De Maria said...
Hi Dan,
Godismyjudge said...
Hi De Maria,
I didn't figure you thought salvation was a licence to sin. My point was to show how other passages can act like guardrails in guiding interpretation of scripture.
And that is where you miss the forest for the trees.
YOU are showing other passages which shed light on the topic. Scripture didn't say, "Oh, that fella didn't understand me, tell him to go here or there."
I thought that's what you were asking about but apparently not.
No. I refer you again to Socrates.
Socrates Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing.....
I was supprized to hear you think scripture can't correct us
It can't. A teacher can correct us by using Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). But Scripture itself is not a living, breathing person who can respond to our questions.
but given you already said scripture isn't needed to decern beteen good and evil that is the second time you have contradicted
And in so saying you prove my point. If I contradicted Scripture, which I doubt, Scripture didn't flag me and say, "HEY! You're wrong!" You have.
Hebrews 5 & 6
Do you really want me to hunt for what it is you think I contradicted? Could you be a bit more specific?
as well as many other passages (most directly 2 Timothy 3:16).
On the contrary, the entire epistle of 2 Tim is about teaching. Let me give you a brief summary:
Chapter 1: 13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Chapter 2: 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Chapter 4: 2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
Now lets look at 2 Tim 3:
10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
I have taught you and you have learned.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
The next verse needs a bit of introduction in order to be understood correctly:
Now, think about this carefully. Does a child have to know how to read in order to know the Scriptures? In my house, my children and I meditated on the Scriptures since before they knew how to read. So I know that the answer is, "No."
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
Godismyjudge said...
Hi De Maria,
I didn't figure you thought salvation was a licence to sin. My point was to show how other passages can act like guardrails in guiding interpretation of scripture.
And that is where you miss the forest for the trees.
YOU are showing other passages which shed light on the topic. Scripture didn't say, "Oh, that fella didn't understand me, tell him to go here or there."
I thought that's what you were asking about but apparently not.
No. I refer you again to Socrates.
Socrates Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing.....
I was supprized to hear you think scripture can't correct us
It can't. A teacher can correct us by using Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). But Scripture itself is not a living, breathing person who can respond to our questions.
but given you already said scripture isn't needed to decern beteen good and evil that is the second time you have contradicted
And in so saying you prove my point. If I contradicted Scripture, which I doubt, Scripture didn't flag me and say, "HEY! You're wrong!" You have.
Hebrews 5 & 6
Do you really want me to hunt for what it is you think I contradicted? Could you be a bit more specific?
as well as many other passages (most directly 2 Timothy 3:16).
On the contrary, the entire epistle of 2 Tim is about teaching. Let me give you a brief summary:
Chapter 1: 13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Chapter 2: 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Chapter 4: 2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
Now lets look at 2 Tim 3:
10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
I have taught you and you have learned.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
The next verse needs a bit of introduction in order to be understood correctly:
Now, think about this carefully. Does a child have to know how to read in order to know the Scriptures? In my house, my children and I meditated on the Scriptures since before they knew how to read. So I know that the answer is, "No."
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
And if we read 2 Tim 3:16 with discernment, we see that St. Paul is TEACHING St. Timothy that the Bible is useful for the TEACHER to reprove, correct, instruct in doctrine.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Bible is profitable, not necessary, for a Preacher to use "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So that the Preacher may bring up the man of God and make him perfect for all good works.
Sure Hebrews 5 mentions teaching, but first off the question was if scripture is needed to decern between good and evil. The passage says through constant use of the word of righteousness we learn to dicern between good and evil. Second, the advanced teaching about Christ referenced in chapter 5 is provided in chapters 7 to 10. The teaching is in the scriptures, but you act as if it must be provided by the church.
By the Church or by Mom and Dad.
We are not born with a Biblical index in our psyche. But God did place His Law in our hearts. So, Scripture is not necessary, although it is useful, for understanding doctrine and sin.
This is why I said you are not really interpreting scripture. You just press scripture in the service of your church because your church tells you to.
You are doing the same, but you deny it. 2 Tim 3:16 is a perfect example. You claim it teaches that Scripture teaches. But 2 Tim 3:16 says that the use of Scripture is profitable but not necessary for the Teacher who wants to pass on doctrine.
On contraception, you are lowering the bar from doctrine taught by the Pope from the chair of Peter or an ecumenical council with the Pope to the "three leged stool". The problem is two of the legs have proven unreliable. Take for example the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. It has deep roots in tradition and church teaching (probably deeper than the idea that contraception is wrong). But it's wrong.
No it isn't. There has never been a Tradition (note the capital T) which says that the Church teaches scientific knowledge. Therefore the point is moot. The Church is here to pass down the Traditions of Jesus Christ. Christ did not teach us science. Or if He did, show me.
So you trust the three legged stool even though two of the legs have been proven wrong.
I trust Jesus Christ who Himself built the Church and commanded it to pass down His Teachings.
And you can't retreat to Popes speaking from the chair of Peter without sacrificing the idea the your church cannot be wrong about contraception.
I don't need to. The point you thought you made was actually, moot.
God be with you,
Dan
And with you,
Sincerely,
De Maria
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Bible is profitable, not necessary, for a Preacher to use "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So that the Preacher may bring up the man of God and make him perfect for all good works.
Sure Hebrews 5 mentions teaching, but first off the question was if scripture is needed to decern between good and evil. The passage says through constant use of the word of righteousness we learn to dicern between good and evil. Second, the advanced teaching about Christ referenced in chapter 5 is provided in chapters 7 to 10. The teaching is in the scriptures, but you act as if it must be provided by the church.
By the Church or by Mom and Dad.
We are not born with a Biblical index in our psyche. But God did place His Law in our hearts. So, Scripture is not necessary, although it is useful, for understanding doctrine and sin.
This is why I said you are not really interpreting scripture. You just press scripture in the service of your church because your church tells you to.
You are doing the same, but you deny it. 2 Tim 3:16 is a perfect example. You claim it teaches that Scripture teaches. But 2 Tim 3:16 says that the use of Scripture is profitable but not necessary for the Teacher who wants to pass on doctrine.
On contraception, you are lowering the bar from doctrine taught by the Pope from the chair of Peter or an ecumenical council with the Pope to the "three leged stool". The problem is two of the legs have proven unreliable. Take for example the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. It has deep roots in tradition and church teaching (probably deeper than the idea that contraception is wrong). But it's wrong.
No it isn't. There has never been a Tradition (note the capital T) which says that the Church teaches scientific knowledge. Therefore the point is moot. The Church is here to pass down the Traditions of Jesus Christ. Christ did not teach us science. Or if He did, show me.
So you trust the three legged stool even though two of the legs have been proven wrong.
I trust Jesus Christ who Himself built the Church and commanded it to pass down His Teachings.
And you can't retreat to Popes speaking from the chair of Peter without sacrificing the idea the your church cannot be wrong about contraception.
I don't need to. The point you thought you made was actually, moot.
God be with you,
Dan
And with you,
Sincerely,
De Maria
