Sola Scriptura--now I get

[Angainor]

Truthwarrior:

Angainor:

I’m not sure Sola Scriptura means what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth out there. Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the only source of truth that Protestants are willing to accept without testing

.You appeare to be going even further than the Protestant reformers of the 16th century were prepared to go. For them Sola Scriptura, (By Scripture Alone) was one of the most important principles of the Protestant Reformation, maintaining that Scripture was the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involved doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to “correct” the Catholic Church by appealling to the uniqueness of the Bible’s authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

If by saying, “It doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth out there” you are acknowledging that Tradition is a source of Truth then we can agree on that. But as a Protestant you reject Tradition, do you not?

I do not deny that tradition contains truth, neither did the reformers. What I and the reformers deny is tradition as an infallible source of Truth. Truths contained in tradition must be tested like anything else. To reiterate: the reason I do not test the Bible itself is because it was written by Apostles and OT Prophets.

Truthwarrior:

I feel you are putting far to much reliance on personal interpretation for which there is no justification from the Bible and as other posters have suggested you are your “own pope”.
You seem to be rejecting what is said in 1 Timothy 3:15
“…that is, in the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe”

Indeed, the Church upholds the truth and keeps it safe. My idea of how the Church does this is much different than yours. I believe the Chuch works through the body of Christ. All Christians make up the body of Christ. Truth is upheld by the constant testing by Christians, as a body. The good is kept and the evil rejected. Understanding of Truth comes from the members of the Church instead of being handed to the members of the Church.

Individual Christians are not an infallible source of truth, but through the efforts of individual Christians who compose the body of Christ, Truth is upheld and kept safe down through the centuries.

 

[Angainor]

joshua_b:

Angainor:

I’m not sure Sola Scriptura means what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth out there.

Ok I have a question here, because this seems a direct contradiction to the notion of Sola Scriptura. I the Bible isn’t the only source of Truth, then what other sources of Truth would you say there are as a Protestant ?

Truth exists on its own. The Bible is a reliable testament to that Truth. Truth is proclaimed in many other places, but those proclamations are not to be accepted unquestionably. Test everything. If it tests good, accept it.

 

[mmortal03]

Marquette:

Isn’t it nice to be protestant where everyone is their own pope?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

I’m Catholic, and, while you are possibly being sarcastic, that comment is never any good, the one that says that every Protestant is his own Pope, or that they have their own “paper Pope”. For one thing, it is looking at the issue from a Catholic reference point, the Pope, a role and position of which Protestants usually only have a distorted idea. It is therefore comparing them to an example that they do not even accept, nor can they relate to. Also, it makes it seem as if we as Catholics follow whatever the Pope says whenever he says it, as Dogma, which is not always the case. It also marginalizes the authority of the REST of the Magisterium.

So, given all this, all that statement does is spread a wrongly balanced perspective of the Catholic Church, categorize people unfoundedly, and demonstrate a reliance on rhetoric. ANYTHING would be better. For example, you might say that for Protestants, each is his own Magisterium. That would be better, but I still don’t see why you would even need to say it that way or at all.

 

[mmortal03]

Angainor:

I’m not sure Sola Scriptura means what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth out there. Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the only source of truth that Protestants are willing to accept without testing. It is absolutely reliable because it comes from the Apostles and the OT Prophets.

But obviously, if you follow Sola Scriptura, than the only infallible source is the Bible and so, regardless of whether any other source of truth is out there, the only way that you can “test” any other source would be to compare it to the Bible. So that is what Protestants do. Therefore, the only source of universal truth for Protestants must be proven with the Bible. Given this, I don’t understand what you were trying to say when you stated that “[Sola Scriptura] doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth”. Maybe it is not the only source of truth, but if you still have to “test” it in the Bible, then that is only a formality.

Also, we can’t prove from the Bible that the Apostles, as commonly defined by Protestants, were actually the only ones that wrote the books of the New Testament. That would have to fall back on some sort of history or tradition. Luckily, Catholics do not have to prove that the New Testament was written by the Apostles for it to be valid.

 

[aurora77]

Angainor:

[/indent]By feeling? Feelings are not reliable, but that does not mean they provide no direction whatsoever. The law is written in our hearts. The signers of the Declaration of Independance recognized that some truths are self-evident.

If truth is self-evident in matters of faith, why are there so many divisions within Christianity? I was looking at the book the Rapture by Tim Lahaye yesterday (don’t worry, I’m not buying his arguements, just curious!) and he talks about the Rapture–there are the pre-trib folks, the post-trib folks, during-trib folks, all with their Bible verses that support their case. Who’s right? Who do we believe? That’s just one example from Protestantism, there are many others.

 

[mmortal03]

Angainor:

All Christians make up the body of Christ. Truth is upheld by the constant testing by Christians, as a body. The good is kept and the evil rejected. Understanding of Truth comes from the members of the Church instead of being handed to the members of the Church.

Individual Christians are not an infallible source of truth, but through the efforts of individual Christians who compose the body of Christ, Truth is upheld and kept safe down through the centuries.

First of all, the Bible itself is a product of tradition. Regardless of having said this, I will discuss what of your message I have quoted above in this post.

You linked to 1 Corinthians 12:27, stating your interpretation of it that we, as the Body of Christ, can infallibly interpret what is Truth. Well, I looked that passage up, and read down further, except I read from the NASB and not the NIV. Don’t look at this as an exegesis, but just for your knowledge, please look at what I have quoted here, especially where I have placed emphasis in bold:

27Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.**29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31But earnestly desire the greater gifts. ** And I show you a still more excellent way.

I am interested to hear how you interpret what I have placed emphasis on.

Also, you said that “Understanding of Truth comes from the members of the Church instead of being handed to the members of the Church.”

So, even if you do believe that no one has any greater authority to interpret scripture than anyone else, are you saying that the Magisterium would not be considered members of this Church? That cannot be right. According to your definition, why couldn’t the Magisterium, even on Protestant terms, come to an Understanding of Truth and then teach others? The problem with what you said is that teaching others woulod imply “handing to others.” If you meant to say that “Understanding of Truth comes from members of the Church, instead of being infallibly defined by members of the Church”, it might make a little more sense, because I think you are trying to say there that anyone in the “Body of Christ” can intepret scripture and determine whether it is truth or not, UNLESS it is the Catholic Church doing it.

Also, wouldn’t you agree that the Bible is “handed to the members of the Church”? If I didn’t know that you were a Protestant, that you take it for granted that what you are saying has to fall back on Sola Scriptura, then it would sound as if you would even have to personally interpret the Bible to test whether it is right or wrong, as it was only “handed to” you, and you can’t trust someone else to tell you that it is valid. If you look at it that way, Sola Scriptura ITSELF was “handed to” you. Also, where does it say in the Bible that it is the “Body of Christ”, all individual Christians collectively, as you describe it, that have the infallible ability to interpret the Bible?

As far as the “Understanding of Truth” that you refer to, are you saying that one member of the Church cannot hand to another member of the Church an understanding of Truth?

 

[mmortal03]

Angainor:

Truth exists on its own. The Bible is a reliable testament to that Truth. Truth is proclaimed in many other places, but those proclamations are not to be accepted unquestionably. Test everything. If it tests good, accept it.

Who has the authority to define infallibly that the Bible is a reliable testament to that Truth? Martin Luther?

 

[Angainor]

Frist of all, thank you mmortal03 for your thoughful responses. It really shows that you have taken time to understand what I have been writing.

mmortal03:

But obviously, if you follow Sola Scriptura, than the only infallible source is the Bible and so, regardless of whether any other source of truth is out there, the only way that you can “test” any other source would be to compare it to the Bible. So that is what Protestants do. Therefore, the only source of universal truth for Protestants must be proven with the Bible. Given this, I don’t understand what you were trying to say when you stated that “[Sola Scriptura] doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only source of truth”. Maybe it is not the only source of truth, but if you still have to “test” it in the Bible, then that is only a formality.

There are other tests. The law is written on our hearts, even if it comes through foggy with our sinfulness. Also, By their fruit you will recognize them. But you are mostly correct. The Bible is the main test by far.

mmortal03:

Also, we can’t prove from the Bible that the Apostles, as commonly defined by Protestants, were actually the only ones that wrote the books of the New Testament. That would have to fall back on some sort of history or tradition. Luckily, Catholics do not have to prove that the New Testament was written by the Apostles for it to be valid.

You are correct that I place a certain amount of trust that good people through history have passed on the recored testaments that most accurately describe the Truths passed down by the Apostles. I must put my faith that the body of Christ was active through the whole process upholding the Truths and rejecting the falshoods. I also believe that the process was guided by the Holy Spirit in conjuction with human freedom. Perhaps the Holy Spirit light a fire under a good man’s britches at a key moment in history in order to give him extra encouragement to get something done that needed getting done. That good man’s actions were his free actions and therefore not infallible (these actions too would need to be tested) but what needed to get done got done nonetheless.

 

[MariaG]

aurora77:

OK, I’ve always thought that the idea of Sola Scripture didn’t make much sense. I couldn’t articulate it, but it just seemed off to me. Last night, I’m sitting in my bible study class on Revelation and I realized just how much we need a Church to help us interpret the Bible. I’m a reasonably intelligent person (or like to fool myself into believing I am ), but I can’t be an expert at everything. Some of the passages I read something jumps out at me and I can easily see how I can apply that to my life, other things I read and just think “Huh?? What’s he talking about?” I can sit and wait for the Holy Spirit to guide me (not that I don’t think He will, but how do I know if it’s Him or just my imagination), or I can trust the guy sitting next to me, or I can turn to official Church teaching. How lucky we as Catholics are to have someone (or a group of someones ) who can help guide us to better understand God’s word and teaching. I’d be out there floundering for sure!

This may have been totally obvious to everyone, but it was an “a-ha” moment for me and I just had to share!

Hi Aurora,

I just wanted to thank you for sharing your “a-ha” moment. Don’t you love it when it just all comes together and is so simple when it really does? It is truly beautiful. My favorite “a-ha” moment was John 20-21 about confession.

But since it appears your thread has become a thread for a discussion of Scripture alone ( and has been for quite some time) instead of your celebrating the joy of your moment, or other “a-ha” moments I thought I would pipe in briefly and thank you for sharing.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Angainor]

mmortal03:

Also, you said that “Understanding of Truth comes from the members of the Church instead of being handed to the members of the Church.”

So, even if you do believe that no one has any greater authority to interpret scripture than anyone else, are you saying that the Magisterium would not be considered members of this Church? That cannot be right. According to your definition, why couldn’t the Magisterium, even on Protestant terms, come to an Understanding of Truth and then teach others? The problem with what you said is that teaching others woulod imply “handing to others.” If you meant to say that “Understanding of Truth comes from members of the Church, instead of being infallibly defined by members of the Church”, it might make a little more sense, because I think you are trying to say there that anyone in the “Body of Christ” can intepret scripture and determine whether it is truth or not, UNLESS it is the Catholic Church doing it.

I did not mean to exclude all things Catholic. Catholics do proclaim truth, but like all such proclamations, are not beyond the need for testing.

mmortal03:

As far as the “Understanding of Truth” that you refer to, are you saying that one member of the Church cannot hand to another member of the Church an understanding of Truth?

As it is written, not every member of the body of Christ is a prophet. Not everyone can be expected to test every doctrine. However, any member has the right, upon coming across a suspicious item, to raise his hand and call attention to that item. Hopefully then a vigorous testing of the doctrine will ensue.

Why put the Magisterium in a box? Instead of pointing to whatever it is you point to when you say “the Magisterium”, point instead to yourself, and to all the members of the body of Christ. It is the Church that upholds the truth.

 

[mmortal03]

You are correct that I place a certain amount of trust that good people through history have passed on the recored testaments that most accurately describe the Truths passed down by the Apostles. I must put my faith that the body of Christ was active through the whole process upholding the Truths and rejecting the falshoods. I also believe that the process was guided by the Holy Spirit in conjuction with human freedom.

If you say that you can put your faith in that, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that you could also put your faith in the Roman Catholic Church doing the same. Why would it be any different to say that the Catholic Church “was active through the whole process upholding the Truths and rejecting the falshoods”? They were the ones that did all of that “passing on” from Jesus, all the way on until the Reformation, and their role did not change just because Martin Luther and others did not agree with them. One thing that Catholics don’t say is that the church hasn’t contained sinners. That would be impossible, and that was why many of the problems were created. I’d be interested to here why you think that the Catholic Church itself, not its individual members, became corrupt and could not fufill their duty.

 

[mmortal03]

Angainor:

Why put the Magisterium in a box? Instead of pointing to whatever it is you point to when you say “the Magisterium”, point instead to yourself, and to all the members of the body of Christ. It is the Church that upholds the truth.

Thanks for your responses! Let me continue here.

As I am sure you know, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church
is that “Church” that you speak of, and not the entire body of lay Christians that happen to “become saved” and then think that they have the knowledge, ability, and authority to properly interpret Scripture and uphold truth. You see, many thoroughly unqualified Protestants will just open their Bible, do some eisegesis, and then state, “oh this particular verse that I just read conflicts with the Catholic Church, so I’m all fine and dandly now.” This is a problem. I don’t even begin to think that I have enough knowledge of history, theology, or the moral maturity to properly define doctrine, make decisions for the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter). If I wanted to go in that direction I would start the process to become a priest. It seems that it is completely wrong that many unqualified “lay” Protestants who know little about the actual teachings of the Catholic Church have the audacity to go around and bash the Catholic Church. (not that I am placing this blame on the Protestants involved in this discussion, because you have all been only constructive.)

I think that it is the lack of education on the entire breadth of issues, history, and theology that has brought such a fragmentation to Protestant Churches around the world. The Catholic Church itself allows for the lay Catholic to express issues to his priest and to his bishops. Also, no one is stopping anyone from becoming a priest and being properly educated such that they could then move up the “heirarchy” and also participate with just as much authority as any of the Magisterium now has. It isn’t that the Magisterium as individual humans have any more abilities than any lay human. It is simply that the Holy Spirit has taken their lives in the proper direction such that they will be properly educated and knowledgeable about the breadth of issues in the Catholic Church before they are given the ability to make decisions.

 

[Angainor]

mmortal03:

Angainor:

You are correct that I place a certain amount of trust that good people through history have passed on the recored testaments that most accurately describe the Truths passed down by the Apostles. I must put my faith that the body of Christ was active through the whole process upholding the Truths and rejecting the falshoods. I also believe that the process was guided by the Holy Spirit in conjuction with human freedom.

If you say that you can put your faith in that, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that you could also put your faith in the Roman Catholic Church doing the same. Why would it be any different to say that the Catholic Church “was active through the whole process upholding the Truths and rejecting the falshoods”?

It is unneccesary to restrain the activity of upholding truth within the artificial construct that is the Roman Catholic Church. Isn’t it much simpler to imagine the body of Christ as a whole that is doing the upholding of truths? What human can say where the body of Christ ends and where it begins?

mmortal03:

They were the ones that did all of that “passing on” from Jesus, all the way on until the Reformation, and their role did not change just because Martin Luther and others did not agree with them. One thing that Catholics don’t say is that the church hasn’t contained sinners. That would be impossible, and that was why many of the problems were created. I’d be interested to here why you think that the Catholic Church itself, not its individual members, became corrupt and could not fufill their duty.

I know Catholics imagine that the Catholic Church goes back, as it is now, all the way to the time of Christ. All I can say is that it is not so. Peter called the people of the church “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God”. In the beginning, the people were the Church and the Church, as a whole, upheld the truth.

If you want to know another truth: this is not a state of affairs that the people are generally comfortable with. It is a reoccuring theme in history that the people reject the responsibility. The USA was founded on principles of individual liberty and individual responsiblity to govern themselves. In the blink of a historical eye, the people now turn first to the government to solve the most minor of problems. Israel asked for a king, to the displeasure of Samuel and God:But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 1 Samuel 8:6-8

Gradually, history began to repeat itself within the Catholic Church. The chosen people began to reject their role and look to others to shoulder the responsibility. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that does not mean the Church will not suffer attacks. Working within the framework of human freedom, the Reformation, as messy as it was, was necessary to readjust the mindset of the people that make up the body of Christ. The reformers were reasserting the responsibility of the Church as a whole to upholding the truth.

 

[Angainor]

mmortal03:

You see, many thoroughly unqualified Protestants will just open their Bible, do some eisegesis, and then state, “oh this particular verse that I just read conflicts with the Catholic Church, so I’m all fine and dandly now.” This is a problem.

An individual who reads what they want into scripture is a problem. It is the type of problem that Christ’s Church was made to contend with. If this person is as unqualified as you portray him, his teachings should be easy enough to test and reject. The Church will be protected from this individual’s untruths.

mmortal03:

Also, no one is stopping anyone from becoming a priest and being properly educated such that they could then move up the “heirarchy” and also participate with just as much authority as any of the Magisterium now has.

This is interesting. Luther might disagree. Whatever else Luther may have been, he was not uneducated in ways of Catholicism. And he was a priest.

But more to the point. I could not help but notice you qualified “educated” with “properly”. Catholics studying to become priests are not taught to study the Truth with a critical mind (test everything). They bring their own flavor of eisegesis to their studies by way of a “proper” education.

 

[nikkich]

Angainor,I see through your posts that truth and the testing of said truths to make sure they are truth is the key element in what you believe. I find it interesting that you rely on your own authority to decide what truth you will believe to be truth yet posted it is up to the Body of Christ as a whole to determine what truth is and that by relying on a Magestarium we are shirking our role in the process. If we follow your train of thought than how as a whole body of Christ is a truth determined to be true if we all participate? I think historically what you propose has already been played out with the development of 30,000 plus Christian denominations. You do not end up with absolute truth if all have a say. (If you tell me there are no absolute truths I will reply that that statement, “there are no absolute truths” is an absolute truth in itself, therefore there must be absolute truths) By your commentary it seems that it is absolute truth that you are striving for which is to be commended but you seem afraid to call it that in fear of stepping on someones toes. Do not fear absolute truth.

I am wondering why it is beyond reason for you to believe that Christ established Authority in the Catholic Church? If we look soley at Scripture, which I am assuming you would prefer, it favors the belief of Authority. First, Christ gathered 12 apostles to teach and then send out. If Christ did not intend to have a teaching body, which is what the Magistarium is, why gather only 12? he could of taught only by sermons on the mount…if all had a say there would be no need to single out 12. I believe Jesus had 12 Aposltes because He knew there would be questions for clarity on what we believe, there would also be heresy’s that they would need to defend the Church from so thay we do not go astray.

Second, in Mathew 16:13-19, “And I tell you , you are Peter (Rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Preiously in Mathew 7:24-27 Jesus states that a house not founded on a rock will fall-- The correlation is very evident…Peter is the rock, the foundation of the Church and the Church will not fall if it remains on the solid foundation–the papacy.

Of course there will be questions to determine truth; even in Scriputre : Acts 15, there is debate on a matter and than Peter speaks and his decision is not questioned. People do not leave because they do not agree with Peter. They are obedient to his Authority because it was God given. The Magistarium never says not to question either…it is through the questions that arise in the laity that the Church seeks to have a greater understanding of certain truths so to as better serve the laity(the body of Christ) with clarity–

on a side note Peter is always mentioned first when listing the aposltes and Christ himself asked Peter to Feed His sheep three times if you love me…What does “Feed” mean? Peter was the first shepard–what do shepards do? they gaurd and guide the flock…It is a beautiful teaching if you take the time to trully contemplate what this all means.

Finally, Yes the Catholic Church is the same Church That Christ started, You can trace the whole papal line back to Peter and also all the Early Church Fathers who have beautiful writings are in the Cahtolic Churches heritage. All the councils of this time are well documented and preserved in the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Nichole

 

[Truthwarrior]

Hi Angainor,

Quote
Gradually, history began to repeat itself within the Catholic Church. The chosen people began to reject their role and look to others to shoulder the responsibility. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that does not mean the Church will not suffer attacks. Working within the framework of human freedom, the Reformation, as messy as it was, was necessary to readjust the mindset of the people that make up the body of Christ. The reformers were reasserting the responsibility of the Church as a whole to upholding the truth.
Quote

The tradedy of the Reformation was Martin Luther going outside the Catholic Church to try and reform it. He had legitimate concerns over what was going on in the Church but you cannot reform any organisation by leaving it. I actually have some sympathy with Luther because he had the misfortune to be in the Church during the time of a very bad pope. It is interesting to note that within five years of his rebellion he was preaching that the pope was the anti-Christ. How far from the truth can you get with that! By leaving the Church and repudiating the authority of the Catholic Church he lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It could be argued that the Catholic Church needed the Reformation as a wake up call because the Church had become very lax and corrupt. If you look at the history of the Church for a hundred years prior to the Reformation it was a disaster waiting to happen.
How did the Church react to the Reformation. It reformed itself. The Holy Spirit inspired the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent galvanised the Church into action and the Church has never looked back since.
Your idea of “The Church” encompassing all Christian Churches is utterly foreign to what was established by Christ. How can hundreds of different churches, many in total contradiction to each other be the authentic voice of Christianity in the world. There can only be one authentic voice for Christ in this world and that, I firmly believe, is the Catholic Church. In spite of all its failing the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ himself, when he gave St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The present pope is the successor of St.Peter.
You have only to look around you to see the dissension and contradictions within the other Christian churches. Look at the Anglican Church. It is being torn to pieces over the issues of women priests and homosexuality. That is what happens when a church doesn’t listen to the Holy Spirit, but tries to embrace the ways of the world in a vain attempt to become more relevant to the world.

 

[Angainor]

Truthwarior,

Thank you for your comments. I don’t really want to get into a slug match about the details of the Reformation itself. That would be going off topic. I do have one question for you though.

Truthwarrior:

There can only be one authentic voice for Christ in this world and that, I firmly believe, is the Catholic Church.

Why do you think there is an authentic voice for Christ in this world? I myself think there is none.

 

[Angainor]

nikkich:

You do not end up with absolute truth if all have a say. (If you tell me there are no absolute truths I will reply that that statement, “there are no absolute truths” is an absolute truth in itself, therefore there must be absolute truths) By your commentary it seems that it is absolute truth that you are striving for which is to be commended but you seem afraid to call it that in fear of stepping on someones toes. Do not fear absolute truth.

Then let me be clear! I do believe in absolute truth. Some people are upholding false doctrines. Some people’s toes need not just to be stepped on, but stomped on. I, however, will not presume to authoritatively declare which toes are which.Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4

nikkich:

If we follow your train of thought than how as a whole body of Christ is a truth determined to be true if we all participate?

As [post=1329618]Truthwarrior[/post] quoted 1 Timothy 3:15 (I don’t know what translation he used) it is the Church’s job to “uphold the truth and keep it safe”. The Church keeps the truth safe down through the centuries. This does not mean that false testamonies will not come along for the ride. We are warned about false prophets and advised to test everything for a reason.

Dispite the false testamonies, the truth has survived 2000 years.

nikkich:

I find it interesting that you rely on your own authority to decide what truth you will believe to be truth

The first thing a Christian is to do is to seek an understanding of absolute truth. After that, all anyone can do is follow their own conscience which represents their understanding of truth. I believe Christians are asking for harsher judgement if they follow someone else’s conscience. Christians must first seek to understand what is right, then be consistant and true to themselves and always do what they believe is right.I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 1 Corinthians 4:3-5

 

[aurora77]

Angainor:

Then let me be clear! I do believe in absolute truth. Some people are upholding false doctrines. Some people’s toes need not just to be stepped on, but stomped on. I, however, will not presume to authoritatively declare which toes are which.

Dispite the false testamonies, the truth has survived 2000 years.The first thing a Christian is to do is to seek an understanding of absolute truth. After that, all anyone can do is follow their own conscience which represents their understanding of truth. I believe Christians are asking for harsher judgement if they follow someone else’s conscience. Christians must first seek to understand what is right, then be consistant and true to themselves and always do what they believe is right.

​

I’m still not clear on what you’re saying. There’s absolute truth but it’s up to each individual to find it, they shouldn’t “follow someone else’s conscience?” How can it be absolute if it’s relative to the individual? Abortionists follow their conscience and do what they believe is right (see the thread about the minister who had an abortion and is proud–she truly believes she did the right thing), does that make abortion all right? It’s just like the Bible; there needs to be some authority to interpret, otherwise we end up like we are now, with so many divisions within Christianity.

Maria, thank you for your comments! Eye-openers like that are truly amazing things. I just wanted to share and I’m glad someone appreciated it.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate…​

 

[Angainor]

aurora77:

I’m still not clear on what you’re saying. There’s absolute truth but it’s up to each individual to find it, they shouldn’t “follow someone else’s conscience?” How can it be absolute if it’s relative to the individual? Abortionists follow their conscience and do what they believe is right (see the thread about the minister who had an abortion and is proud–she truly believes she did the right thing), does that make abortion all right?

Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
It sounds like you have tested the minister’s claim and found that it is evil. I agree.

It really isn’t any more complicated than that. We live in a fallen world. Some people hold evil ideas. We can’t be responsible for other people’s ideas.