|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 72 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Looks more like getting the existing religions to be friendlier to each other. Anything more is just wild speculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So, what are the essentials of Christian belief? Do they look anything like the Apostle's Creed? Faith has given you her answer. Regarding the Apostle's Creed, I am not convinced that all of it is essential. Let's recall that there were several centuries of Christians before the Creed just as there were centuries of Christians before there was an inerrant or a any other kind of Bible. That does not make the post ressurection scriptures of no importance. The described experiences of actually operating a church and of a converted man trying to follow Christ's teachings are extremely valuable. Neither am I convinced that the Apostle's Creed alone is sufficient. In fact, I am convinced otherwise. The Apostle's Creed is an important affirmation of belief and nothing more. My position is that the more modern is the added doctrine the more skeptical Christians should be that the doctrine is essential or even Bible based. Yes the Catholic Church did add a bunch of stuff of I find dubious and the Reformers did peel some of that away. But the reformers also added more dubious stuff themselves. One definition of 'essential' is what beliefs and actions must you lack for Jesus to respond 'I never knew you' in response to your cries of Lord, Lord. There is no doubt in my mind that Faith's list both overstates and leaves off elements of these essentials. The Apostle's Creed is not complete in that regard, but it is harder to make the case that it overstates in a significant way. As far as the Trinity is concerned, my belief is that you have only to do what Matthew 28:18-20 instructs Christians to do.
quote: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're confusing "the" description with your description. The only useful description of a Christian is "somebody who calls himself a Christian" - just like the only useful description of George is "somebody who calls himself George".
You have at EvC some true Christians but a lot of people who call themselves Christians whose actual beliefs don't fit the description. Faith writes:
Your position is the exact opposite of objective. Objectivity implies consensus. You're usuing a thoroughly subjective interpretation of the Bible in an attempt to exclude most people from the poll. You're trying to win the election by only allowing people who agree with you to vote.
But there are objective criteria that I've been trying to spell out that would inform you if you were willing to learn it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm going to re-post something I had in another thread which you chose not to reply to. It is an obvious example, (although I have a hunch you won't see it that way) of a contradiction in the Scriptures
I have been working my way through the OT and came across this story of how Jehu slaughtered all of the descendants and followers of Ahab using deceit and treachery.Here is the account from 2 Kings 10. quote: When we get to the end we can see that Jehu destroyed all of the places of worship of Baal so if you like it can be argued that Yahweh felt it necessary. Indeed it goes on to say that:
quote:So ostensibly here we have a case of Yahweh applauding a brutal treacherous slaughter as presumably the means must have justified the ends. Not exactly bed time reading for the little ones — is it? However when we read the book of Hosea chapter 1 we read the following.
quote:Yahweh was pleased with Jehu for what he did in 2nd Kings, he is now going to punish him for it in Hosea. This does strike me as more than a little odd and definitely un-God-like. It is clear that the scribe who wrote 2nd Kings had one political viewpoint and the writer of Hosea had another.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Your position is the exact opposite of objective. Objectivity implies consensus. Objective does not imply correctness or a consensus about correctness, merely a consensus about what the standard predicts. Objective implies that everyone applying the standard would reach similar results. I think Faith's criteria do meet that definition.
....in an attempt to exclude most people from the poll. You're trying to win the election by only allowing people who agree with you to vote. She's excluded many Christians from the polls. Yes. I agree with this. Only true Scotsmen even get ballots.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Do Muslims and Buddhists agree with Faith's standard?
Objective implies that everyone applying the standard would reach similar results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I believe I already said: Sola Scriptura, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Plus the Deity of Christ/Trinity and various other elements of various of the Creeds. I believe these things are shared by the churches I listed. Right. So first you decide what the essentials of Christianity are, then you decide that people who don't agree with that aren't really Christians, and then you proudly announce that a majority of Christians agree with you about essential things. To you, maybe "sola scriptura" is an essential of Christianity. But to many people, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, the essentials of Christianity would look like this:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Objective implies that everyone applying the standard would reach similar results. Do Muslims and Buddhists agree with Faith's standard? Do YEC's agree with the scientific standards for carbon dating? Is that question even relevant to whether those standards are objective? It is not necessary that standard be accepted or correct for the standard to be objective. If a Muslim and a ringo applied Faith's standard, then given enough facts they would largely agree on who met the standard and who did not. That's the only consensus that objectivity requires. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is clear that the scribe who wrote 2nd Kings had one political viewpoint and the writer of Hosea had another. Those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible of course won't persevere in trying to reconcile what seems to them to be an apparent contradiction, but that's what we have to do if we are going to understand the mind of God. Jehu did obey God in punishing the house of Ahab and the priests of Baal, but in his own life he also committed idolatry, showing that his obedience to God wasn't from right motives, and eventually his house came under God's judgment for that as well. God did reward him for his work as executioner: his sons reigned in Israel for 120 years, but then his own sins, which were also committed by his sons, came up for judgment. From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Hosea 1:4:
(2.) What is the ground of this controversy: I will revenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, the blood which Jehu shed at Jezreel, when by commission from God and in obedience to his command, he utterly destroyed the house of Ahab, and all that were in alliance with it, with all the worshippers of Baal. God approved of what he did (2 Ki. 10:30): Thou has done well in executing that which is right in my eyes; and yet here God will avenge that blood upon the house of Jehu, when the time has expired during which it was promised that his family should reign, even to the fourth generation. But how comes the same action to be both rewarded and punished? Very justly; the matter of it was good; it was the execution of a righteous sentence passed upon the house of Ahab, and, as such, it was rewarded; but Jehu did it not in a right manner; he aimed at his own advancement, not at the glory of God, and mingled his own resentments with the execution of God’s justice. He did it with a malice against the sinners, but not with any antipathy to the sin; for he kept up the worship of the golden calves, and took no heed to walk in the law of God, 2 Ki. 10:31. And therefore when the measure of the iniquity of his house was full, and God came to reckon with them, the first article in the account is (and, being first, it is put for all the rest) for the blood of the house of Ahab, here called the blood of Jezreel. Thus when the house of Baasha was rooted out it was because he did like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him, 1 Ki. 16:7. Note, Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice are concerned to see to it that they do it from a right principle and with a right intention, and that they do not themselves live in those sins which they punish in others, lest even their just executions should be reckoned for, another day, as little less than murders. And from Henry's Commentary on 2Kings 10:30:
1. God pronounced that to be right which he had done. It is justly questionable whether he did it from a good principle and whether he did not take some false steps in the doing of it; and yet (says God), Thou hast done well in executing that which is right in my eyes. The extirpating of idolaters and idolatry was a thing right in God’s eyes, for it is an iniquity he visits as surely and severely as any: it was according to all that was in his heart, all he desired, all he designed. Jehu went through with his work. 2. God promised him a reward, that his children of the fourth generation from him should sit upon the throne of Israel. This was more than what took place in any of the dignities or royal families of that kingdom; of the house of Ahab there were indeed four kings, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram, but the last two were brothers, so that it reached but to the third generation, and that whole family continued but about forty-five years in all, whereas Jehu’s continued in four, besides himself, and in all about 120 years. Note, No services done for God shall go unrewarded. II. Jehu’s carelessness in what he was further to do. By this it appeared that his heart was not right with God, that he was partial in his reformation. 1. He did not put away all the evil. He departed from the sins of Ahab, but not from the sins of Jeroboamdiscarded Baal, but adhered to the calves. The worship of Baal was indeed the greater evil, and more heinous in the sight of God, but the worship of the calves was a great evil, and true conversion is not only from gross sin, but from all sinnot only from false gods, but from false worships. The worship of Baal weakened and diminished Israel, and made them beholden to the Sidonians, and therefore he could easily part with that; but the worship of the calves was a politic idolatry, was begun and kept up for reasons of state, to prevent the return of the ten tribes to the house of David, and therefore Jehu clave to that. True conversion is not only from wasteful sins, but from gainful sinsnot only from those sins that are destructive to the secular interest, but from those that support and befriend it, in forsaking which is the great trial whether we can deny ourselves and trust God. 2. He put away evil, but he did not mind that which was good (v. 31): He took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel. He abolished the worship of Baal, but did not keep up the worship of God, nor walk in his law. He had shown great care and zeal for the rooting out of a false religion; but in the true religion, (1.) He showed no care, took no heed, lived at large, was not at all solicitous to please God and to do his duty, took no heed to the scriptures, to the prophets, to his own conscience, but walked at all adventures... As Purpledawn has noted, this is OFF TOPIC . I won't respond to answers in this thread. ============================================================================================= Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II. 2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
To you, maybe "sola scriptura" is an essential of Christianity. But to many people, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, the essentials of Christianity would look like this: Ask any of them except the Catholics and the liberal versions of the other churches, and they will answer that I am right about Sola Scriptura and the other Solas. ABE: I chose the particular branches of some of the churches and not others because some have gone liberal. Presbyterian USA has gone liberal while Covenant Presbyterian and Presbyterian in America have remained orthodox; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is their liberal branch while Lutheran Missouri Synod has remained orthodox. I may have lost track of some of the changes in the denominations, the Great Apostasy is taking over at a gallop these days, but I'm sure those that have remained orthodox follow all the Solas, whichever those are that are still orthodox. As Purpledawn has noted, this is OFF TOPIC . I won't respond to answers in this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Faith writes: Those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible of course won't persevere in trying to reconcile what seems to them to be an apparent contradiction, but that's what we have to do if we are going to understand the mind of God. Jehu did obey God in punishing the house of Ahab and the priests of Baal, but in his own life he also committed idolatry, showing that his obedience to God wasn't from right motives, and eventually his house came under God's judgment for that as well. But you are reconciling the passages but adding something that the text doesn't say or imply and even explicitly contradicts, in order to twist its meaning in order to comply with your pre-determined point of view This again is from 2 Kings: quote:The passage claims that God is saying that what he had done was right in his eyes. Hosea then says:quote: Hosea isn’t saying that the house of Jehu is being punished because of Jehu’s idolatry, he is saying it is because of the bloodshed of Jezreel. It is very specific and is in direct contradiction with the statement in 2 Kings. (Of course this isn’t even to mention that it is in complete contradiction to what Jesus taught.) Hosea even goes further in saying that because what Jehu had done in Jezreel that God will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. It is patently obvious that these 2 different writers have 2 different points of view. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The bloodshed becomes a sin when it is done with bad motives, and the motives are demonstrated by Jehu's being an idolater himself just as Ahab and clan were. And Jehu's idolatry IS shown in the history of the reign of his sons, it's not added to the text.
Being judged by God by a human instrument of God is also shown in other parts of scripture, such as when Assyria was God's instrument for the judgment of Israel. God says somewhere in Isaiah I think that He will judge Assyria in their own time because they delighted in destroying Israel. This demonstrates that motive matters. But of course Assyria wasn't commanded by God to judge Israel, as Jehu was, but the principle can be applied to Jehu as well once it is demonstrated that he too acted with wrong motives in being an idolater himself -- that is, not really objecting to the sins of Ahab but being willing to slaughter his family anyway, and there is a hint that he wanted the reward of getting his sons on the throne of Israel. His sons who then also committed idolatries and other sins. As Purpledawn has noted, this is OFF TOPIC . I won't respond to answers in this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The bloodshed becomes a sin when it is done with bad motives ... But if it was sinful, why did God tell Jehu that he'd "done well"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
It's relevant if the standard itself isn't objective.
Do YEC's agree with the scientific standards for carbon dating? Is that question even relevant to whether those standards are objective? NoNukes writes:
My whole point is that Faith's standard isn't objective. If everybody applies the same rules they will get the same answer but if the rules are wrong the answer will still be wrong. If a Muslim and a ringo applied Faith's standard, then given enough facts they would largely agree on who met the standard and who did not. In matters of belief, it isn't possible to have an objective standard. There's no way of testing what somebody believes. The only evidence we have is their profession of belief. Hence, the only way to tell if somebody is a "true Christian" is if he says he is. The only "required" belief in Christianity is the belief that you're a Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: My whole point is that Faith's standard isn't objective. I think NoNukes's point is that Faith's standard taken as is, from Faith, is an objective standard in the sense that anyone can apply Faith's standard to achieve the same results that Faith is getting.In which, I think he is correct. I think that what you're saying is that Faith's standard is not an objective answer to the question "What is Christianity?"In which, I think you are correct as well. Two different contexts in applying the word "objective."Both seem to be correct usage to me, if their specific context is understood.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024