Evolution of the Church

[discernomatic]

Do you think that "The Church" is supposed to evolve or do you think that the idea is unbiblical? Back up your opinion with Scripture verses if possible.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Church is the body of Jesus. A body grows, evolves even, I suppose.

Church rarely reflects the things that Jesus and even Paul promoted - priesthood of ALL, we are all equal parts of one body... or,more precisely,such things are outworked SPIRITUALLY, rather than physically! So,for example, all are spiritually equal but a leader is physically greater due to admin and public responsibilities!

If Church is evolving,then it we have evolved away from what Jesus established - people who church it with the World and love every last person and God - and need to put this mutant-Church we have become to death in order to rediscover what Jesus wanted; to make and be disciples of all nations!

My verse to live by at the moment is this one::: MATT 19:21::: Te parable of the Rich Man..........

Replace Man,for Church and you see that Jesus has called the RichChurch to lay down everything and follow him. This is hard for RichChruch to do because we believe that we have kept the commandments all our lives and also that our buildings,meetings and leaders make us Church! But Jesus asks the RichChurch to lay it all down anyway!

Flan out.

[New_Wineskin]

Do you think that "The Church" is supposed to evolve or do you think that the idea is unbiblical? Back up your opinion with Scripture verses if possible.

I really don't care if something is unbiblical or not . It is bad enough when people look to see if something is biblical or that it is against Scripture . To go into unbiblical is , in itself , against the Scriptures .

One cannot have passages of Scripture on something being unbiblical . If it isn't in the Scriptures , that means there *are no* passages .

I don't see anything in the Scriptures about evolution . I only want to do what the Lord desires of me . Whatever the rest of the Church does is between them and the Lord . If it is "supposed" to do something , it will .

[lismore]

Do you think that "The Church" is supposed to evolve or do you think that the idea is unbiblical? Back up your opinion with Scripture verses if possible.

When your PC becomes unstable you shut down and restart and boot again from the floppy reloading the original profile again.

When our churches go wonky we should reboot the origianl church from the word.

:)

[Count]

I really don't care if something is unbiblical or not . It is bad enough when people look to see if something is biblical or that it is against Scripture . To go into unbiblical is , in itself , against the Scriptures .


It is really shocking, isn't it?

Ok, the church is an organism full of life. She just lives by the Life Himself, who is no one but Jesus Christ. The church lives in a spontanous way. The church doesn't search the bible to see if she is living according to it. The church searches/reads the bible, but only to get food out of it, which by the way her food is Jesus Christ, not to check herself. The church lives by Jesus Christ and it is Jesus Christ who checks her, or rebukes her, or praises her. Christ can do this either by the bible, or by other means, but not in an artificial way.

Anyway, is it biblical for a church to evolve? I think that it depends what you mean with the word evolve. If you mean that this evolution is neccessary to atract people in the church, I am totally against it. This is what organizations do, not the church. If any evolution comes as a result of a relationship of the church with her Lover, the Lord, that's ok, it comes as a result of the Life that dwells within her.

[discernomatic]

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do you think that the church matures as a whole over time to reach a particular goal at a certain point in time, thus a type of evolution with a purpose? If it were doing this when would that point in time be and what would it entail?

Or do you think that the church is not to be vertical in maturity but horizontal, simply being the Body of Christ in every generation without a progressive maturity?

If possible explain using Scripture and/or reason.

[New_Wineskin]

It is really shocking, isn't it?

Ok, the church is an organism full of life. She just lives by the Life Himself, who is no one but Jesus Christ. The church lives in a spontanous way. The church doesn't search the bible to see if she is living according to it. The church searches/reads the bible, but only to get food out of it, which by the way her food is Jesus Christ, not to check herself. The church lives by Jesus Christ and it is Jesus Christ who checks her, or rebukes her, or praises her. Christ can do this either by the bible, or by other means, but not in an artificial way.


Interesting post . Good one . :)



Anyway, is it biblical for a church to evolve? I think that it depends what you mean with the word evolve. If you mean that this evolution is neccessary to atract people in the church, I am totally against it. This is what organizations do, not the church. If any evolution comes as a result of a relationship of the church with her Lover, the Lord, that's ok, it comes as a result of the Life that dwells within her.

Good points .

[New_Wineskin]

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do you think that the church matures as a whole over time to reach a particular goal at a certain point in time, thus a type of evolution with a purpose? If it were doing this when would that point in time be and what would it entail?


Or do you think that the church is not to be vertical in maturity but horizontal, simply being the Body of Christ in every generation without a progressive maturity?

If possible explain using Scripture and/or reason.





Hey !! :)

I appologize for the bluntness of my previous post . I have a hair trigger on certain phrases . I am working on that .

You have posed some interesting questions .

I wi8ll wait for others' answers but , as for now , I don't see any growth or maturity such as that . It seems that the Lord does something and then people like to quantify it ; put it in a box ; wrap it in fancy paper ; put a bow on top ; and , say , "isn't that perfect" ? In essence , they kill it with only a remnant of what was first shown remaining . He does something else and the same thing is done .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Like I said b4, the church has evolved beyond anything God would call home.
It's time for devolution methinx.

[discernomatic]

Hey !! :)

I appologize for the bluntness of my previous post . I have a hair trigger on certain phrases . I am working on that .

You have posed some interesting questions .

I wi8ll wait for others' answers but , as for now , I don't see any growth or maturity such as that . It seems that the Lord does something and then people like to quantify it ; put it in a box ; wrap it in fancy paper ; put a bow on top ; and , say , "isn't that perfect" ? In essence , they kill it with only a remnant of what was first shown remaining . He does something else and the same thing is done .

Sorry about the "biblical" thing. I know that it triggers people that have been beaten over the head by it. :sorry:

I just wanted to see what others think about the matter. I will post my opinion on it later, too.

[New_Wineskin]

Sorry about the "biblical" thing. I know that it triggers people that have been beaten over the head by it. :sorry:


What can you do , huh ? It is told to people over and over again how important the Scriptures are to be obeyed , they don't look into to the idea to see that the idea isn't supported .


I just wanted to see what others think about the matter. I will post my opinion on it later, too.

I did put my other thoughts in there . :)

[watchman7]

No evolution necessary.
It's a Biblical thing.


From Gill's Exposition.

"He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified"; that is, who are sanctified by God the Father, or, who are set apart by him in eternal election, from the rest of the world, for his own use, service, and glory, to a state of grace and holiness here, and happiness hereafter; for this is not to be understood either of their being sanctified in Christ, though the Syriac version reads, "that are sanctified" in him, or by his Spirit, though both are true of the same persons; these, Christ, by his sacrifice, has perfected, and has perfectly fulfilled the law for them; he has perfectly expiated their sins; he has obtained the full pardon of all their sins, and complete redemption; he has perfectly justified them from all things, and that for ever; which shows the continued virtue of Christ's sacrifice, in all generations, to all the elect of God, and the fulness and duration of their salvation; and so Christ by his one sacrifice did what the law, and all its sacrifices, could not do.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Truth is truth.

Elements of many writings fom many faiths, psychologies, philosophies etc are *Biblical*.
Sometimes the least Biblical things in this world are *proof-texts* from the Bible!

[New_Wineskin]

Truth is truth.

Elements of many writings fom many faiths, psychologies, philosophies etc are *Biblical*.
Sometimes the least Biblical things in this world are *proof-texts* from the Bible!

Agreed . Practically anything can be considered as "biblical" . The term "bible" actually has no biblical basis as the Scriptures are not looked at in the Scriptures as a singular entity .

[StormyOne]

What can you do , huh ? It is told to people over and over again how important the Scriptures are to be obeyed , they don't look into to the idea to see that the idea isn't supported .



I did put my other thoughts in there . :)

Interesting thought Wineskin... can you unpack that for me... I was asking somewhere just today who said that scriptures were the "final" authority in the christian's life.....

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

lol. God is the final authority in my life.Then my wife, due to the uniqueness of marrage! Then those whom I allow that priveledge.

[StormyOne]

lol. God is the final authority in my life.Then my wife, due to the uniqueness of marrage! Then those whom I allow that priveledge.I am inclined to agree given that there are things in the bible that clearly cannot be extrapolated to the here and now IMO....

[New_Wineskin]

Interesting thought Wineskin... can you unpack that for me... I was asking somewhere just today who said that scriptures were the "final" authority in the christian's life.....

Sure .

I must work now but will respond later . :)

[New_Wineskin]

Interesting thought Wineskin... can you unpack that for me... I was asking somewhere just today who said that scriptures were the "final" authority in the christian's life.....

Ok . Here it is ...

Scriptural Authority - the Scriptures are the final authroity ...
Most of us hear this and similar doctrines even before we are reborn . An associated doctrine is that a doctrine must be supported by the Scriptures . Ok ... even though many , many people *say* this , they *refuse* to do so with the that very doctrine as well as the authority doctrine .

*I* decided to do that very thing .

Now , one would think that , with a doctrine stated hundreds of thousands of times a day , it would be easy to find information on the Scriptures that support those doctrines . There should be thousands of websites . Well , there are many websites that *state* and *attempt* to prove those doctrines but there are very few passages from the Scriptures ( if any ) used in their lectures . I have found that there is *very little* Scriptural support and the "support" is quite sad and disappointing . I was quite shocked .

Look up the "debates" on Sola Scriptura ... the debator for SS spends most of the time trying to prove the passages used to support the doctrine . Why is that ? There is another doctrine - the Scriptures interpret themselves . If this is so , then there should be clear passages that declare Scriptural authority .

I will now explain what really opened my eyes to the false doctrine of "Scriptural suthority" . I was reading some of Paul's writings and it became clear that Paul's discussions on the Law were actually discussions on Scriptural authority . When Paul refers to the Scriptures , he is referring to the texts that people refer to as "the Old Testament" . The Law contains the commands of the OT . So , how could this not be about Scriptural authority ? Now , to those that would say that the so-called "New Testament" ( referring to the newer writings of the Scriptures ) is the new code of laws for Christians . But , Paul states that if *any* set of written laws on paper or stone or whatnot could bring about righteousness , the Law *would* be that set of laws . Paul negates the idea that the newer writings ( including his own ) are a replacement . In the OT and much of the NT , the New Covenant is about the Lord writing on the hearts of His people . The letter called "Hebrews" refers to this concept a bit .

Paul writes that living by the Law is contrary to living by faith in the Lord . It is interesting that Luther , who seems to be all about faith , was pushing the idea of going back under law - Scriptural authority .

I think that there are around 6 doctrines about the Scriptures . If one actually followed them and looked at the passages that supposedly "support" the doctrines , *every one* of those doctrines would be found to contradict themselves or one another .

[SteelDisciple]

Ok . Here it is ...

Scriptural Authority - the Scriptures are the final authroity ...
Most of us hear this and similar doctrines even before we are reborn . An associated doctrine is that a doctrine must be supported by the Scriptures . Ok ... even though many , many people *say* this , they *refuse* to do so with the that very doctrine as well as the authority doctrine .

*I* decided to do that very thing .

Now , one would think that , with a doctrine stated hundreds of thousands of times a day , it would be easy to find information on the Scriptures that support those doctrines . There should be thousands of websites . Well , there are many websites that *state* and *attempt* to prove those doctrines but there are very few passages from the Scriptures ( if any ) used in their lectures . I have found that there is *very little* Scriptural support and the "support" is quite sad and disappointing . I was quite shocked .

Look up the "debates" on Sola Scriptura ... the debator for SS spends most of the time trying to prove the passages used to support the doctrine . Why is that ? There is another doctrine - the Scriptures interpret themselves . If this is so , then there should be clear passages that declare Scriptural authority .

I will now explain what really opened my eyes to the false doctrine of "Scriptural suthority" . I was reading some of Paul's writings and it became clear that Paul's discussions on the Law were actually discussions on Scriptural authority . When Paul refers to the Scriptures , he is referring to the texts that people refer to as "the Old Testament" . The Law contains the commands of the OT . So , how could this not be about Scriptural authority ? Now , to those that would say that the so-called "New Testament" ( referring to the newer writings of the Scriptures ) is the new code of laws for Christians . But , Paul states that if *any* set of written laws on paper or stone or whatnot could bring about righteousness , the Law *would* be that set of laws . Paul negates the idea that the newer writings ( including his own ) are a replacement . In the OT and much of the NT , the New Covenant is about the Lord writing on the hearts of His people . The letter called "Hebrews" refers to this concept a bit .

Paul writes that living by the Law is contrary to living by faith in the Lord . It is interesting that Luther , who seems to be all about faith , was pushing the idea of going back under law - Scriptural authority .

I think that there are around 6 doctrines about the Scriptures . If one actually followed them and looked at the passages that supposedly "support" the doctrines , *every one* of those doctrines would be found to contradict themselves or one another .


I find it interesting you don't believe in the Bible as a final authority of God's word...and yet..the Holy Spirit has spoken SAYING the bible is God's Word in writing. :) Hmm..I wonder who's belief I will choose to agree with =P

[watchman7]

Evolution has an inference of time.

The Church is eternal.



(Sub Discussion about the Bible)

The Bible does not contradict itself.
If it appears contradictory to us, then you or I lack understanding.
Only the Holy Spirit can give revelation of the Word He inspired to be written.
Our Christian faith comes from the hearing or the reading of the Word.
If the Bible was contradictory or not completely truth then your and my faith would be in vain.

Volumes of human reasoning cannot change the fact that the Bible is truth.

I appeal to professing Christians, who are not sure if the Bible is God's word, to read it and pray for faith to believe, for renewing of your mind and for understanding.

Beware of those who profess to be wise and say they know a christ outside of the Bible.
There is a spirit of anti-christ.
Those who continually reject the authority of God's Word, harden their own heart and set themselves above God.

I don't expect the words I write here to change anyone's mind or convince anyone to especially agree. That's the reason I appeal to you to read the Bible for yourself and to pray as read.
Believe on the Christ of the Bible who died for us, redeemed us and gives us hope in life eternal.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."
This is beautiful to my eyes and to my ears and to my heart.
This is hope.
This is life.
This is the Bible.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I find it interesting you don't believe in the Bible as a final authority of God's word...and yet..the Holy Spirit has spoken SAYING the bible is God's Word in writing. :) Hmm..I wonder who's belief I will choose to agree with =P

Holy Spirit said no such thing!

God says Gods words are in the Bible, but Jesus is the Word of God!
The Bible includes so my writing styles, each must be handled in ways appropriate to type and intention.

The 10 commandments were written by God, the rest by us! God is not so concerned with our human inclinations or errors, the point is that we develop in or relationship with God to rely on God while we take responsibility for ourselves! This is why Jeus buggered off and left us and Holy Spirit to church it our with the world. God promotes no particular viewpoint, God is interested in Truth, and the way this Truth is outworked and understood by us in relative, while Truth itself is not.

Paul says scripture is usefull for learning, but he does not say essential. There is something to be grasped here methinx.

[watchman7]

The Bible is to be understood as a unity of the revelation of Christ.
The Bible is the revelation of Christ.
No scripture of the Bible is to be taken out of its context.
This is where we get confused sometimes.
Interpretation of the Bible comes from the Bible by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
Life not law.
The Bible teaches that Christ is the only way, the only truth, and the only life.

[New_Wineskin]

(Sub Discussion about the Bible)

The Bible does not contradict itself.


The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as a singular entity . The "bible" is a manmade term for the Scriptures as a whole . None in the Scriptures refer to them in the singular . The closest that one can get is a *possible* inference of the torah when all they had *was* the torah .


If it appears contradictory to us, then you or I lack understanding.


How do you know that ? Why should we believe you when that is an obvious handed-down doctrine ?


Only the Holy Spirit can give revelation of the Word He inspired to be written.


I agree that the Holy Spirit alone can provide true revelation of the Scriptures . However , "the Word" is not a term that is used for the Scriptures as a whole . Perhaps for the Torah . "The word" is used for many things in the Scriptures . So , without context , one can misuderstand which "the word" is being discussed .


Our Christian faith comes from the hearing or the reading of the Word.


You see ... the passage that you are referring to is not discussing the Scriptures in any way . But , because of the handed-down term "the word" in reference to the Scriptures , people read things into that passage .


If the Bible was contradictory or not completely truth then your and my faith would be in vain.


Faith has never been about the Scriptures . People have had faith *long* before a single mark of the Scriptures was penned . My faith is in the Lord - not in paper formed from a tree and adorned with ink . Jeremiah warns about such worship .


Volumes of human reasoning cannot change the fact that the Bible is truth.

I appeal to professing Christians, who are not sure if the Bible is God's word, to read it and pray for faith to believe, for renewing of your mind and for understanding.

Beware of those who profess to be wise and say they know a christ outside of the Bible.
There is a spirit of anti-christ.


The Lord defines the Scriptures - not the other way around . That is the spirit of the pharasee - observers and prisoners of the Law .



Those who continually reject the authority of God's Word, harden their own heart and set themselves above God.


Can you back up that statement ? The Scriptures don't say anything about that concept . Indeed , Paul wrote much to rid people of that concept .



I don't expect the words I write here to change anyone's mind or convince anyone to especially agree. That's the reason I appeal to you to read the Bible for yourself and to pray as read.

Believe on the Christ of the Bible who died for us, redeemed us and gives us hope in life eternal.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."
This is beautiful to my eyes and to my ears and to my heart.
This is hope.
This is life.
This is the Bible.

Jesus is the life - the Scriptures say so . They don't say that they are the life .

[New_Wineskin]

If the Scriptures were authoritative , they would say such over and over again . At best , *some* of the Scriptures say that they are authoritative to the descendants of the Israelites who came out of Egypt . I am a Gentile . None of the Scriptures are addressed to me .

One other thing . To the hypocrites who say that the Scriptures are authoritative ( I am about to prove that statement ) ...

The Scriptures command to put to death those that do not keep the Sabbath ( as defined by the Scriptures as keeping them ) . *Nobody* who *claims* that the Scriptures are authoritative are obeying this command . *If* they were telling the truth in their asssertion , they would obey that command . But , they don't . If they excuse themselves from obeying *any* cammand , telling others that the Scriptures are authoritative is a blatant lie because they show that they don't consider them to be authoritative for themselves . Allowing one's self to outright *refuse* to obey a single command gives *everyone* the right to ignore *all* of the commands . If a single command is not authoritative , then the idea that the Scriptures are authoritative is false . All or none .

[New_Wineskin]

The doctrine of "Scriptural Authority" is very closely linked to the doctrine of "Scripture only" ( SS ) . Yet , the passages used to back these up are few and do not come close to dealing with either concept . We come to the doctrine of "the Scriptures interpret themselves" . This doctrine along with SS are extremely self-contradictory as the passages used do not state what people say they state .

Another doctrine is "study to show yourself approved" . The interpretation of *that* passage into *that* doctrine is shocking . If one actually followed up on that doctrine , they would find that the passage says absolutely *nothing* with respect to the Scriptures *or* studying as we consider studying in the doctrine .

There is the "two or three witness rule" in accepting a doctrine as a doctrine . I have heard few people bring this up but it is sefl-contraditory as two clear passages cannot be found to support it . I do like the reason for it . There are so many doctrines made up of one phrase of one sentence in the Scriptures . This doctrine was to deny Scriptural support for these rather crazy doctrines . It is unfortunate that *this* doctrine is self-contradictory but it is .

So ,

Scripture Only
Scriptural Authority
Scriptural Sufficiency ( I didn't get into this one specifically )
Scriptural self-interpreting
Study of the Scriptures for approval
Three Witness Rule ( of the Scriptures ) for Doctrine Acceptance

Where are the clear Scriptural supports for any of these ?
There is then the use of the term "the word" for the Scriptures and then incorrectly applying this term when reading the Scriptures . The circular argument for this is unacceptable . It started by people calling the Scriptures "the word" . Then , whenever they see this term , they suppstitute the idea of "the Scriptures" . From this , they verify that the term *means* the Scriptures . However , the Scriptures do not say that the term means the Scriptures . Indeed , the term is used for several things . This alone should be a flag . You can't have *the* word mean several things at the same time . If so , it wouldn't have *the* - it would have "a" . Context of the passage would indicate which "word" is being referenced . It *sometimes* references *a* Scriptural passage . It *never* describes the Scriptures as a whole ( with perhaps the torah *only* being the exception ) . In the writings refered to as the "New Testament" , "the word" is *almost exclusively* used in reference to the gospel - not a *writing* that people *call* a "gospel" - but , the actual gospel . This can be shown by looking at Acts and looking at other epistles in context .

I still consider that this should be another thread . ;)

[StormyOne]

Thanks Wineskin... I am following you with interest... please start a new thread dealing with this..... I do have some questions....

[discernomatic]

I find it interesting you don't believe in the Bible as a final authority of God's word...and yet..the Holy Spirit has spoken SAYING the bible is God's Word in writing. :) Hmm..I wonder who's belief I will choose to agree with =P
Where did the Holy Spirit use the word "bible"? :confused:

Does "bible" equal "Scripture" or is that a man-made doctrine?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Evolution has an inference of time.

The Church is eternal.



Well, church=people. and we are ephemeral. evolution is more eternal than people!
evolution implies life and change, as does the gospel and therefore the very nature of church.

i don't see what you were getting at here.

please explain.

[watchman7]

To those who believe that the Bible is not authoratative and is not the Word of God - where did you hear about Jesus?

Don't tell me it was the Holy Spirit. He inspired those who penned the books of the Bible and you say the Bible is not authoratative.

I don't know of any other literature that speaks of Jesus as the Son of God.
The Bible is all we have in the Christian world. You are talking about Christianity aren't you?

You tell me to show you where the Bible backs up what I say.

Why should I tell you this if you do not believe the Bible is authoratative.

What is left when you do not believe the Bible - Your own opinion, your own imagination.

Without the Bible as our Christian written standard, where do you stand?

The Bible is truth. Your opinion is relative and you are left with nothing to back up what you say.

[New_Wineskin]

A lot of opinion but no passages from someone *claiming* to consider that the "bible" is truth .


You tell me to show you where the Bible backs up what I say.

Why should I tell you this if you do not believe the Bible is authoratative.


That shows a complete lack of understanding of logic . You are saying that you would only prove what you say about the Scriptures if someone already agreed with you . I don't think that you are telling the truth . Most people who think the way that you claim that you do quote Scriptures to unbelievers . According to your above statements , you are saying that you never would talk to unbelievers about the Scriptures because they don't consider them to be authoritative .


The Bible is truth. Your opinion is relative and you are left with nothing to back up what you say.

Your opinion is worthless since you cannot prove your opinions with the very thing that you *say* is needed to back up one's opinions .

Your lack of proof proves to me more than anything that I have hit the nail on the head . People are tree worshippers . People want to obey the Law for obtaining righteousness instead of having a relationship with the Lord .

People will believe their doctrines even when they search high and low for proof and find none . They can't admit that they were gullible when newborn Christians and autimatically believed things without searching the Scriptures to verify them even though they were told over and over to do such . They can't leave their crutch . They want to be able to tell the Lord what to He has to do instead of listening to Him for what to do .

Whenever a bible thumper hears someone say something they want "chapter and verse" . But , they have no "chapter and verse" for needing chapter and verse . The word this defines is hypocrite - just as the pharasees in the Lord's day .

Someone who really wants people to know that the Scriptures are authoritative would go out of their way to show it . Wouldn't they have such proof available in case they saw an opportunity to evangelize ? It is a simple thing - it should be the basic thing for biblethumpers . It should be on the tip of their tongue - the first passages that they memorized .

It is a shock whenever anything that one based their life on doesn't even have the basis that it needed .

Jesus is Lord . Jesus is authoritative . Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice - not read someone's words about Him . From His voice one hears the words of God - faith comes by hearing - not reading .

And , once again , if the bible thumpers were slightly honest , they would obey the Scriptures and put to death those who break the Sabbath . If the "bible" is authoritative and they believe it as they say , they would obey that command . It is a very simple command . But , they spit on the Scriptures by saying that everyone but they should obey it .

[Count]

A lot of opinion but no passages from someone *claiming* to consider that the "bible" is truth .



That shows a complete lack of understanding of logic . You are saying that you would only prove what you say about the Scriptures if someone already agreed with you . I don't think that you are telling the truth . Most people who think the way that you claim that you do quote Scriptures to unbelievers . According to your above statements , you are saying that you never would talk to unbelievers about the Scriptures because they don't consider them to be authoritative .



Your opinion is worthless since you cannot prove your opinions with the very thing that you *say* is needed to back up one's opinions .

Your lack of proof proves to me more than anything that I have hit the nail on the head . People are tree worshippers . People want to obey the Law for obtaining righteousness instead of having a relationship with the Lord .

People will believe their doctrines even when they search high and low for proof and find none . They can't admit that they were gullible when newborn Christians and autimatically believed things without searching the Scriptures to verify them even though they were told over and over to do such . They can't leave their crutch . They want to be able to tell the Lord what to He has to do instead of listening to Him for what to do .

Whenever a bible thumper hears someone say something they want "chapter and verse" . But , they have no "chapter and verse" for needing chapter and verse . The word this defines is hypocrite - just as the pharasees in the Lord's day .

Someone who really wants people to know that the Scriptures are authoritative would go out of their way to show it . Wouldn't they have such proof available in case they saw an opportunity to evangelize ? It is a simple thing - it should be the basic thing for biblethumpers . It should be on the tip of their tongue - the first passages that they memorized .

It is a shock whenever anything that one based their life on doesn't even have the basis that it needed .

Jesus is Lord . Jesus is authoritative . Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice - not read someone's words about Him . From His voice one hears the words of God - faith comes by hearing - not reading .

And , once again , if the bible thumpers were slightly honest , they would obey the Scriptures and put to death those who break the Sabbath . If the "bible" is authoritative and they believe it as they say , they would obey that command . It is a very simple command . But , they spit on the Scriptures by saying that everyone but they should obey it .

New Wineskin, I have always loved your posts! They may seem shocking sometimes, but Jesus' words were all the time shocking to the pharisees.

[New_Wineskin]

New Wineskin, I have always loved your posts! They may seem shocking sometimes, but Jesus' words were all the time shocking to the pharisees.

Thanks ! :)

My desire is that people understand that they can learn from the Lord . Paul spent a lot of time going after the idea of Scriptural authority in explaining that righteousness does not come from observing the Law . This was to conteract something ingrained in the Jews of the time since birth and for many generations . Yet , it doesn't appear that Paul's words were ever accepted as a whole - especially for those claiming that his writings were Scriptures and authroitative . It would be quite humorous if it weren't sad .

It is interesting that people try to accuse me of saying that the Scriptures are not god-breathed . There is a difference between inspired by the Spirit and authoritative .

[discernomatic]

I agree with you New Wineskin and Count.

Watchman7,

How do you know that the entire bible you hold in your hands can be equated with Scripture? Jesus accepted the OT as it was and said that He is the fulfillment of it. But he never affirmed the validity of future writings. The gospels connect with OT prophecy in many places, they are a witness, and I think that the places in Paul's letters that contain interpretation of passages of the OT to be correct. Even Revelations has passages that link to OT prophecy. But to say that every word of the NT is infallible and untampered with, and that the bible as it stands today is something that Jesus approves of can only be an opinion and not proven even with Scripture.

Even if it were possible to concede to the idea that the bible=Scripture 100%, then how does one take into account all of the recent translations of the bible? I find the Message too vague to serve as a guide to the Life of Christ and the Psalms in it have lost their flavor. The King James has been proven to have error, so which "Word of God" is the best one? Which are a witness to Christ and which not? With so many different interpretations to choose from in the English language alone, it seems naive to think that they all could be correct or that even one of them is completely reliable.

[New_Wineskin]

Good post , discernomatic !! :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Also, if the Bible were perfect... how does that make humans appear in it?

What, we are Gods secretaries, merely dictating Gods wish-list?

Jeez, how about God is wrapped up in humanity and the idea is to blur the lines of where God ends and we start (metaphorically)... the Bible does this so well that some people claim the whole book is human trash and others claim that it is God-perfect!!!

Balance, please. The Bible is proved correct by HolySpirit, conscience, comunity and commonsense, not vice-versa. Otherwise all we have is Law without Grace or relationship, love or interdependence.

[New_Wineskin]

Also, if the Bible were perfect... how does that make humans appear in it?

What, we are Gods secretaries, merely dictating Gods wish-list?

Jeez, how about God is wrapped up in humanity and the idea is to blur the lines of where God ends and we start (metaphorically)... the Bible does this so well that some people claim the whole book is human trash and others claim that it is God-perfect!!!

Balance, please. The Bible is proved correct by HolySpirit, conscience, comunity and commonsense, not vice-versa. Otherwise all we have is Law without Grace or relationship, love or interdependence.

Good points .

I still consider that the usual view of the Scriptures has been detrimental to so many . It is the same view as the pharasees . I see no difference . What makes this so surprising is that in the writings that are referred to as "gospels" , this attitude of the Scriptures by the religious leaders is a main problem for the Lord and which leads to His death . It wasn't because of pagans or secular people but those that considered the Scriptures to be authoritative and themselves as those that were attempting to observe it . Paul was doing the same thing and , because of these ideas , calls himself the chief of sinners .

Paul writes over and over concerning how detrimental this concept is and wrote extensively concerning it . He wrote about faith in the Lord and how Abraham ( the whom whom the Lord gave the promises of which we are the beneficiaries ) was credited with righteousness before the Scriptures were written . These writings are called "Scriptures" by these modern-day pharasees yet ignore what he wrote . They attempt to water down what he wrote by claiming that there was a seperation between "covenants" and that the newer writings now replace the older ones . Yet , Paul and the author of the writing called "Hebrews" denies that the newer writings are to be looked at as authoritative . The New Covenant isn't about writings on paper or stone but on the hearts of His people . It is about relationship .