True Christianity?
-
If you re-read the posts, you'll find that I said I came to the conclusions apart from the bible and found them coincidentally in the Bible when I investigated further.Originally posted by laoda99:I dun understand, u said ur conclusions come from the bible, but then again you said if one day the bible turns out to be a farce, it does not change the idea of God to u?????? I sense an irony here?
And ur last para i dun really get u mean....too profound?
In simpler terms. I came to conclusion first. And then I just checked with the Bible. And what a surprise! It was there. Is that clearer now? -
ok......so if one day the bible is proved to be a farce, won't that affected what u think about ur experiences? Or did u say that becoz u are not afraid that the bible would be proven a farce....????Originally posted by maven2:If you re-read the posts, you'll find that I said I came to the conclusions apart from the bible and found them coincidentally in the Bible when I investigated further.
In simpler terms. I came to conclusion first. And then I just checked with the Bible. And what a surprise! It was there. Is that clearer now?
Sorry for asking so much, but what experiences have u been thru that when u countercheck ur faith is being built up? -
While the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is still afterall a book with text. Anything in text can be misconstrued, misread, misunderstood and misused. To a certain sense, in a similar way, christians need to take bible studies beyond the text. The text must give a personal word to you, or what we call, a Rhema word. To anyone else in the world, a bible verse can be just a statement but if you choose to dwell deep enough, that statement might just bring you to another spiritual level of understanding and more importantly, deepening your relationship with God.
-
1. I currently am of the opinion its almost impossible for the Bible to be a farce. But the Bible really, is a fallible collection of infallible books.Originally posted by laoda99:ok......so if one day the bible is proved to be a farce, won't that affected what u think about ur experiences? Or did u say that becoz u are not afraid that the bible would be proven a farce....????
Sorry for asking so much, but what experiences have u been thru that when u countercheck ur faith is being built up?
For it was man, (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christians believe) who convened in a council in the 4th century to decide by "logical" thought to decide which books (among those they could find) should belong to the bible.
They also acknowledged that there probably were books and teachings that could have been lost. Thus the Bible we have in our hands today was subject to a council that debated on the authenticity of the books.
As Christians, we believe that the debate was guided by the Holy Spirit. The books we have today were given Canon or Half-Canon Status. This does not, in any way suggest that there may not be any newer books that may be found later on. For such a thing is at the disgression of the same Holy Spirit.
2. Of what use is a bunch of letters and books if they were all interpreted wrongly and used for the wrong purposes. And one can rightly fear that the Bible, through her translations today have lost a large part of its flavour to those who do not understand the original languages, nor the contexts that they were made in.
Certainly Christianity must be more than a book. The books and letters when writtten, were written for the very practical reasons that, under the persecution Christianity underwent, the faith might be lost. The early Christians had no need for a Bible. They had no Bible till the 4th century!
When the council convened to put the Bible together, it was for this purpose they put it together, for the teaching of the faith from original sources, to prevent people from twisting the Gospel stories and the instructions passed down from Paul, Peter and John.
3. Currently I'm of the conviction that the Bible is completely true, and there can be no teaching that contradicts the teachings of the Bible. But on the same note, not all the teachings are in the Bible.
To the Christian, the Bible itself says that all the teachings contained within scriptures is not complete.
4. What I know of God and Christianity come not from the Bible, with the Exception of the Gospel Stories. But through careful examination of my conscience and heart. And from discussing with Pastors, Theologians, Christians and non-christians alike everywhere. I always check these inspirations with the Bible for coherence and always I'm surprised to find them there, as if it were God himself who taught some of these things to me.
5. What resulted from it all, is an unshakeable belief in God of which I'm thoroughly convinced without the need for books or people to tell me so. For the lack of better terms to explain it, "I just know it." This is why I said I have no NEED for a Bible though I thoroughly enjoy reading it.
6. I've had several encounters and experiences that have helped me through this journey, some things better not spoken in forums. But these are personal experiences which just strengthen my convictions time and again. -
1. Part in red. So u take the position that we can have "newer" books, like what the mormons believed?
2. Can u show me how part in green is true?
3. Of coz, the early Christians do not have the bible. Even in the medieval age, the commoners also do not have the bible. If not for the invention of the press and pple like Martin Luther, the common pple will still be ignorant of scriptures and follow whatever the RC Church says.
I am thankful to God for your conviction, however, I do not think your claim that "I do not need the bible" is safe. We are such forgetful people. One day if you forget abt what u have learnt and the things u have read from the bible, will your faith be still the same?
Unless u have the superhuman feat of memorizing whatever u read, I seriously doubt u do not need the bible, especially when u are debating with pple like mormons.
Reliance on the Holy Spirit is good, but to rely only on the Holy Spirit, u will have problems. Take note that the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word.Originally posted by maven2:1. I currently am of the opinion its almost impossible for the Bible to be a farce. But the Bible really, is a fallible collection of infallible books.
For it was man, (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christians believe) who convened in a council in the 4th century to decide by "logical" thought to decide which books (among those they could find) should belong to the bible.
They also acknowledged that there probably were books and teachings that could have been lost. Thus the Bible we have in our hands today was subject to a council that debated on the authenticity of the books.
As Christians, we believe that the debate was guided by the Holy Spirit. The books we have today were given Canon or Half-Canon Status. This does not, in any way suggest that there may not be any newer books that may be found later on. For such a thing is at the disgression of the same Holy Spirit.
2. Of what use is a bunch of letters and books if they were all interpreted wrongly and used for the wrong purposes. And one can rightly fear that the Bible, through her translations today have lost a large part of its flavour to those who do not understand the original languages, nor the contexts that they were made in.
Certainly Christianity must be more than a book. The books and letters when writtten, were written for the very practical reasons that, under the persecution Christianity underwent, the faith might be lost. The early Christians had no need for a Bible. They had no Bible till the 4th century!
When the council convened to put the Bible together, it was for this purpose they put it together, for the teaching of the faith from original sources, to prevent people from twisting the Gospel stories and the instructions passed down from Paul, Peter and John.
3. Currently I'm of the conviction that the Bible is completely true, and there can be no teaching that contradicts the teachings of the Bible. But on the same note, not all the teachings are in the Bible.
To the Christian, the Bible itself says that all the teachings contained within scriptures is not complete.
4. What I know of God and Christianity come not from the Bible, with the Exception of the Gospel Stories. But through careful examination of my conscience and heart. And from discussing with Pastors, Theologians, Christians and non-christians alike everywhere.
5. What resulted from it all, is an unshakeable belief in God of which I'm thoroughly convinced without the need for books or people to tell me so. For the lack of better terms to explain it, "I just know it." This is why I said I have no NEED for a Bible though I thoroughly enjoy reading it.
6. I've had several encounters and experiences that have helped me through this journey, some things better not spoken in forums. But these are personal experiences which just strengthen my convictions time and again. -
For maven:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvins-institutes-against-charismatics.html
I have been reading Calvin's Institutes (Yes, this is my first time reading it since becoming a Calvinist; before that I have been reading lots of 'secondary' material.) Anyway, here is something interesting regarding Calvin's view of those who speak of the Holy Spirit apart from the Word, whom Calvin called 'fanatics':
But I wish they [fanatics] would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. [I.IX. p.84]
...
What an infaturation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should like these people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit thant that which Christ promised to his disciples. ... But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of Himself (John xvi. 13), but suggest and instil the truths which He Himself had delivered through the Word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of-revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the Gospel recommends.
...
But they say tht it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subjected, to the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and to be in all respects without variation consistent with Himself. [I.IX. p.85]
In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he who does not carry them aloft to empty speculations apart from the Word; he immediately adds, "Despise not prophesyings" (1 Thess. v. 19,20). By this, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesyings fall into contempt. [I.IX. p. 86]
[Note: Prophesyings here refer to proclaimation of the Word of God]
[John Calvin (1559), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Co, MI, USA]
According to Calvin, therefore, those Charismatics, especially those of the Third Wave movement, are basically fanatics who have in actual fact quench the Holy Spirit and are actively bringing reproach to Him by stating that 'it is disgraceful for the Holy Spirit to maintian a perfect resemblance throughout' and to be 'in all respects without variation consistent with Himself'.
[/url] -
Parts in Red:Originally posted by laoda99:1. Part in red. So u take the position that we can have "newer" books, like what the mormons believed?
2. Can u show me how part in green is true?
3. Of coz, the early Christians do not have the bible. Even in the medieval age, the commoners also do not have the bible. If not for the invention of the press and pple like Martin Luther, the common pple will still be ignorant of scriptures and follow whatever the RC Church says.
I am thankful to God for your conviction, however, I do not think your claim that "I do not need the bible" is safe. We are such forgetful people. One day if you forget abt what u have learnt and the things u have read from the bible, will your faith be still the same?
Unless u have the superhuman feat of memorizing whatever u read, I seriously doubt u do not need the bible, especially when u are debating with pple like mormons.
Reliance on the Holy Spirit is good, but to rely only on the Holy Spirit, u will have problems. Take note that the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word.
There is a possibility that there may be books written back then that could be found later on. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention what books are included in the Bible. In fact it possibly shows the contrary.
In the Old Testament, in Numbers 21:14 it refers to a Book of Wars which to date we have not found. Or once again in 2 Chronicles 12:15 where a Book of Shemai'ah which again has never been found. And in the New Testament, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:9 about a letter that he wrote, a letter that to date we have not found either. Theologians now believe, based on several writings, that there were originally four letters to the Corinthians, instead of two.
When I refer to books of the Bible being found, I refer to Books that were written by sources authenticated by the Bible itself. One of the several criterias the Councils of Hippo and Carthage required was that the books/letters must have been written by the legitimate authors, i.e, the Apostles, among whom Paul is counted, before the New Testament Book would be counted Canonical.
The Book of Mormon does not qualify under this definition of Canon. But Its not for me to make any judgements here.
Green Part:
At the end of the Gospel of John, the last sentence states that "Jesus did many other things as well.... I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books to be written"
It emphasizes that the Gospels by no means contain everything that Jesus did and said but were selected by their authors to have particular significance for the purposes they wrote it.
Again in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul writes "So then brethren... stand firm and hold to the traditions(teachings) we passed to you whether by word of mouth or by letter", indicating that there were teachings that were taught which were not written. He emphasizes it again in the same letter in 3:6.
Paul also interestingly attributes the "pillar and foundation of truth" not in scriptures or his letters, but to the Church, in 1 Timothy 3:15.
Instead of Scriptures (which when Paul spoke of, he referred to the Old Testament, for there were no other scriptures in his time), he says in 2 Tim 3:16,
All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, .... so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
He does not say it is the pillar and foundation of truth.
I understand your concern. But it is not in Bible Memory Verses or Bible Verses, that Jesus nor God is found. I do not even need to recall any of these verses. But God is ever-present in everything and everywhere.
There is only one commandment really that every Christian should know and that is : To love God with all their hearts and to love their neighbours. -
I'm familiar with the Institutes. I have a copy with me and on my computer and I use it for reference now and then. I've never read the whole thing but I've found many things that I'm in disagreement with his arguments.Originally posted by laoda99:For maven:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvins-institutes-against-charismatics.html
I have been reading Calvin's Institutes (Yes, this is my first time reading it since becoming a Calvinist; before that I have been reading lots of 'secondary' material.) Anyway, here is something interesting regarding Calvin's view of those who speak of the Holy Spirit apart from the Word, whom Calvin called 'fanatics':
But I wish they [fanatics] would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. [I.IX. p.84]
...
What an infaturation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should like these people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit thant that which Christ promised to his disciples. ... But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of Himself (John xvi. 13), but suggest and instil the truths which He Himself had delivered through the Word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of-revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the Gospel recommends.
...
But they say tht it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subjected, to the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and to be in all respects without variation consistent with Himself. [I.IX. p.85]
In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he who does not carry them aloft to empty speculations apart from the Word; he immediately adds, "Despise not prophesyings" (1 Thess. v. 19,20). By this, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesyings fall into contempt. [I.IX. p. 86]
[Note: Prophesyings here refer to proclaimation of the Word of God]
[John Calvin (1559), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Co, MI, USA]
According to Calvin, therefore, those Charismatics, especially those of the Third Wave movement, are basically fanatics who have in actual fact quench the Holy Spirit and are actively bringing reproach to Him by stating that 'it is disgraceful for the Holy Spirit to maintian a perfect resemblance throughout' and to be 'in all respects without variation consistent with Himself'.
[/url]
But with regards to this, I find nothing really wrong. And I fail to see how it applies to what I've said. -
Very correct leh. I think the role of pastors is exactly to help us "dwell deep".Originally posted by gasband:While the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is still afterall a book with text. Anything in text can be misconstrued, misread, misunderstood and misused. To a certain sense, in a similar way, christians need to take bible studies beyond the text. The text must give a personal word to you, or what we call, a Rhema word. To anyone else in the world, a bible verse can be just a statement but if you choose to dwell deep enough, that statement might just bring you to another spiritual level of understanding and more importantly, deepening your relationship with God. -
Actually what are the basic tenets of Christianity?Originally posted by maven2:I beg to differ.
I think the difference lies in the grasp of the basic tenets of Christianity. Which do not make up many Christians. That should be of little surprise to you. I'm guessing you've had a fair share of Christians acquaintences that did little to show otherwise.
I'm interested to know. -
Icey;Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually what are the basic tenets of Christianity?
I'm interested to know.
I also interested to know...
Is it refering the Tanakh? or the Oral Traditions of the Church?
Maven2;Originally posted by maven2:I beg to differ.
I think the difference lies in the grasp of the basic tenets of Christianity. Which do not make up many Christians. That should be of little surprise to you. I'm guessing you've had a fair share of Christians acquaintences that did little to show otherwise.
just want to check with you, since as you said not many christian is able to grasp of the basic tenets of Christianity, what exactly do you mean? I am very concern with the current trend of "I am better than you" or "more knowledgeable then you" (not talking about you or anyone in perdicular) that is going on among churchs, be it charsimatic or traditionals or catholics ...etc; its as if we are saying... "I am the one and only true church, the rest are all in error" type of trend. -
I like this guy.Originally posted by vince69:I also interested to know...
Is it refering the Tanakh? or the Oral Traditions of the Church?
I assume is a 'he' .. but if 'she' even better!
-
I thought every Christian knows the basic tenet - Christ died for your sins so you can have a right standing with God. Blah blah.Originally posted by vince69:Maven2;
just want to check with you, since as you said not many christian is able to grasp of the basic tenets of Christianity, what exactly do you mean? -
Its the "blah blah blah" that is the part I am refering toOriginally posted by Icemoon:I thought every Christian knows the basic tenet - Christ died for your sins so you can have a right standing with God. Blah blah.
-
The blah blah blah part better not be Jesus died to give u a comfortable and pleasant life on Earth full of blessings and prosperity.Originally posted by vince69:Its the "blah blah blah" that is the part I am refering to -
won't lah.Originally posted by laoda99:The blah blah blah part better not be Jesus died to give u a comfortable and pleasant life on Earth full of blessings and prosperity.
I thought he mentioned "take up my cross and follow me" a few replies ago?
-
The most basic tenet of Christianity, imho, is God is Love.Originally posted by Icemoon:won't lah.
I thought he mentioned "take up my cross and follow me" a few replies ago?
Everything, including the Gospel stories, the incarnation of the God-Man, the New Testament teachings come from this one source.
1 Corinthians 13 attempts to explain in a human way what this love is (but still falls short for the words cannot completely explain what it is).The Greek version is far more beautiful but still falls short if you ask me.
Love is Patient; Love is Kind; Love is never jealous; Love is not boastful or conceited; It is never rude and never seeks its own advantage; It does not take up offense or store up grievances; Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing but finds its joy in truth. It is ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes. Love never comes to an end.
Paul adds on a few sentences later:
As it is, these remain: Faith, Hope and Love, the three of them; the greatest of them is love.
Jesus, when asked about the greatest commandment states that the greatest commandment was "To love God with all their hearts,..." and to "Love your neighbour as yourself" Jesus also adds, (and I think so does the OT) that all other commandments come from these.
Now the Whole Bible, including the OT must be seen in the light of this. Some allowance must be given to the language and mindset of the Hebrew authors when they chose the words they did, which today have very negative connotations. But we'll discuss that as and when it arises.
To me, being Christian has nothing to do with my Salvation. If I am not "saved" at the end of time, then it completely is my fault and my own doing. To be Christian, when I was baptised, was to promise to love and serve the world.
I do however, have a very different idea about the end of days, heaven and hell. :p -
I think people err in passing judgements over things they do not understand. Their motivation, while perhaps in zeal and "love", is nonetheless judgemental on several counts. One has a right to "righteous anger". But one will achieve far less by accusations. I prefer to discuss in earnest the premises from which other Christians come to their conclusions and see where we can move forward towards an understanding.Originally posted by vince69:Maven2;
just want to check with you, since as you said not many christian is able to grasp of the basic tenets of Christianity, what exactly do you mean? I am very concern with the current trend of "I am better than you" or "more knowledgeable then you" (not talking about you or anyone in perdicular) that is going on among churchs, be it charsimatic or traditionals or catholics ...etc; its as if we are saying... "I am the one and only true church, the rest are all in error" type of trend.
There certainly is only one absolute truth. I dare not proclaim I know that truth completely, or "more than others"
One of my motivations for not being judgemental, but instead to discuss and learn is in Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13:
"Give a welcome to anyone whose faith is not strong, but do not get into arguments about doubtful points. One person may have the faith enough to eat any kinds of food; another, less strong, will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat freely are not to condemn those who are unwilling to eat freely; nor must the man who does not eat freely pass judgement on the one who does - because God has welcomed him. And who are you, to sit in judgement over somebody else's servant? Whether he deserves to be upheld or to fall is for his own master to decide; and he shall be upheld, for the Lord has power to uphold him.
One person thinks that some days are holier than others, and another thinks them all equal. Let each of them be fully convinced in their own mind. The one who makes observance of a particular day observes it in honour of the Lord. So the one who eats freely, eats in honour of the Lord, ..... Why, then, does one of you make himself judge over his brother, and why does another among you despise his brother? All of us will have to stand in front of the judgement seat of God..... Let us each stop passing judgement, therefore, on one another and decide instead that none of us will place obstacles in any brother's way..."
I've only quoted parts of it, but he who has a bible should contemplate these two chapters carefully.
I'm not saying that we should not aim at discussing, or correcting one another. But we should not judge. We cannot go into a discussion having already judged. Proper humble discussion can break more boundaries. -
Unker sillyme and I welcomes you to EH....
-
How true, maven2. Anyway, Semper Fidelis.....Originally posted by maven2:I think people err in passing judgements over things they do not understand. Their motivation, while perhaps in zeal and "love", is nonetheless judgemental on several counts. One has a right to "righteous anger". But one will achieve far less by accusations. I prefer to discuss in earnest the premises from which other Christians come to their conclusions and see where we can move forward towards an understanding.
There certainly is only one absolute truth. I dare not proclaim I know that truth completely, or "more than others"
One of my motivations for not being judgemental, but instead to discuss and learn is in Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13:
"Give a welcome to anyone whose faith is not strong, but do not get into arguments about doubtful points. One person may have the faith enough to eat any kinds of food; another, less strong, will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat freely are not to condemn those who are unwilling to eat freely; nor must the man who does not eat freely pass judgement on the one who does - because God has welcomed him. And who are you, to sit in judgement over somebody else's servant? Whether he deserves to be upheld or to fall is for his own master to decide; and he shall be upheld, for the Lord has power to uphold him.
One person thinks that some days are holier than others, and another thinks them all equal. Let each of them be fully convinced in their own mind. The one who makes observance of a particular day observes it in honour of the Lord. So the one who eats freely, eats in honour of the Lord, ..... Why, then, does one of you make himself judge over his brother, and why does another among you despise his brother? All of us will have to stand in front of the judgement seat of God..... Let us each stop passing judgement, therefore, on one another and decide instead that none of us will place obstacles in any brother's way..."
I've only quoted parts of it, but he who has a bible should contemplate these two chapters carefully.
I'm not saying that we should not aim at discussing, or correcting one another. But we should not judge. We cannot go into a discussion having already judged. Proper humble discussion can break more boundaries. -
Care to elaborate?Originally posted by maven2:I do however, have a very different idea about the end of days, heaven and hell. :p -
This one I do not know where to start really. It's a broad and lengthy discussion. I will be in this forums long enough to slowly discuss this bit by bit as and when there is a need toOriginally posted by laoda99:Care to elaborate?
-
Then Christianity is nothing special, really.Originally posted by maven2:To me, being Christian has nothing to do with my Salvation. If I am not "saved" at the end of time, then it completely is my fault and my own doing. To be Christian, when I was baptised, was to promise to love and serve the world.
I can get the same thing in 'J' religion, and even better.
-
OkOriginally posted by maven2:This one I do not know where to start really. It's a broad and lengthy discussion. I will be in this forums long enough to slowly discuss this bit by bit as and when there is a need to
Take ur time -
I never said Christianity, as a religion, was "special". Christianity is not an exclusive club, but rather an all-inclusive one.Originally posted by Icemoon:Then Christianity is nothing special, really.
I can get the same thing in 'J' religion, and even better.
I don't see Christianity as an established "religious organisation". But rather Christianity as nicely stated in James 1:27
Pure unspoilt religion, in the Eyes of God our Father is this: coming to the help of orphans and widows in their hardships, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world .
Embracing Christianity, to me, is also accepting that:
1) Jesus Christ paid the price for the sins of the WHOLE world, for all the sins that have been committed and ever will.
2) As a result, all men are now free from the wages of sin should they choose to accept this gift of love.
3) There is an eternal everlasting life after the human facade has passed away.
Salvation doesn't even count for one of motives to be a Christian, as if God owed it to me because I believed.
I'm not out to get anything from my belief as a Christian. I don't need any of the "benefits" or "bonuses". Being a Christian is my spiritual and emotional response to a love that is freely given and the knowledge of God.