SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[rcwitness]

It is possible for God to disagree with your interpretation of Galatians
It impossible for God to disagree with Galatians

You did not answer the question…

 

[jmcrae]

God IS bound by His word
for ex:
If the Book of Isaiah says something is true; then God cannot say it is not true.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven…

Psalm 89:34
I will not break my covenant, Nor alter what my lips have uttered.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Psalm 119:142
…Your law is truth.

Psalm 119:151
…All your commandments are truth.

Psalm 119:160
**All of your words are truth. Every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever.
**
Isaiah 55:9-11
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky, and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

1 Peter 1:23
…having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and remains forever

“Word” here is not the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist yet. It is Jesus Himself.

 

[clem456]

Correct:
I am saying that if the Letter to the Galatians (being Scripture) proclaims something as being true: it is impossible for God to proclaim that as false
BECAUSE Galatians is a writing breathed out by God
Agreed?

I agree that God does not lie.
I agree that the bible is his inspired word and accomplishes what he wills.

A couple of problems:
God does not proclaim anything more than the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Even the words “anything more” are silly. Jesus is everything God the Father is. Infinite revelation. So again, whether God would lie is a moot question. He has simply said everything to us through Jesus. Our understanding of all this must of course develop and grow, as we are human and we do not perfectly perceive perfect revelation.

“God is not a liar” is not a thing “caused by” Galatians. You said God does not lie “because Galatians is inspired”.
God is simply not a liar. His truthfulness is not caused by or subject to anything.

Question:
in the year 34 AD, how did God proclaim his truth, before anything NT was committed to writing?
You cannot claim “OT” because Christ had already lived, died, and rose, and “it was finished”. Christ is the NT, yet nothing was written, and Christ wasn’t even walking the earth.
All you had was the simple Galileans and their stories. Not very sure footing for the certainty of the written word. (it is sure footing, but not for the certitude many seem to want in the written word.)

 

[jmcrae]

Correct:
I am saying that if the Letter to the Galatians (being Scripture) proclaims something as being true: it is impossible for God to proclaim that as false
BECAUSE Galatians is a writing breathed out by God
Agreed?

This almost sounds like magical thinking -as if the words written down are causing God to do something.

No. The written words are a report about something that is already true about God; which still would be true even if nothing had been written, but the information had remained only in oral form.

 

[benhur]

So why have a Supreme court at all?

cause the Constitution calls for it. She is the interpreter of the other two branches and the constitution is the authoritative norm to judge against. The three branches are distinct , but all *out of *and under a separate and distinct constitution.

All covenants with God are based on, come from, out of, His revelation, His Word. All branches /authorities are to be true to His Word. We do not have the receivers/ founders of original Word, but we do have their Writ. We also have the context of its implementation in the the church, the rule of faith (apostolic tradition).

Blessings

 

[alwayswill]

You did not answer the question…

you asked
“Do I have the authority to preach what I interpreted?”

To me the question doesn’t makes sense:

I am a former lay preacher:
Churches actually paid me to preach
I preached my understanding of Scripture.

or I can stand o a street corner and preach for free.

I can’t force anyone to agree with me.
They are responsible to test all things I said with Scripture.

 

[clem456]

you asked
“Do I have the authority to preach what I interpreted?”

To me the question doesn’t makes sense:

I am a former lay preacher:
Churches actually paid me to preach
I preached my understanding of Scripture.

or I can stand o a street corner and preach for free.

I can’t force anyone to agree with me.
They are responsible to test all things I said with Scripture.

Can you see the circularity here?
Your point of view is asserting the certitude of all things in scripture, and yet above you note the obvious human ambiguities that arise from it

 

[alwayswill]

Can you see the circularity here?
Your point of view is asserting the certitude of all things in scripture, and yet above you note the obvious human ambiguities that arise from it

yep: the only infallible human was Jesus

 

[clem456]

…
All covenants with God are based on, come from, out of, His revelation, His Word. All branches /authorities are to be true to His Word. We do not have the receivers/ founders of original Word, but we do have their Writ. We also have the context of its implementation in the the church, the rule of faith (apostolic tradition).

Blessings

If by His Word, you mean Jesus Christ, who is the source of both Tradition and Scripture, you would be right.
If by His Word you mean written word, it is simply nonsensical to assert the New Covenant is based, comes from, and out of, the written word.
Because it didn’t always exist in written form. Christ had already fulfilled the New Covenant, and there was no written word as such. You know that.

A covenant is different from a contract in that a person pledges his very self, rather than stipulates written conditions, rules, formulas.
The New Covenant is Jesus Christ the person.

 

[clem456]

yep: the only infallible human was Jesus

ok
And your answer to the point is…?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alwayswill View Post
you asked
“Do I have the authority to preach what I interpreted?”

To me the question doesn’t makes sense:

I am a former lay preacher:
Churches actually paid me to preach
I preached my understanding of Scripture.

or I can stand o a street corner and preach for free.

I can’t force anyone to agree with me.
They are responsible to test all things I said with Scripture.

Clem456
Can you see the circularity here?
Your point of view is asserting the certitude of all things in scripture, and yet above you note the obvious human ambiguities that arise from it

You have come very close to asserting that God is a subject of the written word.
At the same time you cannot account for the fact that people are confused and disagree among themselves over scripture.

If God himself is subject to scripture, one would imagine the Scriptures would be able to infuse themselves unambiguously in our minds with help from no one. If God is bound by them and they force him to cohere to them, we, who are mere creatures, should not be here talking about this. All hail the book!

You attribute to the scriptures and almost superstitiously magical power.

 

[rcwitness]

And if I say, “God is telling us, in Galatians, that Peter was Teaching error. This proves Papal Infallibility wrong!”

And the Church says, “No, Peter was not Teaching error.”

Do I have the authority to preach what I interpreted?

you asked
“Do I have the authority to preach what I interpreted?”

To me the question doesn’t makes sense:

I am a former lay preacher:
Churches actually paid me to preach
I preached my understanding of Scripture.

or I can stand o a street corner and preach for free.

I can’t force anyone to agree with me.
They are responsible to test all things I said with Scripture.

My question was in a context that I provided. Do I have the Authority to preach something (from the Bible) that the Church has specifically called contrary to the meaning of that Scripture?

 

[Wannano]

My question was in a context that I provided. Do I have the Authority to preach something (from the Bible) that the Church has specifically called contrary to the meaning of that Scripture?

Forgive me rc if I am interrupting here but since you did not yet get an answer I thought I might chance it. If the “I” in your question is a Catholic I would say you do not have the authority to preach it unless you want out of the Catholic church. If your not Catholic you have just as much authority to teach it as any man. Am I wrong?

 

[rcwitness]

Forgive me rc if I am interrupting here but since you did not yet get an answer I thought I might chance it. If the “I” in your question is a Catholic I would say you do not have the authority to preach it unless you want out of the Catholic church. If your not Catholic you have just as much authority to teach it as any man. Am I wrong?

Is that implying there is no universal Church able to make a judgment on matters?

That means we are governed only by our own interpretations?

I’m asking if alwayswill believes God gives him the authority to preach things contrary to the conclusion of the Church.

Is the primary factor, whoever “pays” me, gives me God’s authority?

Or, if I do it on the corner, then God gives me authority?

How does one know if they have God’s authority to preach the meaning of Scripture? We all agree Scripture IS the highest authority! Touting how high and mighty Scripture 's authority is, does not change the fact that preaching the meaning of Scripture requires an adherence to the authority of the Church.

 

[clem456]

Forgive me rc if I am interrupting here but since you did not yet get an answer I thought I might chance it. If the “I” in your question is a Catholic I would say you do not have the authority to preach it unless you want out of the Catholic church. If your not Catholic you have just as much authority to teach it as any man. Am I wrong?

Depends what you mean.
If by authority you mean the charism that Christ breathed into the apostles, that authority resides where it resides.

If by authority you mean the approval of that particular community, then yes.
My good friend is a Baptist pastor and he preaches with authority in that community.
But he does not have the charism of authority that Christ conferred on the apostles.

It is worth noting that the Apostles were not given the Holy Spirit by the book. And they were not given the Holy Spirit by some vague gnostic spiritual process.
The were given the Holy Spirit by a physical action of Christ. He breathed on them, touched them.
If Jesus Christ himself acknowledged the physical realities present in the community he formed (breath, touch, people) why do we struggle with this?
Jesus Christ himself had a body, lived in time, walked, talked, ate, drank, lived, died, physically rose. Yet we have trouble acknowledging he formed a real, continuous, and durable community?
Big

 

[alwayswill]

ok
And your answer to the point is…?

You have come very close to asserting that God is a subject of the written word.
At the same time you cannot account for the fact that people are confused and disagree among themselves over scripture.

If God himself is subject to scripture, one would imagine the Scriptures would be able to infuse themselves unambiguously in our minds with help from no one. If God is bound by them and they force him to cohere to them, we, who are mere creatures, should not be here talking about this. All hail the book!

You attribute to the scriptures and almost superstitiously magical power.

"You have come very close to asserting that God is a subject of the written word. "
Strawman: never implied that

“If God himself is subject to scripture”
Strawman: : never said that

If God is bound by them and they force him to cohere to them
non-sequitur: God own words do not “force” God

At the same time you cannot account for the fact that people are confused and disagree among themselves over infallible or authoritative Church teachings.

 

[rcwitness]

Depends what you mean.
If by authority you mean the charism that Christ breathed into the apostles, that authority resides where it resides.

If by authority you mean the approval of that particular community, then yes.
My good friend is a Baptist pastor and he preaches with authority in that community.
But he does not have the charism of authority that Christ conferred on the apostles.

Yes, and I’m talking about authority from God.

 

[alwayswill]

If by authority you mean the approval of that particular community, then yes.
My good friend is a Baptist pastor and he preaches with authority in that community.
But he does not have the charism of authority that Christ conferred on the apostles.

Yes, and I’m talking about authority from God.

yes; I have the approval of that particular community to preach/ teach

or I can stand on a street corner and preach.

 

[clem456]

"You have come very close to asserting that God is a subject of the written word. "
Strawman: never implied that

“If God himself is subject to scripture”
Strawman: : never said that

If God is bound by them and they force him to cohere to them
non-sequitur: God own words do not “force” God

At the same time you cannot account for the fact that people are confused and disagree among themselves over infallible or authoritative Church teachings.

Au contraire.
I do account for confusion and ambiguity, by recognizing we live in a community of believers, outside of which the written word is a one-legged stool.

And not by circling back to scripture which is supposed to be it’s own power yet can’t realize it’s own power by itself.
Really, it is circular,

 

[rcwitness]

yes; I have the approval of that particular community to preach/ teach

or I can stand on a street corner and preach.

Hmmm… this is a difficult question to get a straight answer.

I did NOT ask about approval from men. I am asking about authority from God. Do you have authority from God to preach interpretations which are contrary to what the Church has Confirmed?

 

[Wannano]

Is that implying there is no universal Church able to make a judgment on matters?

That means we are governed only by our own interpretations?

I’m asking if alwayswill believes God gives him the authority to preach things contrary to the conclusion of the Church.

Is the primary factor, whoever “pays” me, gives me God’s authority?

Or, if I do it on the corner, then God gives me authority?

How does one know if they have God’s authority to preach the meaning of Scripture? We all agree Scripture IS the highest authority! Touting how high and mighty Scripture 's authority is, does not change the fact that preaching the meaning of Scripture requires an adherence to the authority of the Church.

I probably muddied the water for which I apologize. To be honest rc, I am not sure that I believe there is any one church or denomination that has 100% of all things figured out exactly right 100%.