Is Perspecuity Necessary for Sola Scriptura?

[Wick Stick]

who interprets it for you?

Nowadays, nobody does, which honestly is a problem.

Previously, it was a matter of discourse between the (experienced) members of the group, and that in a public setting. "Not of any private interpretion." That system worked well, but of the people involved... we were a bit too focused on doctrine, and not focused enough on charity.

If I may extend a Biblical metaphor, I might say the fruit rotted on the vine, and the plant perished due to disinterest. When people come together with the intent of doing something, and then all that happens is talk... it doesn't take too long before the people disperse.

That's a $2 answer to a $0.02 question. But hey, I like you. I don't know why exactly - our theology is very different and we've never even met face-to-face. Maybe it's because you don't try to overcomplicate things. I appreciate that attribute.

Jarrod

 

[chrysostom]

Nowadays, nobody does, which honestly is a problem.

Previously, it was a matter of discourse between the (experienced) members of the group, and that in a public setting. "Not of any private interpretion." That system worked well, but of the people involved... we were a bit too focused on doctrine, and not focused enough on charity.

If I may extend a Biblical metaphor, I might say the fruit rotted on the vine, and the plant perished due to disinterest. When people come together with the intent of doing something, and then all that happens is talk... it doesn't take too long before the people disperse.

That's a $2 answer to a $0.02 question. But hey, I like you. I don't know why exactly - our theology is very different and we've never even met face-to-face. Maybe it's because you don't try to overcomplicate things. I appreciate that attribute.

Jarrod

thanks

it isn't that complicated

 

[glassjester]

Sola Scriptura is about curtailing the runaway creation of so-called "doctrines" and "interpretations" by the church, which were not even based on Scripture.

You don't hold any religious beliefs that are not based on Scripture?

 

[glassjester]

I thank God we live at a time like this where there is so much freedom to believe God as we wish without it being imposed on us from outside.

That's a good philosophy for choosing your line of work, or where you'd like to live, or what flavor of ice cream to eat. Matters of opinion.

Objective truth, however, is always imposed from the outside, as we are not the authors of it.

I do not "choose" to believe that 1 + 1 is 2. I am compelled to believe it is true. Is this belief an imposition?

 

[iouae]

That's a good philosophy for choosing your line of work, or where you'd like to live, or what flavor of ice cream to eat. Matters of opinion.

Objective truth, however, is always imposed from the outside, as we are not the authors of it.

I do not "choose" to believe that 1 + 1 is 2. I am compelled to believe it is true. Is this belief an imposition?

Nobody who has tasted freedom wants to go back to slavery.

There are many in the churches who are quite happy to have doctrine fed to them by their cult leader. For whatever reason, this gives them comfort. And the leader can teach them that 1 + 1 = 3 and they will all nod in agreement. I have been one of these Stepford virgins of Christ.

Somehow I feel Christ wants thinking members, not ones who have been lobotomised by the church.

That's why He gave us free will, a Bible, literacy - and nowhere does He say to let another decide your doctrine for you.

I don't know what their punishment for being willingly deceived will be, but I have not met many true sola scriptura Christians.

Would you like to point me to a church that has correct doctrine.
I am sure that I in turn will tell you 10 things wrong with their doctrine and practices. As is done regularly on this forum.

 

[glassjester]

Nobody who has tasted freedom wants to go back to slavery.

Paul referred to himself as a slave of Christ.
If you're not a slave to Him, what master do you serve?

Paul says we should be slaves of righteousness. He was right.

Bob Dylan said it may be the devil, or it may be the lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.

He was right, too.

There are many in the churches who are quite happy to have doctrine fed to them by their cult leader. For whatever reason, this gives them comfort. And the leader can teach them that 1 + 1 = 3 and they will all nod in agreement. I have been one of these Stepford virgins of Christ.

Somehow I feel Christ wants thinking members, not ones who have been lobotomised by the church.

No church has "thinking" members? Quite a broad statement. How does it feel being smarter and wiser than all of Christianity's greatest theologians? It must be lonely at the top.

That's why He gave us free will, a Bible, literacy - and nowhere does He say to let another decide your doctrine for you.

Can anyone ever teach anyone else any doctrine at all? Who can do that? Under what circumstances?

I don't know what their punishment for being willingly deceived will be, but I have not met many true sola scriptura Christians.

Maybe sola scriptura is a false doctrine. How would you know if it was?

Also, did these elite "true sola scriptura" Christians you've met, share all the same beliefs as you?

Would you like to point me to a church that has correct doctrine.
I am sure that I in turn will tell you 10 things wrong with their doctrine and practices. As is done regularly on this forum.

You've made yourself an infallible authority on Scripture, doctrine, and practice. Don't kid yourself. You've still got a church. The magisterium, pontiff, and sole member just happen to be you.

You are your own pope.


How does that work, exactly? Who corrects you when you begin to teach yourself error? How would you even know if you held errant beliefs?

Or maybe, being one of the few and proud, self-proclaimed "thinking" members of the body of Christ - you simply don't have to worry about ever believing a falsehood.

 

[glassjester]

Nobody who has tasted freedom wants to go back to slavery.

There are many in the churches who are quite happy to have doctrine fed to them by their cult leader. For whatever reason, this gives them comfort. And the leader can teach them that 1 + 1 = 3 and they will all nod in agreement. I have been one of these Stepford virgins of Christ.

Somehow I feel Christ wants thinking members, not ones who have been lobotomised by the church.

That's why He gave us free will, a Bible, literacy - and nowhere does He say to let another decide your doctrine for you.

I don't know what their punishment for being willingly deceived will be, but I have not met many true sola scriptura Christians.

Would you like to point me to a church that has correct doctrine.
I am sure that I in turn will tell you 10 things wrong with their doctrine and practices. As is done regularly on this forum.

And another thing.

Happy Thanksgiving, Brother.
I wish you peace.

 

[iouae]

Paul referred to himself as a slave of Christ.
If you're not a slave to Him, what master do you serve?

Paul says we should be slaves of righteousness. He was right.

Bob Dylan said it may be the devil, or it may be the lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.

He was right, too.

This is the 21st century. Slavery is so yesterday.
Go to Church. Serve Christ. Let no man be your master or decide your doctrine for you. Let the final decider be you.


iouae wrote:
"There are many in the churches who are quite happy to have doctrine fed to them by their cult leader. For whatever reason, this gives them comfort. And the leader can teach them that 1 + 1 = 3 and they will all nod in agreement. I have been one of these Stepford virgins of Christ.

Somehow I feel Christ wants thinking members, not ones who have been lobotomised by the church. "

...from which you wrote

No church has "thinking" members? Quite a broad statement. How does it feel being smarter and wiser than all of Christianity's greatest theologians? It must be lonely at the top.

Please, please tell me that you can see some errors in the Catholic Church. Even a small one like being against birth control.

Or in communion, I never see them giving out the wine.

Or the idea that there actually are sacraments?

Or the Mary worshipping thing.

Or the making of saints.

Or the confessing and pardoning.

Or the enforced celibacy for priests.

Or the idea that each Pope speaks "ex cathedra" meaning infallibly, yet each Pope contradicts the previous. Please don't force me to study Catholicism. I am sure there are many nice Catholics like yourself who love Jesus and are going straight to heaven. But please tell me you do not swallow, undigested, all that your church teaches.

Can anyone ever teach anyone else any doctrine at all? Who can do that? Under what circumstances?

The Pope apparently can.

Maybe sola scriptura is a false doctrine. How would you know if it was?

Because I have belonged for decades to a cult and never thought twice about the fact that our group was right and all others were wrong. That is one definition of a cult. That makes the Catholic Church the biggest cult. I still attend with a cult. But I go to worship Christ.

Also, did these elite "true sola scriptura" Christians you've met, share all the same beliefs as you?

Thank goodness no!!!

The folks I attend with all think alike. There is nothing more scary and depressing than seeing them all nodding in agreement while the preacher is preaching utter garbage. My lovely Stepford brides of Christ. Most times though, the sermons are fine and Christ centred.

You've made yourself an infallible authority on Scripture, doctrine, and practice. Don't kid yourself. You've still got a church. The magisterium, pontiff, and sole member just happen to be you.

You are your own pope.

And you have hit the nail right on its head.
I am my own "Pope". My Bible and I and sola scriptura. Sure I allow myself to be taught by the church, and you when you make good points - and you have. I am learning from you thanks. And you are polite which I really value highly in a Christian.

How does that work, exactly? Who corrects you when you begin to teach yourself error? How would you even know if you held errant beliefs?

Like I said I used to belong to a cult.
That cult broke up and I left.
I started examining everything I believed, rejecting many old doctrines and substituting them with new ones by studying the Bible alone.
I spent 4 years on a forum such as this, 6 hours a day debating scripture. That was my education. I am home-schooled.

Or maybe, being one of the few and proud, self-proclaimed "thinking" members of the body of Christ - you simply don't have to worry about ever believing a falsehood.

You are not scared to examine your church's doctrines like I did mine are you? I don't think the Catholic Church is going to oblige and disintegrate like my original cult did.

But it was the greatest thing that ever happened to me personally. It forced me to reexamine everything. Unfortunately for many of my past friends and fellow cult members, they were left destitute and many fell away from Christ and religion.

 

[glassjester]

Please, please tell me that you can see some errors in the Catholic Church. Even a small one like being against birth control.

Or in communion, I never see them giving out the wine.

Or the idea that there actually are sacraments?

Or the Mary worshipping thing.

Or the making of saints.

Or the confessing and pardoning.

Or the enforced celibacy for priests.

Or the idea that each Pope speaks "ex cathedra" meaning infallibly, yet each Pope contradicts the previous. Please don't force me to study Catholicism.

I wouldn't want to force you. I definitely invite you to, though.

Why is it that you want me to find fault in the teachings of the Church?

The Pope apparently can.

I gather you don't believe he can, though. Do you believe there is any situation in which someone can correct another, in matters of Christian doctrine and practice?

Thank goodness no!!!

The folks I attend with all think alike. There is nothing more scary and depressing than seeing them all nodding in agreement while the preacher is preaching utter garbage. My lovely Stepford brides of Christ. Most times though, the sermons are fine and Christ centred.

When sola scriptura leads each of you to totally different theological conclusions - how do you know what's true?

And you have hit the nail right on its head.
I am my own "Pope". My Bible and I and sola scriptura.

With this approach, Scripture is not the final authority. You are. It's more solo ego than sola scriptura.

You are not scared to examine your church's doctrines like I did mine are you?

Of course not! In fact, examining the doctrines of the Church always serves to increase my faith in her teachings.

Again, I sincerely invite you to do the same.

 

[iouae]

I wouldn't want to force you. I definitely invite you to, though.

Why is it that you want me to find fault in the teachings of the Church?

To prove you are not a Stepford wife.

I gather you don't believe he can, though. Do you believe there is any situation in which someone can correct another, in matters of Christian doctrine and practice?

Yes, I am doing that to you now.

When sola scriptura leads each of you to totally different theological conclusions - how do you know what's true?

The Holy Spirit tells me.

With this approach, Scripture is not the final authority. You are. It's more solo ego than sola scriptura.

Same with you. You chose Catholicism.

Of course not! In fact, examining the doctrines of the Church always serves to increase my faith in her teachings.

Again, I sincerely invite you to do the same.

Stepford wife

Glassjester, if you were a Calvinist, I would tell you that all of your TULIP beliefs are wrong. This is not directed at you personally.

All religions have errors. To be blind to these is to be a Stepford wife. And I do err too. So choose your poison, church error or own error. My conscience is clear. Yours probably is too. I could not allow some man to decide doctrine for me. You could not allow some man NOT to decide doctrine for you.

 

[glassjester]

To prove you are not a Stepford wife.

This sounds great, unless God truly founded a church, and the doctrine of that church is God's true doctrine.

This really isn't a reason, in itself, to disagree with any particular teaching. You're saying I ought to disagree, just for disagreement's sake.


If Christ Himself was teaching you, would you feel that you absolutely had to disagree with at least some of His teachings, in order to not be a "Stepford Wife" ?

The Holy Spirit tells me.

But the other guy (your other truly sola scriptura friend) says the Holy Spirit told him something contradictory to what It told you. So... how do you know you're right?

 

[iouae]

This sounds great, unless God truly founded a church, and the doctrine of that church is God's true doctrine.

This really isn't a reason, in itself, to disagree with any particular teaching. You're saying I ought to disagree, just for disagreement's sake.


If Christ Himself was teaching you, would you feel that you absolutely had to disagree with at least some of His teachings, in order to not be a "Stepford Wife" ?




But the other guy (your other truly sola scriptura friend) says the Holy Spirit told him something contradictory to what It told you. So... how do you know you're right?

Glassjester

You cannot see anything wrong with your church, yet even the Pope is desperately trying to change the Catholic church.

And it does not matter which doctrine I highlight as needing reform, you would find no wrong with anything your church teaches. The Stepford brethren I attend with are just like you. They are right, all others are wrong. And their attitude frightens me just as yours does.

To them Christianity consists of finding the right Church and blindly doing whatever it teaches for the rest of their lives. That is your policy, right? If the Pope changes, you will change - otherwise nothing I say will convince you, Right?

Speaking with you, as enjoyable as it is, is like talking to my past self. Nothing anyone could have said to me would have convinced me that my cult was anything except faultless. Unless God had reached down, and disrupted the cult, I would be sleepwalking still today.

The Catholic Church is just Christianity's biggest cult. Do a Google search on cult thinking, and how to deliver people from cults, and the psychological dependance which keeps them in a cult.

Deikman says this in his book "Them - Us"...

"Why people join cults

"Cults form and thrive,” says Deikman, “not because people are crazy, but because they have two kinds of wishes. They want a meaningful life, to serve God or humanity; and they want to be taken care of, to feel protected and secure, to find a home. The first motives may be laudable and constructive, but the latter exert a corrupting effect, enabling cult leaders to elicit behaviour directly opposite to the idealistic vision with which members entered the group.

Usually, in psychiatry and psychology, the wish to be taken care of (to find a home, a parent) is called dependency and this is a rather damning label when applied to adults. Adults are not supposed to be dependent in that way, relying on another as a child would rely on a mother or father. We are supposed to be autonomous, self-sustaining, with the capacity to go it alone. We do recognise that adults need each other for emotional support, for giving and receiving affection, for validation; that is acceptable and sanctioned. But underlying such mature interdependency is the longing of the child, a yearning that is never completely outgrown. This covert dependency — the wish to have parents and the parallel wish to be loved, admired and sheltered by one's group — continues throughout life in everyone. These wishes generate a hidden fantasy or dream that can transform a leader into a strong, wise, protective parent and a group into a close, accepting family. Within that dream we feel secure.”

You asked...
"If Christ Himself was teaching you, would you feel that you absolutely had to disagree with at least some of His teachings, in order to not be a "Stepford Wife" ? "

You do understand there is a difference between Christ teaching through His Holy Spirit, and the church teaching via some hierarchy?

For you a good start WOULD be to find some little thing your church has done wrong. That should not be hard since you have 2000 years, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition etc. to help you.

You also asked" So... how do you know you're right?"
I research every single scripture on a particular doctrine for myself, using Bible software.

On the count of three you are going to wake up...
One...
Two...
THREE...

 

[patrick jane]

iouae is a Stepford wife

 

[iouae]

iouae is a Stepford wife

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6f/51/a9/6f51a9784d893f05a5055decc2881f45.jpg

 

[glassjester]

And it does not matter which doctrine I highlight as needing reform, you would find no wrong with anything your church teaches. The Stepford brethren I attend with are just like you. They are right, all others are wrong. And their attitude frightens me just as yours does.

You realize you believe you're right, too. ...Right?
If not... then prove it. I'll ask the same of you, as you asked of me.

Ready?

Name a false doctrine that you believe is true.


Can't do it? Hm...

The Catholic Church is just Christianity's biggest cult. Do a Google search on cult thinking, and how to deliver people from cults, and the psychological dependance which keeps them in a cult.

Oh come on. You and I both know that Catholicism doesn't fulfill the definition of a cult. If you broaden the meaning of the term to include my Church, you'd have to include all religions that ever existed. Including your own.

You asked...
"If Christ Himself was teaching you, would you feel that you absolutely had to disagree with at least some of His teachings, in order to not be a "Stepford Wife" ? "

So would you have "nodded in agreement" with the crowds, as Christ gave a sermon? Or would you have dissented just to avoid being a Stepford Wife? You still haven't answered.

You do understand there is a difference between Christ teaching through His Holy Spirit, and the church teaching via some hierarchy?

Luke 10:16

And you understand that disagreement for disagreement's sake is ridiculous, right?

For you a good start WOULD be to find some little thing your church has done wrong. That should not be hard since you have 2000 years, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition etc. to help you.

I didn't (and wouldn't) claim that members of the Catholic Church haven't sinned. In fact every member of the Church is a sinner. Christ died for sinners. The Church was made for sinners.

How does that prove that sola scriptura is true?

You also asked" So... how do you know you're right?"
I research every single scripture on a particular doctrine for myself, using Bible software.

Ah ok. And everyone else that has your same silver bullet, comes to the same theological conclusions, right? The Holy Spirit lives in your computer?

If I take 10 people that all really, truly, adhere to sola scriptura - they will still have 10 unique sets of religious beliefs. The Spirit of Truth cannot lead people to mutually exclusive, contradictory beliefs (because they can't all be true).

Now of those 10 people, 1 might be totally right about all their truth claims. Right? But he has no way of knowing that! All 10 claim to be that one!

Do you see that simply reading your Bible and thinking that the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding, gets us nowhere in terms of determining what's true, and what Christians should accept as true?

 

[iouae]

You realize you believe you're right, too. ...Right?

There are estimated to be 33000 Christian denominations of which the Catholics are one. I presume they all believe they are right, or they would amalgamate. You and I are no different in believing we have THE TRUTH.

If not... then prove it. I'll ask the same of you, as you asked of me.

Ready?

Name a false doctrine that you believe is true.


Can't do it? Hm...

How is it logically possible to believe what you know to be false, is true?

Oh come on. You and I both know that Catholicism doesn't fulfill the definition of a cult. If you broaden the meaning of the term to include my Church, you'd have to include all religions that ever existed. Including your own.

There are many definitions of "cult".
I say a cult is a group who slavishly follow the beliefs of the leader, and are brainwashed into believing they are the only right group, and feel that if they leave they will be damned.

By this definition the Catholics very definitely are a cult.

I am very far from that definition of a cult.

I allow many groups to have divergent beliefs. If they believe in Jesus and have a close personal relationship with Him, then they are good, no matter the error they also have. That is why I have no difficulty going to church with a cult. They love Jesus, but believe many lies.

So would you have "nodded in agreement" with the crowds, as Christ gave a sermon? Or would you have dissented just to avoid being a Stepford Wife? You still haven't answered.

I listen critically always to see if what is said is sola scriptura. Who knows how one would have reacted to Christ. The crowd were largely taught by the Jewish leaders (Scribes and Pharisees). Virtually nobody in that crowd had a scroll of the law to check for sola scriptura.

And you understand that disagreement for disagreement's sake is ridiculous, right?

The Pope faces an uphill battle to reform the Catholic Church. I presume you know that. Do you side with the reformist Pope, or the status-quo loving Catholic Church? Which do you believe is correct?
The other is the one you disagree with.

Me, I just reject error as I hear it.
When I detect error in me, I issue a "papal bull" (since I am my own "Pope") that henceforth I shall believe this new truth. No lag time. No tension.

I didn't (and wouldn't) claim that members of the Catholic Church haven't sinned. In fact every member of the Church is a sinner. Christ died for sinners. The Church was made for sinners.

How does that prove that sola scriptura is true?

It does not. Sin is not the issue. Doctrine and truth is.

Ah ok. And everyone else that has your same silver bullet, comes to the same theological conclusions, right? The Holy Spirit lives in your computer?

We are starting out with the premise that its hard to understand the New Testament. If we gave 10 literate pagans Matthew to read, I think they would all get pretty much what Matthew was saying, even if they did not believe it. The Holy Spirit helps one believe it as well as understand it.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The above verse does not say one needs a Church or Pope to teach one.

If I take 10 people that all really, truly, adhere to sola scriptura - they will still have 10 unique sets of religious beliefs. The Spirit of Truth cannot lead people to mutually exclusive, contradictory beliefs (because they can't all be true).

Now of those 10 people, 1 might be totally right about all their truth claims. Right? But he has no way of knowing that! All 10 claim to be that one!

Well at least most of the 33000 Christian denominations are making an attempt at sola scriptura. Surely even the Catholics like to believe that their beliefs are based on the Bible and not tradition. Right?
What have you got that's better than sola scriptura? And most churches agree on the basics that one has to believe in Christ to be saved.

Do you see that simply reading your Bible and thinking that the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding, gets us nowhere in terms of determining what's true, and what Christians should accept as true?

Reading the Bible is like reading the newspaper. You will get the important points. It's called the gift of literacy. Everyone gets different amounts out of every book they read. That is normal and natural.

People should read the Bible like any other book, and boldly reach a conclusion as to what its saying. Unfortunately they have been so confused and intimidated that they do not trust their own gift of literacy any more.

 

[glassjester]

How is it logically possible to believe what you know to be false, is true?

It's not possible.
So why ask me to do it?

I say a believe Catholic doctrine to be true.
You ask me to name a Catholic teaching that I don't believe is true.

There are many definitions of "cult".
I say a cult is a group who slavishly follow the beliefs of the leader, and are brainwashed into believing they are the only right group, and feel that if they leave they will be damned.

By this definition the Catholics very definitely are a cult.

Except that I am totally free to investigate and seek to understand every last Catholic belief, am I not? Really, I invite you to do the same.

And there's a huge misconception in what you're saying. The Catholic Church does not teach that every person that leaves will be damned. Only God can know who's in Hell.

Maybe we'd be better off narrowing the discussion. What specific Catholic teaching do you think I should disagree with?

I am very far from that definition of a cult.

As is Catholicism.

I allow many groups to have divergent beliefs. If they believe in Jesus and have a close personal relationship with Him, then they are good, no matter the error they also have. That is why I have no difficulty going to church with a cult. They love Jesus, but believe many lies.

You allow them? How gracious of you. This implies that you have already determined all that is true regarding doctrine and practice.

I listen critically always to see if what is said is sola scriptura. Who knows how one would have reacted to Christ.

Would you have dissented, just to avoid being a Stepford Wife?

The Pope faces an uphill battle to reform the Catholic Church. I presume you know that. Do you side with the reformist Pope, or the status-quo loving Catholic Church? Which do you believe is correct?
The other is the one you disagree with.

False dilemma. What contradictory, mutually exclusive doctrine does the pope teach, in contrast to the Church?

Me, I just reject error as I hear it.

This statement implies that you are the ultimate arbiter of truth. Bold.
You are capable of believing error. All humans are.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The above verse does not say one needs a Church or Pope to teach one.

Does John's gospel contain all of Christ's words and deeds? It doesn't. In fact it specifically states the contrary. So how were the unwritten teachings of Christ and His apostles transmitted from generation to generation of Christians?

Well at least most of the 33000 Christian denominations are making an attempt at sola scriptura. Surely even the Catholics like to believe that their beliefs are based on the Bible and not tradition. Right?

No. The Canon of Scripture itself is based on Sacred Tradition. Not on Sacred Scripture. There's no divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible.

You will get the important points. It's called the gift of literacy. Everyone gets different amounts out of every book they read. That is normal and natural.

Agreed.

People should read the Bible like any other book, and boldly reach a conclusion as to what its saying.

And when their private interpretations are at odds with the traditions they were taught, either by word or by epistle, then they ought to be open to being corrected.

 

[trutherator]

How easy is it to understand what a passage says?

How easy is it to understand what a passage says?

Understanding of what the Bible says comes with studies, and it's first things first:

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Sometimes you just need somebody like an elder in the faith to show you what the scriptures say (make sure he shows the fruits of faith:
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Some things were not to be understood until these end times:
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

First things first:
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

(Get saved first, that’s the start, and know why and how you’re saved by knowing the salvation verses and understanding them. That’s the newest babe milk, and go from there)

So people have to stick with milk for a long time before they understand the meat:
1 Corinthians 3:2: I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Even the apostles were not going to understand everything that Jesus wanted to explain to them while they walked together:
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And if you think you came to perfect understanding, forget it:
1 Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Extra stuff:
There is so much about how to unrderstand the Bible.

You must compare spiritual things to spiritual, and you cannot do that when you use a lexicon based on the pagan meanings recorded, especially if it was elaborated by the “Christian” spiritual adviser of Hitler himself.

For getting the meaning out of a passage, if you go in with the wrong attitude it will kill you, damage you.

Peter warned about those who twisted Paul’s writings to their own destruction. They can twist your own study to destruction too if you let them.

There are wolves in sheep’s clothing who teach false doctrine.

Most Satanists are horrified by Word. There are others who are more sunk into his claws who are less so bothered and quote it like made, like Satan himself did in the Temptation verses, and the Pharisees quoting it. Now we have a Jesuit Pope quoting scripture. I met a Jesuit priest once in a meeting arranged by some youths we had been witnessing to (missionary days) and he was livid at us corrupting his little flock. Ezekiel 33 and 34. He had a diabolical spirit and he no doubt had those boys reading scripture upside down.

In Romans we find that God gives the reprobates over to a mind that fits. They can’t understand anything. In another passage we find Paul rebuking the Galatians for their giving up on salvation by faith alone, a gross misunderstanding of scripture. Not so plain clear.

I have found that some atheists (and theistic evolutionists) cannot wrap their heads around where their thinking is wrong. It’s the same way with some doctrines.

For example, among the readers of this very commentary, probably most of them will not understand that “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” means render unto him nothing if you don’t have to (because he is not the rightful owner of any of the Roman’s conquered and stolen loot). They also wouldn’t understand that the last verses of Matthew 17 have Jesus saying that ALL taxation is unfair and that ALL taxing authorities (governments) are unjust parasites, sucking on stolen loot.

And even though Peter had said to the Pharisees, the religious rulers, that they were going to obey God and not man, they still don’t understand what Paul meant in Romans 13. That chapter was written while he was in prison in Rome awaiting a hearing FOR PREACHING THE GOSPEL. So when he said they were “ministers of God”, this was “Render unto” code messaging to (1) tell them not to rescue them, he was in God’s hands, and (2) to obey any government that actually acted as God’s ministers and (3) use the Word and the fruits of rulers to judge the matter.

One more thing, though. Paul admonished the churches in a chapter often used to criticize the idea of the gift of tongues today, 1 Corinthians 14, that we should expect there to be ONE interpretation of message from God uttered in a tongue we don't understand, and that He is not the author of confusion. We have a veritable Bible Babel confusion of Bibles in English today. Plus several more in the "original tongues". The prophecies are not of private interpretation, they only have one nuance of meaning.

In other words, make sure you're studying the Bible you can trust. Find it. Keep an open mind on this.

Let him that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the spirit saith to the churches.

 

[iouae]

No. The Canon of Scripture itself is based on Sacred Tradition. Not on Sacred Scripture. There's no divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible.

I did not know this was the alternative to sola scriptura.

Christ criticised the Pharisees for this tradition of following tradition (presumably the Talmud) rather than the Torah. What do you say about that?

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[iouae]

Nice post Trutherator. And you bring out some interesting interpretations of render to Caesar etc. I will have to look into them.

What you do bring out are the many and varied aspects there are influencing our reading of scripture. When one has been reading it all one's life, it is hard to remember that there are so many aspects at play.

Every person I have ever met embraces error inadvertently, myself included.
If having absolute truth were the criterion of salvation, I suppose one person somewhere would be the lucky one to be saved.

We all do our best. Some are like pilot fish and follow a shark (or church).
Some swim on their own.

My personal understanding is that we all are at different points on God's learning curve. This is God's doing, and He does not blame a spiritual child for being a child.

Some folks who profess Christ may not even be on God's curve because they embrace some philosophy contrary to Christ (such as all are saved no matter what they do because Christ died for ALL mankind). This philosophy could lead to them professing a belief in Christ with nothing to show for it. Christ says He will reject such at His coming.