/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Casually implying we're the master race before this gets started

>>565860

Yes and no.

Scripture interprets Scripture

1 John 2:27King James Version (KJV)

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>>565860

Is the Bible the word of God? Yes or no?

If yes, does God's word need your subjective interpretation in order to come to the correct position? Or did God get it correct the first time?

Ask 100 people for their interpretations of different Bible verses and you will get 100 DIFFERENT interpretations. Which one is the correct one?

>>565877

You tried that and to this day neither Methodist nor Baptist can convince each other of their faith alone doctrines.

>>565891

yes, it's a great pity there's such a divide, but unfortunately the Methodist/Arminian schools borrow far too much from Roman Catholicism

No.

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter that way. 14 How narrow the gate and close the way that leads to life! And few there are who find it.

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

20* This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For not by will of man was prophecy brought at any time; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.

Even the devil cited the scriptures in order to tempt the Savior (Matthew 4:1-11).

We are to interpret scripture in light of tradition and the teachings of the apostles.

>>565893

What I am saying is that the "using clear verses to interpret unclear verses" method is a failure because neither side can agree which verses are clear and which aren't. Its becoming increasingly unlikely that any Protestant church is the pillar of truth.

>>565860

>Should we interpret scriptures on our own?

No, we shouldn't interpret scripture privately like the pope does. Instead we need to let scripture interpret scripture.

Yes, but always check various interpretations of church fathers for comparison.

No, but you should read the Holy Scriptures daily, become familiar with them, and judge every teacher by them.

>>565899

>but must do so with unerring faith in Christ, your best intentions, and the respect for the only unbroken traditional Church of Christ and God the Father - the Eastern Orthodox Church.

>Yes, but always check various interpretations of church fathers for comparison.

i.e. you don't interpret Scripture on your own

>>565898

>we shouldn't interpret scripture privately like the pope does

You have no idea how the Catholic Church operates, huh?

>>565904

>i.e. you don't interpret Scripture on your own

You absolutely do, God's truth is with all of us, but it does not mean you are given a mandate to believe whatever you like. It's a matter of degree, not black or white. Those who have limited the interpretation of scripture to a centralized authority, i.e. the Papist church, have ended in absolute degeneration, while those who gave their members churches considerable freedoms, i.e. the Eastern Orthodox Church, have kept the traditions alive.

>>565906

muh holy tradition = private interpretations of scripture by past church "fathers" and popes

>>565896

> What I am saying is that the "using clear verses to interpret unclear verses" method is a failure

well if you judge 'failure' by the result of people being divided over interpretation, then i can understand your point

but since the Scripture says that such judgement is in error, 'for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized', i'm not particularly concerned

>>565914

>private interpretations of scripture by past church "fathers" and popes

They are interpretations of Scripture handed down by people who were disciples of the Apostles. They have way more legitimacy than any interpretation that was invented since the reformation.

>>565923

You realize they could have corrupted what they said right? You can't corrupt the Bible and Pual said if you believe on Jesus you're saved.

>>565914

So you admit you don't know how the Church operates. Ok. you probably shouldn't criticize it then, friend.

>>565926

If I was wrong you would correct me instead of just going "nuh uh!"

>>565923

[citation needed]

>>565949

I'm pretty sure they do it more as big council meetings and just decide what it means even though they each have there own interpretation

>>565925

>Pual

Wew

>Inb4 accusations I'm not being constructive

You aren't being constructive, and you won't be constructive anytime soon, unless you radically change.

>>565889

>Which one is the correct one?

Did someone say Baptist?

>>566001

You got the same problem everyone else does. Which Baptist? They too have their arguments about interpretation. There's not only denominational differences there's differences within the denominations.

>>565949

I put in the same effort to answering your "objection" as you did before making it.

>>565959

It's a bit more complicated than "just deciding" what it means, but that's a better understanding than "catholucks blindly follow wat the pope says lol"

>>565908

>orthoprot theology

>>565860

You have to read it and understand it for yourself, and draw your own meaning, however, you can't rely entirely on your own interpretation either, or else you'll end up with heresy like Calvinism, modern LGBT-friendly churches, or worse (ie. JWs). You should always check and compare with the interpretations of the church fathers on the meaning of the scriptures.

>>566600

>or else you'll end up with heresy like Calvinism

This, simply letting the bible speak for itself and believing its clear teaching makes you a Calvinist.

>>566170

At this point you guys are honestly just lazy with your shitposting

>>566604

>orthoprot shitposting

>>566600

Maybe you could say calvinism but if you get LGBTQJIOPZW friendliness or JW from the KJV you literally can't read

>>566170

>>566610

u mad bro lmao

Yes.

>>566997

I thought you had the holy spirit to interpret it for you?

no one interprets scripture on their own.

Even Baptists have their "church fathers" and "tradition" to guide them with difficult passages, with how to interpret certain ideas, and on metaphysical suppositions, etc…

>should 2 - 3 thousand year old books written in different languages to ancient communities for a wide range of purposes be interpretted by some cardealership-looking rural hick who thinks Jesus had a buzz cut

hmmmm

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

~ Matthew 10:34-36

>>567041

chuckled

>>567041

Wow, anyone can be saved, anon.

Can I get a debunking of Calvinism?

I discovered that the Baptist church I go to subscribes to a Calvinist theology. The TULIP principles don't sit right with me, but could someone refute each point?