A hypotethical situation

[Guest shiloh357]

Interesting Smalcald, Since you stated "The person to me I don't trust is the person who says they don't have any doctrine that they are the only ones who are totally influenced by the holy spirit and thus are pure" then I take it that you would have had a hard time listening to the Apostles, for what you state is intolerable to you is exactly what the Apostles had to work with. All they had was the Holy Spirit and yet, they taught the same gospel no matter where they were.There is no evidence that James, for example, sought out Paul or even Peter before he sent his letter to the people he was writing to in order to get proper clearance for the content of his letter. And if you believe, as many do, that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews, then you might conclude that the writer of Hebrews subjected his letter to peer review before he sent it to the Hebrews he was writing to.

The problem is that the apostles don't fit your analogy. For one thing, they were all affected by their past faith. The New Testament is written out of Old Testament knowledge. It was not a brand new revelation of ideas and doctrines that never existed before. Every Christian doctrine has it beginnings in the Old Testament, and in the first 5 books of the Old Testament in particular.

The apostles were not writing the Scriptures by virtue of direct revelation, but by inspiration, and the Holy Spirit did not circumvent the doctrines and teachings they were already aware of. Furthermore, there is a lot of "behind the scenes" interaction between the apostles we are not aware of because Scripture does not tell us. It is not at all farfetched that these men might have sought counsel and even encouragement from one another. I am not going to conjecture that they did, but it would not be farfetched to think it possible.

Your scenario is an ideal, but it is not how the Holy Spirit works. No one relies 100% on the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of any other aspect of their life. All of us in one way or another are the product of books we have read, the preachers we have sat under, the bible studies we have attended, the company we keep, the kind of Christian music we listen to, and other influences of similar ilk. It has always been that way.

Furthermore, the Bible you have in your hands is a translation. It is a translation by men, whose theological bent is present in the translation be it, the NIV, RSV, KJV, NASB, or whatever. So, even if you teach straight from the Bible, you are still not going to be able to escape human influence with respect how you view or what you teach from the Bible.

Another point to consider in all of this is that each of have what is known as a paradigm. It is present with us everyday. For those who don't know, a paradigm is a frame of reference, or perspective. More to the point, a paradigm is the way you view the world around you. Each of has one. It is your paradigm that causes you to think that the way you see things, are the way things really are, and if someone else does not see it this way, they are simply not viewing the world realistically.

That affects to a large degree how we read the Bible. It is more prevalent that most people are generally aware. It is why, in part, two people can approach the same subject or passage of Scripture and walk away with two completely different conclusions. It is not because the facts are different; rather it is the perspectives they bring to the facts, that determines the conclusions they will draw. That affects how a person teaches the Bible. It is an inescapable part of being human. It is as inescapable as the need for food and water.

So, that opens up a whole new issue when it comes to those who hear the message you preach, and just exactly what they take away from that message. Depending on their paradigm, one person heard you say one thing, and someone else heard something different. Now they may both be right. The Lord simply ministered the message differently to each person.

Sometimes our "disagreements" can really be chalked up to the fact that the wisdom of God is many-sided. The same passagae that meets a need in your life, can be ministered to another person and meet a totally different need in their life. What is tragic is when both people think that the way God ministered that passage to each of them, is the only way the passage can be applied.

I don't think we will get to experience the ideal, until we either go to be with the Lord in death, or receive our glorified sinless bodies, whichever comes first.

[Smalcald]

I agree shilo, good post.

On the hypothetical, I think if they had reasonably good biblical translations you would end up with the essence of salvation preached. But these two men unless they were clones, would end up with differences in what their converts believed in many detail areas.

The fact is we cannot agree on many things on this board, and yet most of us here would say that we try to only look at scripture and the Holy Spirit for understanding. We cannot even agree on who is called to be ordained to lead a congregation.

Every Christian believer today follows a doctrine, some of these are closer to the truth and some are farther away yet we all want to follow a pure doctrine.

I believe the doctrines I follow concerning Holy Scripture are exactly correct I wouldn't follow them if I did not. But this whole idea of spiritual maturity or I guess immaturity being the reason for our divisions is total malarkey. The sin that is in me no doubt at some level causes me to miss the ultimate truth of scripture at some level and thus I am denied total unity. We don't agree because we are sinful human beings and this sin will cause division until the return of Christ.

What annoys me is this idea that after 2000 years someone now has come up with this pure doctrine, as if no believers had ever thought of that before or searched for it, and now gee if everyone would just believe like my little club we could be in unity! Instead we get another new little club.

[Guest]

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:1-2)

Sometimes our "disagreements" can really be chalked up to the fact that the wisdom of God is many-sided.

The same passagae that meets a need in your life, can be ministered to another person and meet a totally different need in their life.

What is tragic is when both people think that the way God ministered that passage to each of them, is the only way the passage can be applied.

I don't think we will get to experience the ideal, until we either go to be with the Lord in death, or receive our glorified sinless bodies, whichever comes first.

"This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope."

"It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not."

"They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness." (Lamentations 3:21-23)

[EricH]

Interesting Smalcald, Since you stated "The person to me I don't trust is the person who says they don't have any doctrine that they are the only ones who are totally influenced by the holy spirit and thus are pure" then I take it that you would have had a hard time listening to the Apostles, for what you state is intolerable to you is exactly what the Apostles had to work with. All they had was the Holy Spirit and yet, they taught the same gospel no matter where they were.There is no evidence that James, for example, sought out Paul or even Peter before he sent his letter to the people he was writing to in order to get proper clearance for the content of his letter. And if you believe, as many do, that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews, then you might conclude that the writer of Hebrews subjected his letter to peer review before he sent it to the Hebrews he was writing to.

The problem is that the apostles don't fit your analogy. For one thing, they were all affected by their past faith. The New Testament is written out of Old Testament knowledge. It was not a brand new revelation of ideas and doctrines that never existed before. Every Christian doctrine has it beginnings in the Old Testament, and in the first 5 books of the Old Testament in particular.

The apostles were not writing the Scriptures by virtue of direct revelation, but by inspiration, and the Holy Spirit did not circumvent the doctrines and teachings they were already aware of. Furthermore, there is a lot of "behind the scenes" interaction between the apostles we are not aware of because Scripture does not tell us. It is not at all farfetched that these men might have sought counsel and even encouragement from one another. I am not going to conjecture that they did, but it would not be farfetched to think it possible.

Your scenario is an ideal, but it is not how the Holy Spirit works. No one relies 100% on the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of any other aspect of their life. All of us in one way or another are the product of books we have read, the preachers we have sat under, the bible studies we have attended, the company we keep, the kind of Christian music we listen to, and other influences of similar ilk. It has always been that way.

Furthermore, the Bible you have in your hands is a translation. It is a translation by men, whose theological bent is present in the translation be it, the NIV, RSV, KJV, NASB, or whatever. So, even if you teach straight from the Bible, you are still not going to be able to escape human influence with respect how you view or what you teach from the Bible.

Another point to consider in all of this is that each of have what is known as a paradigm. It is present with us everyday. For those who don't know, a paradigm is a frame of reference, or perspective. More to the point, a paradigm is the way you view the world around you. Each of has one. It is your paradigm that causes you to think that the way you see things, are the way things really are, and if someone else does not see it this way, they are simply not viewing the world realistically.

That affects to a large degree how we read the Bible. It is more prevalent that most people are generally aware. It is why, in part, two people can approach the same subject or passage of Scripture and walk away with two completely different conclusions. It is not because the facts are different; rather it is the perspectives they bring to the facts, that determines the conclusions they will draw. That affects how a person teaches the Bible. It is an inescapable part of being human. It is as inescapable as the need for food and water.

So, that opens up a whole new issue when it comes to those who hear the message you preach, and just exactly what they take away from that message. Depending on their paradigm, one person heard you say one thing, and someone else heard something different. Now they may both be right. The Lord simply ministered the message differently to each person.

Sometimes our "disagreements" can really be chalked up to the fact that the wisdom of God is many-sided. The same passagae that meets a need in your life, can be ministered to another person and meet a totally different need in their life. What is tragic is when both people think that the way God ministered that passage to each of them, is the only way the passage can be applied.

I don't think we will get to experience the ideal, until we either go to be with the Lord in death, or receive our glorified sinless bodies, whichever comes first.

Excellent post

[exrockstar]

What would be the outcome of these two separate teaching styles, one from the left bank missionary and one from the right bank missionary on this tribe that is common to both banks of the river? Remember, both missionaries were guided solely by the Holy Spirit and had only the Word of God to teach from and both are totally lacking in any of the doctrines and traditions of any denomination. When the tribal people began to compare notes on what the two missionaries taught, would there be two distinct versions of the Word of God taught, the left bank version and the right bank version, or would both versions be identical?

they both would have different doctrines and own interpretations.

edited: i just read shilho's post. excellent

Edited March 22, 2007 by exrockstar

[RCruise]

Your scenario is an ideal, but it is not how the Holy Spirit works. No one relies 100% on the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of any other aspect of their life. All of us in one way or another are the product of books we have read, the preachers we have sat under, the bible studies we have attended, the company we keep, the kind of Christian music we listen to, and other influences of similar ilk. It has always been that way.

Furthermore, the Bible you have in your hands is a translation. It is a translation by men, whose theological bent is present in the translation be it, the NIV, RSV, KJV, NASB, or whatever. So, even if you teach straight from the Bible, you are still not going to be able to escape human influence with respect how you view or what you teach from the Bible.

Another point to consider in all of this is that each of have what is known as a paradigm. It is present with us everyday. For those who don't know, a paradigm is a frame of reference, or perspective. More to the point, a paradigm is the way you view the world around you. Each of has one. It is your paradigm that causes you to think that the way you see things, are the way things really are, and if someone else does not see it this way, they are simply not viewing the world realistically.

So Shilo,

You do not believe God kept His Word when He said He would preserve it pure throughout all ages? Or that The Holy Spirit will enlighten beyond our human reason, the One Truth in Unity with Him?

Just asking for clarification for it seems most of your post is "bent" from human reasoning and not from the Scriptural Inerrant Truth of God in Christ Jesus. Many have posted that you put forth an excellent post. I do not see that as true, so I ask.

[Guest shiloh357]

So Shilo,

You do not believe God kept His Word when He said He would preserve it pure throughout all ages? Or that The Holy Spirit will enlighten beyond our human reason, the One Truth in Unity with Him?

Just asking for clarification for it seems most of your post is "bent" from human reasoning and not from the Scriptural Inerrant Truth of God in Christ Jesus. Many have posted that you put forth an excellent post. I do not see that as true, so I ask.

I don't really see where you think I am denying in truth from the Scripture. My point is that we are human, and the human element cannot avoided nor cannot be factored out when it comes to how we read the Scriptures, or how teach the Scriptures. None of us, I would posit, have exactly the same set of life experiences. Not all of us are at the same place where spiritual maturity is concerned. Not all of us come from the same culture, and thus do not necessarily have the same worldview. Not all of us have the same skill sets. Recognizing our humanity and that it must be factored into the equation is not "human reasoning" it is just a matter of being honest about how things are.

As far as not being Scriptural, I would say that my position is very Scriptural. God did not use any of the apostles in a way that circumvented their culture or upbrining. Going back further, even Jesus used what I would oblique references to the Talmud in his teachings. He was a man of His time. Paul, himself claimed that he empathized with his audiences; he became all things to all people. He taylored his presentation of the Gospel of Jesus to meet the specific needs of the different people he spoke to. He even quoted pagan philosophers to get his point across.

Also, what I said about our paradigms is an irrefutable fact. We are humans, and that human element in our personalities and our perspectives which are shaped by our upbringing and evirons, is simply beyond rebuttal. God uses us in spite of our flaws.

I really don't see what the problem is. Perhaps you could clarify?

[RCruise]

I don't really see where you think I am denying in truth from the Scripture. My point is that we are human, and the human element cannot avoided nor cannot be factored out when it comes to how we read the Scriptures, or how teach the Scriptures. None of us, I would posit, have exactly the same set of life experiences. Not all of us are at the same place where spiritual maturity is concerned. Not all of us come from the same culture, and thus do not necessarily have the same worldview. Not all of us have the same skill sets. Recognizing our humanity and that it must be factored into the equation is not "human reasoning" it is just a matter of being honest about how things are.

As far as not being Scriptural, I would say that my position is very Scriptural. God did not use any of the apostles in a way that circumvented their culture or upbrining. Going back further, even Jesus used what I would oblique references to the Talmud in his teachings. He was a man of His time. Paul, himself claimed that he empathized with his audiences; he became all things to all people. He taylored his presentation of the Gospel of Jesus to meet the specific needs of the different people he spoke to. He even quoted pagan philosophers to get his point across.

Also, what I said about our paradigms is an irrefutable fact. We are humans, and that human element in our personalities and our perspectives which are shaped by our upbringing and evirons, is simply beyond rebuttal. God uses us in spite of our flaws.

I really don't see what the problem is. Perhaps you could clarify?

Ok,

Perhaps a more narrowed quote from your post that first caught my eye:

you said;

Furthermore, the Bible you have in your hands is a translation. It is a translation by men, whose theological bent is present in the translation be it, the NIV, RSV, KJV, NASB, or whatever.

You seem to be asserting that none of the translations in English we have today, are without flesh theological influence of the men who did the translation. Am I correct in this?

[Guest shiloh357]

Ok,

Perhaps a more narrowed quote from your post that first caught my eye:

you said;

QUOTE

Furthermore, the Bible you have in your hands is a translation. It is a translation by men, whose theological bent is present in the translation be it, the NIV, RSV, KJV, NASB, or whatever.

You seem to be asserting that none of the translations in English we have today, are without flesh theological influence of the men who did the translation. Am I correct in this?

The human element cannot be factored out of any of the translations we are in possession of. I am not going to get into a KJV only debate if that is where you are headed. Any attempt to bait me into debate about which translation is THE Word of God will simply be ignored, as it would end up hijacking the purpose of the thread. I suggest if your agenda is to get into a debate about translations, that you look elsewhere, as I know what I believe, and you will not change my mind.

[jamie]

Consider the following situation

Two missionaries, totally unfamiliar with each other, plan to preach and teach the Word of God along the banks of the Amazon river in Brazil. One takes the left bank and one takes the right bank but neither is aware of the missionary on the opposite bank.

These two brave souls have no denominational ties of any sort, hence they are completely free of all the doctrines and traditions of men. All they have is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. They are both totally dependant on the Holy Spirit to understand the Word of God since neither of them has a theological background. They are totally on their own and totally unaware of each other. Their only teacher is the Holy Spirit which teaches both equally throughout their long journey up the Amazon.

These two missionaries continue up the Amazon to the very headwaters of the mighty Amazon only to find that the headwaters of the Amazon is nothing but a small stream at this point. Both missionaries stay on their respective banks without ever crossing and thereby run the risk of meeting each other. Finally, they come to a tribe that freely hunts and lives on both banks of the Amazon headwaters. The left bank missionary as well as the right bank missonary continue to teach the Word of God to the members of this tribe, each thinking that they are the only missionary teaching the members of this tribe.

What would be the outcome of these two separate teaching styles, one from the left bank missionary and one from the right bank missionary on this tribe that is common to both banks of the river? Remember, both missionaries were guided solely by the Holy Spirit and had only the Word of God to teach from and both are totally lacking in any of the doctrines and traditions of any denomination. When the tribal people began to compare notes on what the two missionaries taught, would there be two distinct versions of the Word of God taught, the left bank version and the right bank version, or would both versions be identical?

We all see through a glass darkly, not to mention we process information differently. I guess the question is; to what degree did those two different versions contradict each other??