Clarity of Scripture

[omega2xx]

But your point is based on your opinion.

Not true. Everything I believe I can point to a verse or passage in the Bible. My understanding may be wrong, but it also may be right.

Your opinion is based largely, I assume, on a weak Calvinism.

I have no idea what weak Calvinism is. Everything Calvin taught he baked up with Scripture. He may not be 100% right, but he does alwasy use Scripture for his theology.

Catholicism would refute this on the basis that it's a too-literal and a too-narrow interpretation of Scripture, underpinned by a pessimistic outlook on the nature of man.

That is not a basis for rejecting what anyone teaches. WE should listen to Calvin and the Catholics, but the bottom line is, does the Bible reinforce wh they say? Some of the Bible is very literal---God is love. The narrower a concept is, the truer it is. Truth is a straight line. It does not vary. If it was true in Adam;s time, it is true today. Not only that, some Catholic theology is not based on the Bible. Why should we believe that? IMO, a loving God would not omit something His children need to know. A loving human parent would not do that. There is plentt of room in The Bible for what needs to be included.

As I do not accept Calvin's TULIP propositions nor any by-products of them, we are not about to agree any time soon.

I don't either, but I can point to Scripture as to why I reject one of the points of the TULIP, can you? Also Calvin did not develop the TULIP, his follower did. Agreeing is not the purpose of a forum. Discussing and evaluating different ideas is the main purpose. Some in the forum have not got all of their ideas set in cement and are looking for answers. Hopefully they will find some.

 

[Thomas]

Not true. Everything I believe I can point to a verse or passage in the Bible. My understanding may be wrong, but it also may be right.

Quite. You don't know. It's an opinion.

I have no idea what weak Calvinism is. Everything Calvin taught he baked up with Scripture. He may not be 100% right, but he does alwasy use Scripture for his theology.

Never met a Christian denomination that didn't!

WE should listen to Calvin and the Catholics, but the bottom line is, does the Bible reinforce what they say?

Catholics yes, Calvin, no ... but that's my opinion.

Some of the Bible is very literal---God is love.

Yes. But that's not all God is, is it?

The narrower a concept is, the truer it is.

Opinion. Tying a millstone round your neck is a narrow concept, but no-one says we should do so because Christ said so. Same for cutting off one's hand, or plucking out one's eye ... there are all number of narrow concepts that should not be taken literally.

Truth is a straight line. It does not vary.

Contingent and relative truth can vary. Absolute truth does not, but many dispute the existence of absolute truth, and it cannot be proved. Either way, it doesn't alter the facts that I don't agree with your interpretations of Scripture. Your interpretation is not, by your own words, absolute.

If it was true in Adam's time, it is true today.

I doubt much of what Adam, Abraham or Moses thought was true we would say is true today. Adam's knowledge of God was different to Abrahams. So was Moses. So is Christ's.

Not only that, some Catholic theology is not based on the Bible.

LOL, you do realise that the New Testament is founded on Catholic/Orthodox (ie pre-schism) theology? Who do you think put the Canon together? Who decided what went in and what did not?

but I can point to Scripture as to why I reject one of the points of the TULIP, can you?

Yes.

Also Calvin did not develop the TULIP, his follower did.

Based on his teachings.

Some in the forum have not got all of their ideas set in cement and are looking for answers.

And some have, and I have better things to do with my time. Pearls before swine, and all that ... there's another narrow concept, for you.

 

[omega2xx]

Quite. You don't know. It's an opinion.

It is not an opinion, it is an interpretation, which may be right or wrong. It is based on 35+ years of study and considering what good Bile scholars say.

Never met a Christian denomination that didn't

Now you have.

Catholics yes, Calvin, no ... but that's my opinion.

That's fine if you don't need Scripture to reinforce the theology.

Yes. But that's not all God is, is it?

No. God is more than any of us know.

Opinion. Tying a millstone round your neck is a narrow concept, but no-one says we should do so because Christ said so. Same for cutting off one's hand, or plucking out one's eye ... there are all number of narrow concepts that should not be taken literally.

Those are in figurative language and not to be taken literally.

Contingent and relative truth can vary. Absolute truth does not, but many dispute the existence of absolute truth, and it cannot be proved. Either way, it doesn't alter the facts that I don't agree with your interpretations of Scripture. Your interpretation is not, by your own words, absolute.

Contingent and relative truth is not truth. Of course there is absolute truth. It is absolutely true that we need oxygen to breath. I have not ask you to agree with me. Some of my interpretations ae true, but not all of them.

I doubt much of what Adam, Abraham or Moses thought was true we would say is true today. Adam's knowledge of God was different to Abrahams. So was Moses. So is Christ's.

What did any of them say that was not true?

]LOL, you do realise that the New Testament is founded on Catholic/Orthodox (ie pre-schism) theology?

No it wasn't. It is founded on the mss available for translation.

Who do you think put the Canon together? Who decided what went in and what did not?

Catholic scholars determined the Catholic canon; Protestant scholars determined the Protestant canon. Both denominations accept the Protestant canon. The Catholics added some book Protestants do not accept.

Yes.


Based on his teachings.


And some have, and I have better things to do with my time. Pearls before swine, and all that ... there's another narrow concept, for you.

Quite. You don't know. It's an opinion.


Never met a Christian denomination that didn't!


Catholics yes, Calvin, no ... but that's my opinion.


Yes. But that's not all God is, is it?


Opinion. Tying a millstone round your neck is a narrow concept, but no-one says we should do so because Christ said so. Same for cutting off one's hand, or plucking out one's eye ... there are all number of narrow concepts that should not be taken literally.


Contingent and relative truth can vary. Absolute truth does not, but many dispute the existence of absolute truth, and it cannot be proved. Either way, it doesn't alter the facts that I don't agree with your interpretations of Scripture. Your interpretation is not, by your own words, absolute.


I doubt much of what Adam, Abraham or Moses thought was true we would say is true today. Adam's knowledge of God was different to Abrahams. So was Moses. So is Christ's.


LOL, you do realise that the New Testament is founded on Catholic/Orthodox (ie pre-schism) theology? Who do you think put the Canon together? Who decided what went in and what did not?


Yes.


Based on his teachings.


And some have, and I have better things to do with my time. Pearls before swine, and all that ... there's another narrow concept, for you.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Viewing this discussion from without (as I don't believe in Gods), it is always fascinating to me when people use the same scripture to come to such radically different conclusions. I don't know what to make of such debates. Both cannot be correct, yet both are sure they are the one that is correct. If scripture is direct from God, why is it so open to mortal interpretation? Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?

It's not supposed to be obvious to all. That's what separates true believers from also rans. It's just that people spend too much time quibbling over individual interpretation. Should be, "I believe in God... Yeah? Me too! C'mon mate, buy ya a pint!" Not I'm right and you're wrong all the time.

 

[Thomas]

It is based on 35+ years of study and considering what good Bible scholars say.

Well when you demonstrate the scholarship, I'll give it a bit more credence, but until then ... so far you haven't indicated any denominational teaching as the one you follow.

That's fine if you don't need Scripture to reinforce the theology.

If you study the development of the Canon, you'll realise that Scripture was produced to reinforce the theology.

Those are in figurative language and not to be taken literally.

Critics find it very hard to accept that some people assert 'this' must be read literally and 'this' read figuratively, without any clear reasoning as to which is which. Of the former, some say all, some say none. The actuality is nuanced, I agree, but it's explained.

What did any of them say that was not true?

I didn't say 'not true'. I said different.

No it wasn't. It is founded on the mss available for translation.

The mss was produced by the Tradition to reinforce its theology.

Catholic scholars determined the Catholic canon; Protestant scholars determined the Protestant canon. Both denominations accept the Protestant canon. The Catholics added some book Protestants do not accept.

LOL. Actually, the Protestants subtracted ...

 

[Thomas]

Both cannot be correct, yet both are sure they are the one that is correct.

Why cannot one be correct?

If scripture is direct from God, why is it so open to mortal interpretation?

Because we believe it is inspired, not dictated.

Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?

But we're not all perfect, all knowing ...

 

[Thomas]

Should be, "I believe in God... Yeah? Me too! C'mon mate, buy ya a pint!"

LOL. I'm like this down the pub, if you wanna talk theology!

I've recounted here before the evening with 11 atheists and me in a bar. Great night all round! No-one said I'm right, you're wrong. Mostly it was them saying 'how can you believe' ...

Don't you stand up for what you believe in?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Thomas were you half asleep when you responded to my post? Cause your answers Do Not Compute!

Me: Both cannot be correct, yet both are sure they are the one that is correct.
You: Why cannot one be correct?

Certainly one can be correct. My comment was that we have two people with differing opinions on what 'correct' is and both claim their version is the only correct one. Which frustrates me is because you both use the same document to come to your differing versions of correct.

Me: If scripture is direct from God, why is it so open to mortal interpretation?
You: Because we believe it is inspired, not dictated.

Really? That was not my opinion at all. But then I can never figure out when the Bible is being figurative and when it is being factual.

Me: Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?
You: But we're not all perfect, all knowing ...

No of course we are not all perfect, being mortal and all. That was not the point though. My question is why did a perfect God (which we agree God is perfect right?) create a document that is so open to so many differing opinions on what the content means? Seems to me God is perfect-ly capable of handing down a text that would be open to but one interpretation. That is within his power, yes? So why didn't he do that? It would have saved a tremendous amount of grief, hatred and death over the last two millennia.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas were you half asleep when you responded to my post? Cause your answers Do Not Compute!

Me: Both cannot be correct, yet both are sure they are the one that is correct.
You: Why cannot one be correct?

Certainly one can be correct. My comment was that we have two people with differing opinions on what 'correct' is and both claim their version is the only correct one. Which frustrates me is because you both use the same document to come to your differing versions of correct.

Me: If scripture is direct from God, why is it so open to mortal interpretation?
You: Because we believe it is inspired, not dictated.

Really? That was not my opinion at all. But then I can never figure out when the Bible is being figurative and when it is being factual.

Me: Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?
You: But we're not all perfect, all knowing ...

No of course we are not all perfect, being mortal and all. That was not the point though. My question is why did a perfect God (which we agree God is perfect right?) create a document that is so open to so many differing opinions on what the content means? Seems to me God is perfect-ly capable of handing down a text that would be open to but one interpretation. That is within his power, yes? So why didn't he do that? It would have saved a tremendous amount of grief, hatred and death over the last two millennia.

I think you're missing the point, for a moment, lets assume God is not a man on a throne with a plan. He has not written a gameplan and sent it down to earth to be followed. The bible are human minds trying to comprehend something infinite, and the best they can do is the Bible.

See, you are talking about what God should do, but that is beyond us and rather pointless for Thomas, so he shifts the point to where he is. An imperfect being following a imperfect document inspired by something perfect. (Sorry for speaking in your place T.)

 

[wil]

Seems to me God is perfect-ly capable of handing down a text that would be open to but one interpretation. That is within his power, yes? So why didn't he do that?

. He is a trickster that one, tis the same as the dinosaur bones I've been told, a test of our faith.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I think you are missing my point Tea. I'm not talking about what God 'should' do. I'm asking why, with all the supreme powers at his fingertips, why he could not have handed down a document that made it precisely clear what he desired and expected of mortals. He certainly has the power to do that, no?

Now I believe I know your response, so I will say it first. Thomas can not answer, nor can anyone answer, why God chose to give humanity the book he gave us. And, of course, you would be correct.

The sticky in the wicket is that I am told by a Great Many People that the Bible is THE WORD O' GOD (cue thunder rolling & lightning strike). Since the Bible is his word exactly as he meant it, it seems to me he has purposefully written a document that humans are not supposed to understand and agree on. That seems to me a rather cheap shot from the All Father to his children.

NOW, if you are saying that the Bible is a document spoken out by God, but written down by mortals capable of making mistakes. Then I can accept why the Bible does not mean the same thing to everyone. Humans are all too fallible. I do not think that is what is being suggested though.

 

[Thomas]

Certainly one can be correct. My comment was that we have two people with differing opinions on what 'correct' is and both claim their version is the only correct one. Which frustrates me is because you both use the same document to come to your differing versions of correct.

Yes. So then you have to look to the why the dispute arose, and on what grounds.

I could take us, step by step, where the Reformation went wrong on certain theological matters, but that would be tedious for all concerned.

Really? That was not my opinion at all.

It is the scholarly concesus. The inerrancy of Scripture is not a scholarly viewpoint.

But then I can never figure out when the Bible is being figurative and when it is being factual.

Always tricky. But again, scholarship offers a lot of sound advice.

No of course we are not all perfect, being mortal and all. That was not the point though. My question is why did a perfect God (which we agree God is perfect right?) create a document that is so open to so many differing opinions on what the content means?/QUOTE]
I rather think that no matter how perfect the document was, man would still find a way round it.

 

[omega2xx]

Viewing this discussion from without (as I don't believe in Gods), it is always fascinating to me when people use the same scripture to come to such radically different conclusions. I don't know what to make of such debates. Both cannot be correct, yet both are sure they are the one that is correct. If scripture is direct from God, why is it so open to mortal interpretation? Surely an all perfect, all knowing, and all that other all stuff could have come up with a document whose conclusions would be obvious to all?

It is obvious that both can't be right. What is true in Biblical interpretations is also true in secular interpretations of the same things. Are the conclusions men give of nature all the same and nature is much easier to interpret than SOME of God's words. One doesn't need perfect theology to get to heaven. Only agreeing on the FUNDAMENTALS is important.

It is fascinating to me that the heavens declare the glory of God but secularist have eyes but can't see it. Can you really explain the universe without an Intelligent Designer?

 

[Thomas]

Can you really explain the universe without an Intelligent Designer?

Good grief! I'm a Catholic, and even I can do that!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I think you are missing my point Tea. I'm not talking about what God 'should' do. I'm asking why, with all the supreme powers at his fingertips, why he could not have handed down a document that made it precisely clear what he desired and expected of mortals. He certainly has the power to do that, no?

I don't see the difference between the two. "why he didn't he do it when he could do it" sounds like a "he should do it" to me.

NOW, if you are saying that the Bible is a document spoken out by God, but written down by mortals capable of making mistakes. Then I can accept why the Bible does not mean the same thing to everyone. Humans are all too fallible. I do not think that is what is being suggested though.

That sort of depends on what you mean by spoken, I don't know what Gods voice would be like, but other than that, yes that is one way to see it. It is what 'inspired' means. An 'inspired' text means that the divine made sure everything we needed got in there, but the choices we make, remember free will here, mess with what we see when we opened the book.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

That sort of depends on what you mean by spoken, I don't know what Gods voice would be like, but other than that, yes that is one way to see it. It is what 'inspired' means. An 'inspired' text means that the divine made sure everything we needed got in there, but the choices we make, remember free will here, mess with what we see when we opened the book.

By golly you got it! To me and my cockeyed way of looking at things, the fact that the Bible means something different to all who read it, is what gives it divine province. Like Aussie said way back in #65 "It's not supposed to be obvious to all. That's what separates true believers from also rans."

 

[Thomas]

An 'inspired' text means that the divine made sure everything we needed got in there, but the choices we make, remember free will here, mess with what we see when we opened the book.

Good Lord, ACOT, that's a very Catholic reading!

That pretty well sums up what Vatican II said in Dei Verbum, one of the Constitutional documents of the council.

In that text, because it's a constitutional document, we don't even name the authors of the Gospels, but simply refer to 'the sacred scribe'.

My Course Director used to say, 'it's all there in the text, waiting to be 'unpacked'. He also steered us on more than one occasion towards looking at 'Revelation', 'Inspiration', 'Intuition' etc., claiming there's a lot a lot of water passed under some scientific, societal, sociological and spiritual bridges since the primary reference texts for Catholics interested in such questions were written.

 

[omega2xx]

Good grief! I'm a Catholic, and even I can do that!

Don't tell me, show me.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

To me and my cockeyed way of looking at things, the fact that the Bible means something different to all who read it, is what gives it divine province.

I think wil expressed a similar point a good while back, or he seamed to to me. Sort of like the texts express what the reader needs to get where he's going.

Good Lord, ACOT, that's a very Catholic reading!

I wonder who's fault that is, hmm? I've been here for five years and you've been whispering in my ear the whole time. (Just remember how traditionalist
religion was the hardest for me to understand when I first got here, you've helped me over come that)