Where in the bible does it say I need to use it

[bbyrd009]

You COMPLETELY missed my point.

You believe the NT as you understand/interpret it.
"Bob" believes the NT and Bob understand/interprets it.
You BOTH love it and BOTH believe it. Even when you have different understandings of things.

And out of this, schisms and denominations!

but imo note that irl they all assume a very basic premise, all are in agreement complicitly, if not explicitly; one might attain heaven after they have died, yes?

 

[DNB]

This changes the stance from being:
-Only scripture and only scripture.
-To only things I believe to be in accordance with scripture.

It's a big difference.

No difference here. Please don't tell me that you understand Tota Scriptura to mean, straight from a Bible, verbatim.
I'm simply saying that if I walk up to a Muslim and attempt to tell him that Muhammed is not a prophet, and that only Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. Or, go to a Jew and tell them that the Levitical Law is not binding anymore, in regard to one's salvation with God.
First, I ask you, have I spoken the God-given truth, and two, if so, why, ....because the Scriptures say so, and only so.
In other words, I can't tell a Buddhist or Hindu that they're saved, because that does not conform to Scripture.

You're see on this forum the wide variety & conflicting things people believe to be in accordance with scripture. And there's no escaping or resolving that with this epistemology method. You're also not escaping the large influence of human teachers have on each of these views, and rather glossing over it.

No one is denying the invariable conflict and controversy that will arise, whenever interpretation is involved. I imagine that God planned it this way, in that it reveals a great deal about one's heart as to what they believe. Everything is subjective, even one's claim of hearing the Spirit talk, as opposed to their own imagination or devil spirits.
God has left us with a dilemma, in regard to the obligation to study and pray in order to extrapolate the truth from His revelation. Even the spirits we must question and test. Nothing is unequivocal.

 

[DNB]

well then, how did Abraham possibly get any credit for having faith?

God directly challenged him, ...obviously?

 

[bbyrd009]

Well this discussion is not about fanaticism necessarily, it's simply about the authority of the inspired Scriptures. Very sincere and scholarly men, have been able to conduct textual criticism on all the extant manuscripts available to us today, and determine up to 90%+, that we have the inspired canon. KJVO are nutcases for sure, where did that come in?

well they are one end of the bell-curve, but you gotta admit they provide a lot of the pop for your group up there right?
Don't get me wrong, very sincere and scholarly men certainly exist, the Bible calls them scribes, and i am not doubting their sincerity nor their scholarity, but that their beliefs must bias them as surely as they would me. But as to the critiques, my chief objection would prolly be that a prerequisite for that is Spiritual Rock-Stardom, or recognition by an Official Body? Not saying that they are totally useless, dont get me wrong. But their opinion on what other men chose to define as "Scripture" after a hi-jacking of the whole Council...just really doesnt interest me, at least most of the time. Imo at least bolo for the blind leading the blind, seek critiques of critiques maybe?
lol

 

[amadeus]

I was not saved until I heard the Gospel of Christ. Prior to that, I believed in God, went to Church only at Christmas and Easter, revered Him enough to not be an atheist. But I wasn't going to heaven until I confessed my sins (repented), and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Regardless of how I specifically came to knowledge of the Gospel (via radio, messenger, newspaper, book, etc,..), what I heard as the Gospel, came from the Bible and absolutely nowhere else.

Is God not looking at our hearts rather than our beliefs and doctrines and milestones? When should we suppose it is that a person has crossed the line between serving himself out of self-love and serving God out of love for Him? Does that not matter more to God than our milestones visible to men? Where does the "much is given... much is required" come into play? If the little altar boy who served God from his heart the best that he was able with what he knew and what he had, after sincerely confessing, doing penance and taking communion, would he then be lost for ever separated from God because he was killed on his way home by a hit and run driver?

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

 

[bbyrd009]

No one picked up a cross on the own accord. The Bible taught them about the cross.

Melchizedek

 

[bbyrd009]

Scholarly efforts have attempted to define canon, for various reasons. What we have is extremely reliable. The contents of the books themselves, should give you an indication of their authenticity. If one can't tell the difference, that's their problem.

what we have is sufficient, surely, but it would be nice to have access to all of the other lost books Quoted in Scripture, imo. But i agree with you, the Bible is pretty much Distilled Wisdom, the Standard, sure
not in english tho

 

[bbyrd009]

What? You don't know what the definition of a Christian is? As long as I've been reading your posts on this forum, you've been quoting Scripture left and right? And yet, you're unfamiliar with the Gospel of Salvation?

ha

 

[bbyrd009]

God directly challenged him, ...obviously?

but he is not fitting your agenda up there right, is the point

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No difference here. Please don't tell me that you understand Tota Scriptura to mean, straight from a Bible, verbatim.
I'm simply saying that if I walk up to a Muslim and attempt to tell him that Muhammed is not a prophet, and that only Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. Or, go to a Jew and tell them that the Levitical Law is not binding anymore, in regard to one's salvation with God.
First, I ask you, have I spoken the God-given truth, and two, if so, why, ....because the Scriptures say so, and only so.
In other words, I can't tell a Buddhist or Hindu that they're saved, because that does not conform to Scripture.



No one is denying the invariable conflict and controversy that will arise, whenever interpretation is involved. I imagine that God planned it this way, in that it reveals a great deal about one's heart as to what they believe. Everything is subjective, even one's claim of hearing the Spirit talk, as opposed to their own imagination or devil spirits.
God has left us with a dilemma, in regard to the obligation to study and pray in order to extrapolate the truth from His revelation. Even the spirits we must question and test. Nothing is unequivocal.

I don't believe it was God's plan to have a bunch of subjective views with all of this invariable conflict and controversy.

 

[DNB]

well they are one end of the bell-curve, but you gotta admit they provide a lot of the pop for your group up there right?
Don't get me wrong, very sincere and scholarly men certainly exist, the Bible calls them scribes, and i am not doubting their sincerity nor their scholarity, but that their beliefs must bias them as surely as they would me. But as to the critiques, my chief objection would prolly be that a prerequisite for that is Spiritual Rock-Stardom, or recognition by an Official Body? Not saying that they are totally useless, dont get me wrong. But their opinion on what other men chose to define as "Scripture" after a hi-jacking of the whole Council...just really doesnt interest me, at least most of the time. Imo at least bolo for the blind leading the blind, seek critiques of critiques maybe?
lol

They have simply reconstructed the original manuscripts. There is no bias here. THere was never a council to determine the Canon. You have the Apocrypha, Pseudopigraphical, and other extra-biblical texts, thus you can decide for yourself with is authentic and not. No excuses to dismiss the antiquity of Scripture that we have.

 

[DNB]

what we have is sufficient, surely, but it would be nice to have access to all of the other lost books Quoted in Scripture, imo. But i agree with you, the Bible is pretty much Distilled Wisdom, the Standard, sure
not in english tho

Possibly, but not entirely necessary, if at all.
English is as good as any other language, except the originals. And even then, I'm sure that there is ambiguity in any language. For even when Jesus spoke directly to his apostles, in their native language, confusion and misinterpretation abounded.

 

[DNB]

but he is not fitting your agenda up there right, is the point

I'm not talking about the authors of the Book, i'm talking about people living after the 1st century. For them, Scripture is paramount.

 

[DNB]

I don't believe it was God's plan to have a bunch of subjective views with all of this invariable conflict and controversy.

Well, i think that your admittance of being guided by the Spirit, and anyone else who makes the same claim, is as equally subjective.
To the point that, I've constantly said that the first one who says that their inspiration in interpreting God's Word comes from the Holy Spirit, are the most radical and wayward exegetes I've ever heard, guaranteed! I don't say this to insult, but merely to show that subjectivity is prevalent in all testimonies. And again, if you were to tell me that the Spirit told you something, I'd be obligated to check its veracity with Scripture, ...just like the Bereans. Wouldn't you do the same, or just take my word for it (rhetorical)?

 

[amadeus]

but imo note that irl they all assume a very basic premise, all are in agreement complicitly, if not explicitly; one might attain heaven after they have died, yes?

But is it not likely that the problem lies in those really who insist on this rather than in those, who, not really knowing, simply are trusting God. They may even pay innocent lip service to some errors while trusting God even in places where confusion is part of what is taught. Is this not why we are not qualified to judge. Only God knows what is in their hearts in spite of what we think we see from the outside. What part will be burned up and what part, if any, will be purified by the flames? Tough to separate the wheat from the chaff? Perhaps not so tough for any harvesters designated by God. How many of us are supposed to harvesting now?

 

[bbyrd009]

Possibly, but not entirely necessary, if at all.
English is as good as any other language, except the originals. And even then, I'm sure that there is ambiguity in any language. For even when Jesus spoke directly to his apostles, in their native language, confusion and misinterpretation abounded.

ha the real Speaking in Tongues imo

I'm not talking about the authors of the Book, i'm talking about people living after the 1st century. For them, Scripture is paramount.

yes, i would say It has even been deified
we even have a passage or two that details how words might come to be taken over spirit, etc, and even how the Bible will end i guess

Well, i think that your admittance of being guided by the Spirit, and anyone else who makes the same claim, is as equally subjective.

me too, satan appears as an angel of light

 

[bbyrd009]

But is it not likely that the problem lies in those really who insist on this rather than in those, who, not really knowing, simply are trusting God. They may even pay innocent lip service to some errors while trusting God even in places where confusion is part of what is taught. Is this not why we are not qualified to judge. Only God knows what is in their hearts in spite of what we think we see from the outside. What part will be burned up and what part, if any, will be purified by the flames? Tough to separate the wheat from the chaff? Perhaps not so tough for any harvesters designated by God. How many of us are supposed to harvesting now?

yeh all are deceived right, i by def know less than i think i know! lol

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Well, i think that your admittance of being guided by the Spirit, and anyone else who makes the same claim, is as equally subjective.
To the point that, I've constantly said that the first one who says that their inspiration in interpreting God's Word comes from the Holy Spirit, are the most radical and wayward exegetes I've ever heard, guaranteed! I don't say this to insult, but merely to show that subjectivity is prevalent in all testimonies. And again, if you were to tell me that the Spirit told you something, I'd be obligated to check its veracity with Scripture, ...just like the Bereans. Wouldn't you do the same, or just take my word for it (rhetorical)?

I'd much rather take the option:
A person listens first and foremost to God. Have Him guide their understanding of scripture & what is True. All other human teachers and everything else comes in later.

 

[DNB]

I'd much rather take the option:
A person listens first and foremost to God. Have Him guide their understanding of scripture & what is True. All other human teachers and everything else comes in later.

ok, thanks, ....something tells me that we may not be talking about the same thing, which is where the disagreement lies? But, not entirely sure?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I'd much rather take the option:
A person listens first and foremost to God. Have Him guide their understanding of scripture & what is True. All other human teachers and everything else comes in later.

ok, thanks, ....something tells me that we may not be talking about the same thing, which is where the disagreement lies? But, not entirely sure?

I'm putting a greater emphasis on God guiding directly and not Sola Scriptura.