D
Della
Guest
But there is no unity in the teachings of Scripture, as interpreted by all the various Protestant denominations and sects. That’s a simple fact that cannot be denied.
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
If one wanted, I guess one could say that there is unity in the teachings of scripture. After all, it is unlikely that God has entrusted contradicting teachings to scripture.
However, and this is the essential point, no person has any guarantee of discerning those proper teachings in scripture, when read outside of the light of the Church. Every Protestant knows that lots of other bible-believers get the wrong teachings out of scripture - sometimes to the point of not even being considered Christians. They just seem to have a hard time taking the next step, which is to acknowledge that they themselves may also get the wrong teachings out of scripture.
However, and this is the essential point, no person has any guarantee of discerning those proper teachings in scripture, when read outside of the light of the Church. Every Protestant knows that lots of other bible-believers get the wrong teachings out of scripture - sometimes to the point of not even being considered Christians. They just seem to have a hard time taking the next step, which is to acknowledge that they themselves may also get the wrong teachings out of scripture.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
Why can’t God contradict Himself?
C
Chipper
Guest
Why would God contradict himself?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
God doesn’t change so how could he contradict Himself?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Because no two truths can contradict, and God is Truth (John 14:6)
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
How can there be unity in teachings of Scripture alone if Protestants cannot even agree on which books comprise the Bible?
Up until 1880, the King James Bible included the deuteros. Then they took them out. Then they put them back in.
Lately, the ‘emerging church’ movement is allowing for the further deconstruction of the Bible:
See My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible
Is the Bible a “Paper Pope” for Protestants?
Is Our Canon of Scripture a Fallible Collection of Infallible Books?
Am I Emerging?
continued…
Up until 1880, the King James Bible included the deuteros. Then they took them out. Then they put them back in.
Lately, the ‘emerging church’ movement is allowing for the further deconstruction of the Bible:
Protestants have a fallible interpretation of a fallible canon of infallible books, the exact contents of which are also up for grabs… link
See posts 220-239 on Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical
See My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible
Is the Bible a “Paper Pope” for Protestants?
Is Our Canon of Scripture a Fallible Collection of Infallible Books?
Am I Emerging?
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Now this ‘emerging church conversation’ claims to depend on post-modernist thought for its licence to deconstruct the Bible. Thing is that pomo also allows for reconstruction, not just deconstruction. So, after stripping the Bible to bare bones, what rough beast will be built in its stead, its hour come round at last, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born?
Now here is the rub. Patton promotes authorial intent hermeneutic as the SOLE method for deriving scriptural interpretation. And he defines ‘author’ as the human wielders of pen and parchment. The writings of these human authors were ‘determined’ by the historical, cultural, and linguistic environment in which they lived.
Most importantly they spoke to their times alone. There is no allowance made for the ‘inspirational’ part of the inspired scripture. No allowance made for God speaking to all his people, always, and everywhere. And, since it is not God speaking – but man – the original 1st C message is adjudged ‘alien’ to those living in the 21 C.
Ani makes note to self: “Self, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. What history are these poor peasants being asked to repeat? No wonder Wallace/Patton speaks of isolating/insulating the lay person from scholars, if scholars be such as these two.”
continued…
rather than proclaim a message that is alien to that culture.
Now here is the rub. Patton promotes authorial intent hermeneutic as the SOLE method for deriving scriptural interpretation. And he defines ‘author’ as the human wielders of pen and parchment. The writings of these human authors were ‘determined’ by the historical, cultural, and linguistic environment in which they lived.
Most importantly they spoke to their times alone. There is no allowance made for the ‘inspirational’ part of the inspired scripture. No allowance made for God speaking to all his people, always, and everywhere. And, since it is not God speaking – but man – the original 1st C message is adjudged ‘alien’ to those living in the 21 C.
Ani makes note to self: “Self, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. What history are these poor peasants being asked to repeat? No wonder Wallace/Patton speaks of isolating/insulating the lay person from scholars, if scholars be such as these two.”
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
So I ask again, after stripping the Bible to bare bones, what rough beast will be built in its stead, its hour come round at last, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born?
And how on earth can Sola Scriptura possibly function in such a changeable environment? In other words, is the ‘emerging church’ movement even Protestant? Is it not rather a pale simalacrum of Catholicism complete with small-m magisterium, small-t tradition, and small-s scripture?
Those who derived their ‘truth’ from one version of the Bible are later relegated by their ‘emerging church’ pastors to the ranks of the anachronistic and delusional. To derive the new-improved ‘truth’, these folks will have to start all over. And the life of Christians gulled in this manner will be a series of false starts, never arriving, never ‘building up.’
It is a strange path indeed whose middle leads not to its end but back to its beginning. More like a labarynth than a path. And of course each time folks find themselves at the beginning again, they will have to fork over money for the ticket to climb on the bus.
Quite a little system for keeping people in place.
The sound of crickets chirping in the distance.
And how on earth can Sola Scriptura possibly function in such a changeable environment? In other words, is the ‘emerging church’ movement even Protestant? Is it not rather a pale simalacrum of Catholicism complete with small-m magisterium, small-t tradition, and small-s scripture?
Those who derived their ‘truth’ from one version of the Bible are later relegated by their ‘emerging church’ pastors to the ranks of the anachronistic and delusional. To derive the new-improved ‘truth’, these folks will have to start all over. And the life of Christians gulled in this manner will be a series of false starts, never arriving, never ‘building up.’
It is a strange path indeed whose middle leads not to its end but back to its beginning. More like a labarynth than a path. And of course each time folks find themselves at the beginning again, they will have to fork over money for the ticket to climb on the bus.
Quite a little system for keeping people in place.
The sound of crickets chirping in the distance.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
There is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were there wouldn’t be over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants.
I also like to add Baptists themselves come in different flavors since they do aren’t unified in doctrinal issues. Sola Scriptura just** fall apart when it comes to unity.**
I also like to add Baptists themselves come in different flavors since they do aren’t unified in doctrinal issues. Sola Scriptura just** fall apart when it comes to unity.**
- Status