. I do not confuse one's understanding of scripture with scripture, itself. If I thought that yours, Judy's, or Dean's understanding of scripture was scritpure itself, I would become an atheist in a matter of minutes. But I know that Christ loves me as I stan d before Him this day; that He died for me just as I am and that He is working within me and in the community of those surrounding me to bring me to the quality of life I hunger for ------- and I believe this, in part, because of the Bible [whether Catholic or Protestant.] As you can tell, with God it is all about "me." Praise God.
For example, homosexuals have
a legitimate counter when they claim that the homosexuality forbidden in the
Bible has to do with pagan worship and not just same gender lustful behavior
per se. Who is to say which interpretation or understanding is right if
nobody has an infallible understanding? I have an opinion about this and I am not "inspired." What is the problem, again?
a legitimate counter when they claim that the homosexuality forbidden in the
Bible has to do with pagan worship and not just same gender lustful behavior
per se. Who is to say which interpretation or understanding is right if
nobody has an infallible understanding? I have an opinion about this and I am not "inspired." What is the problem, again?
In like manner, someone could argue
that Jesus is not really the Messiah talked about in Isaiah 53. Virtually
all the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures could be explained away. I
truly would like to hear you expound upon your concept here, because either
I am misunderstanding you or this is serious false doctrine. You have hit upon the problem of evangelism, David. And how do we solve the problem? Scare them into the church? Devise crafty arugments that cannot be defeated? Wave underwear? Or love them into His grace? Present the work of God in our lives and offer THAT as the strength of our position?
that Jesus is not really the Messiah talked about in Isaiah 53. Virtually
all the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures could be explained away. I
truly would like to hear you expound upon your concept here, because either
I am misunderstanding you or this is serious false doctrine. You have hit upon the problem of evangelism, David. And how do we solve the problem? Scare them into the church? Devise crafty arugments that cannot be defeated? Wave underwear? Or love them into His grace? Present the work of God in our lives and offer THAT as the strength of our position?
If you and I ever do "team evangelism," it will be in this wise. I will build my church behind your building. That way I can invite the hordes running out your back doors (double wide, no doubt) through the front doors of my chapel. Given enough time, your church, in comparision, will look like a closet space. :-) [how am I doing , G?]
John wrote:
> The authority of leadership within the
> church is their life, their example.
That's part of it, a primary part of it, but not all of it. You keep
quoting 1 Cor. 5. This chapter shows a little more than just example when
Paul instructs the Corinthians to cast out the sinner from their church.Gee, David, where WAS the leadership of that church? And what kind of "order" was it. I mean, if they decided to deal with the problem differently, what would have happened? And what is there in I Cor 5 that preaches against my claim? When leadership moves from example to authority, tyranny is born and time will record its ugliness!! The church has a history that attests to this fact, does it not?
Recently you experienced a 1 Cor. 5 type of discipline from the moderator of
this list. I realize that this list is not a church, but do you agree that
this kind of exercise of authority is proper in God's eyes? Can't answer that question, David, or I might be cut off again. Does that answer your question?
John wrote:
> The hierarchy of the church is this:
> Ye who are spiritual help those who
> are weak. And I speak as one who
> is leadership.
What is your leadership position in your local church? Pastor. I am one no matter where I atte nd. Does it sound arrogant for me to tell you that I am the pastor of Sanger, California? If I really believe that [and I do], with the understanding that "authority" has nothing to do with my position, would that be a good thing or a bad thing? If Lance Muir is the pastor of his bookstore, what does that mean when the youthful Jonathan Hughes enter the building? Get my drift.
John wrote:
> The authority of leadership within the
> church is their life, their example.
That's part of it, a primary part of it, but not all of it. You keep
quoting 1 Cor. 5. This chapter shows a little more than just example when
Paul instructs the Corinthians to cast out the sinner from their church.Gee, David, where WAS the leadership of that church? And what kind of "order" was it. I mean, if they decided to deal with the problem differently, what would have happened? And what is there in I Cor 5 that preaches against my claim? When leadership moves from example to authority, tyranny is born and time will record its ugliness!! The church has a history that attests to this fact, does it not?
Recently you experienced a 1 Cor. 5 type of discipline from the moderator of
this list. I realize that this list is not a church, but do you agree that
this kind of exercise of authority is proper in God's eyes? Can't answer that question, David, or I might be cut off again. Does that answer your question?
John wrote:
> The hierarchy of the church is this:
> Ye who are spiritual help those who
> are weak. And I speak as one who
> is leadership.
What is your leadership position in your local church? Pastor. I am one no matter where I atte nd. Does it sound arrogant for me to tell you that I am the pastor of Sanger, California? If I really believe that [and I do], with the understanding that "authority" has nothing to do with my position, would that be a good thing or a bad thing? If Lance Muir is the pastor of his bookstore, what does that mean when the youthful Jonathan Hughes enter the building? Get my drift.
jd
