Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? How do you interpret these scriptures? - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2004, 11:06 AM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
yimou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,786
Local Time: 11:37 AM
I guess my question is,, What are you own thoughts of what i wrote ??
__________________

__________________
yimou is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 01:47 PM   #227
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yimou
I guess my question is,, What are you own thoughts of what i wrote ??
As someone who believes that the bible is the WORD of GOD I would disagree with the extremeness of your statement.

As someone who believes that there is a non-literal message that can be inferred from the message of the Word, I would say you are dead on that it is important to have Jesus in your heart and live your life as if you did.

However, how are you supposed to do that if you have no exposure to Christ through the word?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 01:49 PM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:37 AM
God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 01:53 PM   #229
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.
I would ask you this, do you feel that there is literal as well as non-literal content in the Bible? Are there truths given to believers that can be inferred about the nature of God, without it being spelled out literally?

I think the danger of self-defining is a real one. I have been in churches where scripture is not read and prayers like the Our Father are unheard. I felt like I could walk into the Hallmark Store and read a few cards and have had the same efffect as the church service.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:12 PM   #230
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yimou


The grace of god ???,, IF salvation and eternal life are gifts freely given by the grace of god. Then why on earth does this Calcutta child even need the gospel to know about god ??.
Quote:
From The Book of Concord, The Smalcald Articles, Part VIII. Confession
In these matters which concern the external, spoken Word, we must hold firmly to the conviction that God gives no one his Spirit or grace except through or with the external Word which comes before. Thus we shall be protected from the enthusiast-that is, from the spiritualists who boast they possess the Spirit without and before the Word, and who therefore judge, interpret, and twist the Scriptures or spoken Word according to their pleasure. [Thomas] Munzer did this, and many still do do it in our day who wish to distinguish sharply between the letter and the spirit without knowing what they teach. All this is the old devil and the old serpent who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve. He led them from the external word of God to spiritualizing and to their own imaginations, and he did this through other external words. Even so, the enthusiasts of our day condemn the external word, yet they do not remain silent but fill the world with their chattering and scribbling, as if the spirit could not come through the Scriptures or the spoken word of the Apostles but must come through their own writings and words.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 02:27 PM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
yimou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,786
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.
This is a far more satisfying answer, than a scripture quote.

I can not give you my definition of god, because i do not believe.
If i tried, it would just ended up with a mindless word against word war. This we can both do without. Though i am not interested in ever taking the faith from anybody, or even question it.
I am more interested in what people do with their life, than how much faith they have.
And quotes from the scriptures does nothing to help prove a point when it comes to a discussion.
__________________
yimou is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 03:43 PM   #232
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 03:37 AM
I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 03:50 PM   #233
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.
so, if i take this right, i can't quote scripture and i can't quote documents that interprete scripture...basically, if it disagrees with your viewpoint, it holds no value to you, and you can feel free to dismiss it off hand without even discussing it...fair enough.

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 04:06 PM   #234
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
so, if i take this right, i can't quote scripture and i can't quote documents that interprete scripture...basically, if it disagrees with your viewpoint, it holds no value to you, and you can feel free to dismiss it off hand without even discussing it...fair enough.

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.
I never said (and i don't think *anyone* here has) that you can't quote scripture. I didn't even say that it disagrees with my viewpoint. What a way to infer, eh?

But, if we're discussing whether or not to take Scripture literally, it seems you ought to be looking to Scripture for the answer, as you argue everyone (even in Calcutta) should be doing, and not Martin Luther.

The skeptical post-modernists you dismiss and the church fathers have done *exactly* the same thing. There's no Scriptural basis for much of what we hold as dogma. It was created in the minds of men. God never came down to St. Augustine or Martin Luther and give them a one-on-one chat. So if you're going to dismiss one school of thought based on "it popped into their head" theory, you'll have to dismiss the other. If you're judging Luther to be more weighty because he wrote in the 16th century, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I just turned in a research paper around this very topic and had the eye-aching pleasure of reading Methodius on down to Aquinas. I'm not dismissing that what they wrote isn't brilliant or poetic, or saying there aren't things I agree with. But no, in a case of "Who does God save and what did Jesus say?" I don't give them the top seat of authority.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 04:46 PM   #235
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I would ask you this, do you feel that there is literal as well as non-literal content in the Bible? Are there truths given to believers that can be inferred about the nature of God, without it being spelled out literally?
There is clear use of symbolism in Scripture, where a literal interpretation is misleading and potentially dangerous (I'm thinking of the people who worship with snakes, for example).

Also, many of God's attributes are not clearly defined. They are inferred from God's actions, statements, etc.

A specific example is the Trinity. Not specifically spelled out in Scripture, but definitely inferable and supportable by Scripture.

However, if I am to make a statement about God, I want it to be supported by Scripture, preferably multiple passages. If I rely on only one passage, I would do so if it did not contradict other statements in Scripture.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 04:51 PM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.
Confessions and creeds only demonstrate the struggle of the early church in trying to understand the nature of God. They should not be relied upon as authoratative, but can be used to show how others tackled some of these difficult issues.

Many of the questions raised here in FYM are not unique and have been around since the early church.

It is like we have our own "Council" here to struggle with our understanding.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 05:41 PM   #237
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.

that's rather breathtaking in it's arrogance.

just what do you take post-modernism/modernity to mean?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 06:13 PM   #238
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


I never said (and i don't think *anyone* here has) that you can't quote scripture. I didn't even say that it disagrees with my viewpoint. What a way to infer, eh?

But, if we're discussing whether or not to take Scripture literally, it seems you ought to be looking to Scripture for the answer, as you argue everyone (even in Calcutta) should be doing, and not Martin Luther.

The skeptical post-modernists you dismiss and the church fathers have done *exactly* the same thing. There's no Scriptural basis for much of what we hold as dogma. It was created in the minds of men. God never came down to St. Augustine or Martin Luther and give them a one-on-one chat. So if you're going to dismiss one school of thought based on "it popped into their head" theory, you'll have to dismiss the other. If you're judging Luther to be more weighty because he wrote in the 16th century, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I just turned in a research paper around this very topic and had the eye-aching pleasure of reading Methodius on down to Aquinas. I'm not dismissing that what they wrote isn't brilliant or poetic, or saying there aren't things I agree with. But no, in a case of "Who does God save and what did Jesus say?" I don't give them the top seat of authority.
i seem to remember posting that i was wrong when i said "literally" what i meant was inerrant. i agree with what nbc says above, symbolism is clearly used, and we have to interperate that. i also agree that those interpretations have to be made in regards to the context of the verses in context and with the bible as a whole.

also, i never once said that luther was given a special revelation. luther did however base what he wrote on scripture, not on his own feelings or the popular sentiments of the time. if you are going to argue the nature of God, debate how salvation works, and try and decide who gets into heaven, you have to go back and see what the scriptures say.

as said, martin luther did find his answers in scripture, therefore, i think it to be prudent to at least consider the answers that luther found there, instead of starting my readings from scratch.

by post-modern, i mean those who argue that there is no absolute truth everything is subjective. an example of this type of thinking would be the retired episcopalian bishop jack spong.

of course there are many dogmas that are not scripturally based. that was the whole idea behing luther's theses. that the church had gotten out of control, and was no longer basing it's belief on Biblical Truth. the church must fight against these inaccuracies, and strive to be as Biblically accurate as possible.

and just to ask, who would you place in the top seat of authority when it comes to interperating the scriptures?
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 06:34 PM   #239
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 04:37 AM
and no, i'm not arguing that the Bible is not THE place to turn...i am simply saying that when questions arise, would not be a good idea to turn to someone who has had the same questions in order to help you in finding an answer?
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 06:59 PM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.
So by early church fathers you would submit to the authority of the Catholic Church then, since there is a direct line to the early church fathers?

Or am I missing something?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com