Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Romans 12 & 13

In response to Romans 12 & 13 posted by paper_turtle:

Paper Turtle, I'm still considering this. There's a lot to chew on, and different ways to adress this. I actually agree with much of what you say, but I think you deemphasize the meaning of the "sword" too much. It is symbolic of power - specifically lethal power. But more on that later. Let me chew on this some more.

» Brian Tubbs - Authoritative?

In response to Authoritative? posted by paper_turtle:

Paul tells Timothy that the "Scriptures" are "inspired by God" (or "God-breathed") and are "profitable for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

Yes, Paul had the Old Testament primarily in mind, BUT...

The book of Acts makes clear that the early church continued "steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" and the Gospels make clear that Jesus gave his apostles the authority (and divine revelation via the "Comforter") to teach binding doctrine on the church. So....

It's clear that the "Scriptures" were expanding in the apostolic age, and the apostles knew this.

I say all that to say this...

The Scriptures (including the New Testament writings) are binding on us today. That's what I mean by authoritative. If the Bible teaches something, that settles the matter - regardless of what you or I might think. THAT is what I mean by biblical authority.

Now, I will put an important caveat on that. It's important that we apply the PRINCIPLES taught as opposed to lifting out isolated, literary phrases - particularly those divorced from the context of the day. And that IS where things get a bit tricky, and one of the reasons why you have so many denominations and churches today.

And that is where the Holy Spirit comes in. I do read the Bible prayerfully and ask God to help guide me into the lessons He wants me to glean from the Scriptures.

But here's the key. I don't believe God will EVER lead me to do something that is contrary to Scripture. For example, if I ever "feel" God is telling me to cheat on my wife (and I haven't felt that way), then I can KNOW this is NOT of God. One reason: Because the Bible teaches - in both the Old and New Testaments - that adultery is wrong.

I have a high view of Scripture. By that, I don't mean to suggest that you don't. I'm simply answering your question. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Not "dictated" by God, but inspired by Him - and therefore its principles (understood properly and in context) should be considered binding and authoritative on us, even today.

» Brian Tubbs - Tale of Two Cities

Let me QUICKLY follow up my last post with this....

I agree with the Augustinian distinctions between the City of God and the City of Man. As an American citizen, I do NOT support the Bible being raised up over the U.S. Constitution. The Bible is a sacred text, but its purpose is not to serve as the basis for civil law in this lifetime. I support the institutional separation of Church and State. And I would oppose any effort to make the Bible the "Supreme Law of the Land."

My last post deals with the Kingdom of God. As a Christian, I see its doctrinal teachings as being BINDING upon me and upon the "church" - and I mean that universally. Every professing Christian throughout the entire world is called upon to subordinate his or her life to God - and I believe the Bible is part of God's revelation to mankind.

» Migisi - Religious influence on Law and Policy

In response to Religious influence on Law and Policy posted by BrianTubbs:
.
there is a legal or political component to this issue, since Desmond Tutu himself is taking his moral and religious argument against the death penalty into the realm of international law.
.
Tutu is hardly the first or only person of renown to publicly denounce the death penalty worldwide. And not all who oppose capital punishment base their opposition on their religion. (I have noted a few nonreligious reasons myself in this thread.) Tutu repeats their practical reasoning - without once quoting scripture or mentioning God...
.
From the article you linked (I quote):
.
"In country after country, it (capital punishment) is used disproportionately against the poor or against racial or ethnic minorities," Tutu wrote in The Guardian.
.
"It is often used as a tool or political repression. It is imposed and inflicted arbitrarily. It is an irrevocable punishment, resulting inevitably in the execution of people innocent of any crime."
.
"It is a violation of fundamental human rights," said the former South African archbishop.
.
I reckon that if the religious approached this and other issues they oppose in a practical and reasonable way like Tutu has here, their position would be better received, and they'd likely be more successful in reaching and convincing other people.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Authoritative?

In response to Authoritative? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
The Scriptures (including the New Testament writings) are binding on us today. That's what I mean by authoritative. If the Bible teaches something, that settles the matter - regardless of what you or I might think. THAT is what I mean by biblical authority.
.
Where do you get your authority to make such a bodacious statement?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Authoritative?

In response to Authoritative? posted by pink101:
.
Brian wrote: ... and therefore its principles (understood properly and in context) should be considered binding and authoritative on us, even today.
.
If the Bible says it, then that's that! You got that, Pink?!
.
If we adhered to OT authority, I wouldn't be here today. I'd have been stoned, burned, strangled, or decapitated long ago. They'd have easily found some sin to charge me with in Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - Authoritative?

In response to Authoritative? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Brian wrote:
Paul tells Timothy that the "Scriptures" are "inspired by God" (or "God-breathed") and are "profitable for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."
.
Yes, Paul had the Old Testament primarily in mind, BUT...
.
The book of Acts makes clear that the early church continued "steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" and the Gospels make clear that Jesus gave his apostles the authority (and divine revelation via the "Comforter") to teach binding doctrine on the church. So....
.
It's clear that the "Scriptures" were expanding in the apostolic age, and the apostles knew this.
.
During the time of Jesus, there was still some controversy over which texts should be part of Jewish canon. The Pharisees' questions to Jesus reflect some of the issues which were still in controversy. There is no known manuscript of the entire Old Testament before the Ninth Century CE -- although the contents of the OT was recognized as scripture at the Jamina convention of rabbis circa 100 CE . What the early apostles knew as Scripture may or may not have been what appears in the New Testament as we know it today. The NT was not canonized until the council at Carthage (circa late 4th century CE).
.
My point being: what "bound" early followers of The Way might be different than what you might consider binding now.
.
Furthermore, the early church fathers (Catholic) and their Jewish predecessors, recognized **four** ways to interpret scripture: literal/historical, moral, allegorical, and spiritual. They placed greater emphasis on the last three, and less on the literal/historical. Their goal was to make the scripture relevant to the living of daily life, AND to emphasize humankind's relationship with God.
.
There is also an implied question which is very important: WHO decides what is authoritative? The obvious answer, for most people, is that their church does.
.
I would like you to show me the Biblical reference for Jesus giving his apostles authority to teach "binding" doctrine.
.
.
.
The Scriptures (including the New Testament writings) are binding on us today. That's what I mean by authoritative. If the Bible teaches something, that settles the matter - regardless of what you or I might think. THAT is what I mean by biblical authority.
.
But obviously we all read things differently. What one person regards as something which "binds" him/her, another might have good reason to believe otherwise. Take, as an extreme example, those sects who practice snake-handling.
.
.
.
Now, I will put an important caveat on that. It's important that we apply the PRINCIPLES taught as opposed to lifting out isolated, literary phrases - particularly those divorced from the context of the day. And that IS where things get a bit tricky, and one of the reasons why you have so many denominations and churches today.
.
Exactly. And if an entire church believes that the Bible says one thing and another church believes something different, who can prove -- beyond the shadow of a doubt -- who is right and who isn't? And if we can't prove that, who are we to sit in judgment, when we could be the ones who are mistaken?
.
.
.
And that is where the Holy Spirit comes in. I do read the Bible prayerfully and ask God to help guide me into the lessons He wants me to glean from the Scriptures.
.
And so does Tutu, and many others with whom you might disagree. I asked how you could know whether or not Tutu held the Bible as authoritative, and if you had had tea with him recently. My point was, unless one asks an individual to explain his line of thinking none of us can say **with absolute certainty** how he was led to reach a particular conclusion. If you asked Tutu directly how he came to believe that the death penalty was wrong, I believe he would point you to several references in the Bible. Unless one is a certifiable mind-reader, no one can say for sure what another thinks -- and (as I see it) when one believer accuses another of not taking the Bible authoritatively he is attempting to be a mind-reader.
.
.
.
But here's the key. I don't believe God will EVER lead me to do something that is contrary to Scripture. For example, if I ever "feel" God is telling me to cheat on my wife (and I haven't felt that way), then I can KNOW this is NOT of God. One reason: Because the Bible teaches - in both the Old and New Testaments - that adultery is wrong.
.
Of course not. But Tutu is not talking anything which is ** specifically ** advocated for, or enjoined against, in the Bible. Jesus says "You have been taught, 'an eye for an eye,' but I tell you . . ." Seems to me this implies calling upon mercy rather than retribution.
.
.
.
You did not address the point I raised in a previous post:
.
Brian wrote:
Interestingly, if the three of you (Migisi, Phil, and Paper Turtle) discredit Paul and/or challenge that he speaks for Christian doctrine, then YOU are merely fueling my point that opposition to the death penalty involves reducing the Bible's influence or authority on the issue
.
I responded:
We all disagree with your ****interpretation**** of a passage in the Bible and therefore we are challenging the Bible's authority? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. .
.
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Authoritative?

In response to Authoritative? posted by paper_turtle:

.
Brian wrote:
Interestingly, if the three of you (Migisi, Phil, and Paper Turtle) discredit Paul and/or challenge that he speaks for Christian doctrine, then YOU are merely fueling my point that opposition to the death penalty involves reducing the Bible's influence or authority on the issue.
.
Turtle responded:
We all disagree with your ****interpretation**** of a passage in the Bible and therefore we are challenging the Bible's authority? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash.
.
Brian's comment points out how politics can be Bible driven. And, it is curious that so many biblicists claim they do not put the Bible above the Constitution when it comes to political issues.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Boston's Old South Church

.
http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus...

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Red herring

In response to Authoritative? posted by Migisi:

That's a red herring, Migisi. We are not under the Old Testament law. Any serious student of the Bible understands this. Don't just fling inflammatory statements around, okay?