Water baptism--required for salvation?

[Philawallafox]

Sorry I got flustered last night. When you've got 5 differnt threads going at once and you're being called stupid for 5 differemt reasons at 4 am you get standoffish 

[j]

As far as aligning myself with a denomination, I do not.  I believe denominations are flatly condemned by Paul in I Cor 1 (especially v. 10) and elsewhere.

Seen you mention this before bosk, and I have to ask, just out of curiosity.  I understand not aligning yourself with a "mainstream" denomination.

But what makes you think that your own belief set doesn't constitute a denomination itself?  It's a particular view of Christianity, which you claim to have arrived at through study of the bible, history, philosophy, etc, just like every other denomination.

Is there an alternative, and if so, what is it in your opinion?

-J

[Philawallafox]

I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?

I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.

[Perpetual Change]

As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.

[j]

I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?

I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.

I don't think they're all bad.  Each of them has areas in which they are doctrinally sound, and other areas in which they're off-base (according to my own understanding, of course).

All I was saying is that I definitely understand some Christians' desire not to be associated with one of them, for various reasons.

-J

[hefdaddy42]

As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.

People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated.  Hence, theology.

[Ħ]

I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?

I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.

1)  It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad.  If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.

2)  When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package."  While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison.  You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."

[Seventh Son]

I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?

I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.

1)  It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad.  If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.

2)  When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package."  While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison.  You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."

Probably the first time I'll have agreed with you on P/R 
If the whole point is to save as many people as possible it seems silly to divide everyone up based on petty little things.

[j]

I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?

I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.

1)  It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad.  If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.

How do you avoid them?  Agree with everybody on everything?

2)  When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package."  While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison.  You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."

This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"?  Is it the number of people?  Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.

Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people.  But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures.  I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.

-J

[Ħ]

How do you avoid them?  Agree with everybody on everything?

Actually the opposite.  Be an individual thinker.  You are to believe what you believe based on the word of God, and not based on what somebody else believes.  That's the great danger of denominations.

This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"?  Is it the number of people?  Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.

Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people.  But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures.  I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.

I can't really answer that question other than reiterate what Paul says.  He doesn't want people prancing around saying, "I'm a Methodist" or "I'm Pentacostal" or "I'm Baptist."  He wants people to say "I'm Christian" and leave it at that.  Once you say you're a member of a denomination, it's like you're separating yourself from the rest of the Body.  It's very elitist.  We aren't supposed to fight with each other (debating the truth is ok, but you know what I mean).  We're supposed to love and admonish one another, because we are all "in Christ."

[j]

How do you avoid them?  Agree with everybody on everything?

Actually the opposite.  Be an individual thinker.  You are to believe what you believe based on the word of God, and not based on what somebody else believes.  That's the great danger of denominations.

I agree.  But that doesn't eliminate divisions.

This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"?  Is it the number of people?  Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.

Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people.  But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures.  I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.

I can't really answer that question other than reiterate what Paul says.  He doesn't want people prancing around saying, "I'm a Methodist" or "I'm Pentacostal" or "I'm Baptist."  He wants people to say "I'm Christian" and leave it at that.  Once you say you're a member of a denomination, it's like you're separating yourself from the rest of the Body.  It's very elitist.  We aren't supposed to fight with each other (debating the truth is ok, but you know what I mean).  We're supposed to love and admonish one another, because we are all "in Christ."

I don't know what that accomplishes though.  My first thought when somebody says that they're "a Christian" is "well that doesn't really tell me anything".  There are so many different interpretations and stuff that at some point it makes sense to at least have terms that "blanket" certain aspects of a theology, just for identification purposes.

I'd also add that there have been a lot of great Christian thinkers and teachers in the past and present.  Is no one qualified to teach others about Christianity, are we all just supposed to interpret the bible on our own, with our own biases and limitations?

I guess my point is: divisions are a reality, whether Paul likes it or not.  So is it better to ignore them and pretend they don't exist, or to address the differences in the interest of seeking the truth?

-J

[sneakyblueberry]

As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.

People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated.  Hence, theology.

Yeah.  We complicate things so much.  Jesus said the greatest and most important commandments were; Love God, Love People.  I think if we can get those two right, the rest sort of falls into place.  So sick of Christians who think they are the supreme knowledge in all things God (not anyone here); thats how we get all that awesome stuff like the the crusades and the fine folk at Westboro Baptist.

[Philawallafox]

As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.

People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated.  Hence, theology.

Yeah.  We complicate things so much.  Jesus said the greatest and most important commandments were; Love God, Love People.  I think if we can get those two right, the rest sort of falls into place.  So sick of Christians who think they are the supreme knowledge in all things God (not anyone here); thats how we get all that awesome stuff like the the crusades and the fine folk at Westboro Baptist.

If you'll permit me to be slightly controversial and play the devil's advocate here.

Jesus also said that no one can go to the Father except through him. He also said that not everyone is a christian who says they are.

What about the churches that disagree with those points? There are churches that do.

How about Westboro Baps. Sure they're not a very nice group of people but they're just reacting against sin in this world trying to not only sanctify themselves but the whole country. They see the religious pluralism that is in the culture and come up with a  catchy slogan to express that. They can quote to you from the bible arguments about religious pluralism and if the US is so exemplary of such a thing it's not a hard link to make. Same thing on the topic of Homosexuality. (Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result)

Did you know that one of the things the reformers did during the reformation was compare the Roman church to the whore of babylon (from revelation). They actually did a pretty good job of it too.

The Crusades were a Holy War. Jesus said to go and make disciples of all nations. The Old Testament says there are times for war. The New Testament says all scripture is useful. Therefore The Crusades were biblically based. This wasn't just about capturing Jerusalem either. It was war of Christians against Muslims.

Did you know that during the expansion of the Empire of the Roman Church there was alot of conversion to Christianity?

How can you be so thoroughly binary about things like that when there is nuance involved?
*devil's advocate hat off*

On the note of division in the church I can see where  you come from (1 Cor 1:10-17) I agree. I'll be more than happy to join the Roman Church when they stop putting tradition on equal footing with the bible. (please note I'm stating a position for the purpose of the argument I'm about to make)

It'd be ideal if there was unity in the church. Frankly there's not. It'd be great if everyone understood the bible properly and became united but they (we) don't. Some people don't care enough, others care too much about the little things like why Mk focussed on the green grass in Mark 6:39. (I don't think it's possible to care too much when it comes to the bible but when you squabble over that verse you're taking it too far.)

There used to be one universal church. Luther tried to reform it before he nailed his theses to the Wittenberg Cathedral door. The church had gotten caught up in it's own power. Sometimes separation just can't be avoided. If someone's committing heresy when they preach and they get kicked out of the church; likelihood is that they will take a bunch of people with them. Simply because the heresy was pleasing to the ear. We can't ignore the Devil at work in the church.

Next point. Love. Is it more loving to let someone commit a heresy and let them be or to rebuke them. If someone sins should they not be rebuked for their sin? Love isn't patient but it stands it's ground. Love is kind when it rebukes the other person. sometimes people use "love" as an excuse to look past another person's sin. This is sin in itself and is not loving.

Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.

In the end it all comes down to the fact that people are sinful. This includes Christians. Sometimes people forget that. There is stuff out there that just sounds good but isn't.

[hefdaddy42]

There was never one universal church.

[millahh]

There was never one universal church.

It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
 

[Seventh Son]

There was never one universal church.

It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
 

hef will just have to catch the night service then, eh?

[hefdaddy42]

There was never one universal church.

It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
 

I'm between churches at the moment.

[sirbradford117]

There was never one universal church.

Correct.  I'm not even convinced it's possible, except in heaven.

[j]

Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result

Effective?  It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.

Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.

Theology is a branch of philosophy.

I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated.  But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated.  It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things.  But who decides what's "important"?  There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff.  It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated.  What's to be expected?

-J

[Philawallafox]

Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result

Effective?  It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.

well neither of us have exactly investigated it have we I was trying to make the point that God uses human sin for good. That and to say that anything is universally bad is a huige claim to make  and needs to be thoroughly researched. I don't actually think it's possible to say that any one thing/action was universally bad.

Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.

Theology is a branch of philosophy.

Actually for christianity Theology isn't Philosophy at all. It's all in the bible. when you start to get theollogy that isn't biblical it's not theology it's philosophy. Simply Theology = Revelation, Philosophy - "what do you think?" I could be wrong but Philosophy translated to the love of knowloedge right?

I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated.  But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated.  It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things.  But who decides what's "important"?  There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff.  It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated.  What's to be expected?

-J

That's probably why alot of churces like to trace their doctrines as far back as they can.

[sneakyblueberry]

Phil: No offense bro, but I really can't be stuffed picking apart your post and addressing every single point; I think I've had enough of that in this thread .  If you have a specific question you want me to answer that'd be sweet, but you might've just been putting it out there for anyone .

I think, along with a relationship with Jesus Christ,  'Love God, Love People' is a good enough ideology for me.  The westboro baptist and the roman catholics and whoever can believe whatever they want, bless them on their way with a coke and a smile.

[j]

Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result

Effective?  It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.

well neither of us have exactly investigated it have we I was trying to make the point that God uses human sin for good. That and to say that anything is universally bad is a huige claim to make  and needs to be thoroughly researched. I don't actually think it's possible to say that any one thing/action was universally bad.

Just because God may take someone's sins and make good come of them doesn't mean things wouldn't have been better were they not committed in the first place.  Sure, some good may come of Westboro Baptist's crazy antics, but bad things come of it too.

And no, I haven't done any research on their membership.  But last I heard, it was comprised of about 80% family.

Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.

Theology is a branch of philosophy.

Actually for christianity Theology isn't Philosophy at all. It's all in the bible. when you start to get theollogy that isn't biblical it's not theology it's philosophy. Simply Theology = Revelation, Philosophy - "what do you think?" I could be wrong but Philosophy translated to the love of knowloedge right?

The "revelation" has to be identified, interpreted, and understood correctly.  That's where philosophy and using logic to draw conclusions come in.  Theology is simply asking questions about God, which is one aspect of philosophy.  What you believe is divine revelation might be your reference, but you still have to think about it (hopefully), and thus you're doing a type of philosophy.

I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated.  But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated.  It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things.  But who decides what's "important"?  There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff.  It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated.  What's to be expected?

-J

That's probably why alot of churces like to trace their doctrines as far back as they can.

Right, with varying degrees of accuracy, and almost always with questionable results.

-J

[j]

I think, along with a relationship with Jesus Christ,  'Love God, Love People' is a good enough ideology for me.  The westboro baptist and the roman catholics and whoever can believe whatever they want, bless them on their way with a coke and a smile.

 

I think that's as good an ideology to live by as there is.

-J

[Ħ]

J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology?  If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God."  Is that theology?  Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.

[j]

J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology?  If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God."  Is that theology?  Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.

First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that.  Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things.  To learn from anything requires action on your part.  You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it.  That's philosophy, in a sense.  When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God.  They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy.  It's asking questions about God, in any capacity.  That's my take, at least.

At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God?  Even that is a theological question.

-J

[Ħ]

J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology?  If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God."  Is that theology?  Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.

First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that.  Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things.  To learn from anything requires action on your part.  You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it.  That's philosophy, in a sense.  When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God.  They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy.  It's asking questions about God, in any capacity.  That's my take, at least.

At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God?  Even that is a theological question.

-J

I'll take that as a "yes."

[Philawallafox]

J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology?  If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God."  Is that theology?  Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.

First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that.  Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things.  To learn from anything requires action on your part.  You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it.  That's philosophy, in a sense.  When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God.  They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy.  It's asking questions about God, in any capacity.  That's my take, at least.

At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God?  Even that is a theological question.

-J

Bible teach me about God

2 Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Exodus 20:2-4

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

 3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Zechariah 9:9

9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
       Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
       See, your king comes to you,
       righteous and having salvation,
       gentle and riding on a donkey,
       on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew 20:1-5
1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

 4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
 5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
      'See, your king comes to you,
   gentle and riding on a donkey,
      on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "

Mark 14:60-62
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
      Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Daniel 7:13,14

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

John 8:24

24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Matthew 28:18-21

8Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Thankyou Bible for telling me that:

God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.

[j]

Thankyou Bible for telling me that:

God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.

Yes, I'm aware that the bible claims it is inspired.  Is that enough to conclude that it's a good source?  Does it say what writings make up the "scriptures", or what writings should be excluded?

God is the only God, but Jesus is also God?  That's confusing.  Why did God have to send Jesus to die for our sins?

What constitutes faith in Jesus?  What does "authority of Heaven and Earth" entail?  Why should I tell people about it?

I'm familiar with the typical answers to all of these questions and with the verses used to support the answers, etc.  Don't bother trying to answer any of 'em, the point was to give examples of philosophical/theological questions one might ask based on your post.

-J

[Ħ]

Thankyou Bible for telling me that:

God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.

Yes, I'm aware that the bible claims it is inspired.  Is that enough to conclude that it's a good source?  Does it say what writings make up the "scriptures", or what writings should be excluded?

God is the only God, but Jesus is also God?  That's confusing.  Why did God have to send Jesus to die for our sins?

What constitutes faith in Jesus?  What does "authority of Heaven and Earth" entail?  Why should I tell people about it?

I'm familiar with the typical answers to all of these questions and with the verses used to support the answers, etc.  Don't bother trying to answer any of 'em, the point was to give examples of philosophical/theological questions one might ask based on your post.

-J

Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc.  Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions.  Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.

[j]

Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc.

What?  You mean you don't ever question or try to understand things in the bible?  I'd imagine God's "purpose in giving his word" is something more along the lines of *guiding* us to truth, rather than creating a bunch of drones who are slaves to a collection of varied and often ambiguous writings gathered together in controvertible fashion.

In other words: God gave you a brain, use it.

Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions.

That's the case, oftentimes.  But just because a question can't be answered doesn't mean it isn't worth asking.

Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.

  No, it doesn't.  Paul was writing to the Colossians, and was addressing a particular heresy probably derived from paganism and Jewish mysticism, as is clear because he talks about various aspects of this heresy elsewhere in the chapter.  Not only that, but the Greek "philosophia" doesn't necessarily translate directly to what we consider "philosophy".

Only if you were to pluck that verse completely out of context could you possibly interpret it as a condemning of all philosophy.  At best, it is probably intended to divorce "worldly" wisdom from "Godly" wisdom, as is a common theme of Paul's.

Based on Paul's letters, he was familiar with philosophy and used it.  And by attempting to determine the meaning of this verse, we're philosophizing!

-J

[Ħ]

Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc.

What?  You mean you don't ever question or try to understand things in the bible?  I'd imagine God's "purpose in giving his word" is something more along the lines of *guiding* us to truth, rather than creating a bunch of drones who are slaves to a collection of varied and often ambiguous writings gathered together in controvertible fashion.

In other words: God gave you a brain, use it.

Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions.

That's the case, oftentimes.  But just because a question can't be answered doesn't mean it isn't worth asking.

Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.

  No, it doesn't.  Paul was writing to the Colossians, and was addressing a particular heresy probably derived from paganism and Jewish mysticism, as is clear because he talks about various aspects of this heresy elsewhere in the chapter.  Not only that, but the Greek "philosophia" doesn't necessarily translate directly to what we consider "philosophy".

Only if you were to pluck that verse completely out of context could you possibly interpret it as a condemning of all philosophy.  At best, it is probably intended to divorce "worldly" wisdom from "Godly" wisdom, as is a common theme of Paul's.

Based on Paul's letters, he was familiar with philosophy and used it.  And by attempting to determine the meaning of this verse, we're philosophizing!

-J

It seems that your definition of philosophy is different than mine, which is why we're having issues.  I don't regard reading the Bible and believing it as philosophy, but you seem to.  Why does knowledge and understanding have to arise out of philosophy?  Reading the book, and saying "These facts are true" is completely different than saying, "I wonder what this could possibly mean?"  You're making something incredibly simple and twisting it into something introspective and mystical.  Which is what most Christians do, by the way, and which is why the Christian church as a whole is a mess.

You base a lot of your ideas around the fact that there are so many methods and views on interpreting Scripture.  So many people come to so many different conclusions.  But you know why?  It's because they took something out of something simple that wasn't there in the first place.  If you approach the Bible with a believing heart, interpreting the Bible as meaning what it says, and saying what it means (in other words, literally, then yes, you will run into problems, but not nearly to the extent of a Roman Catholic, for example.

Obviously God gave man a brain to collect and understand information.  But it was never intended to be used apart from God's word.  I've got a philosophy textbook for a class I'm taking.  They address hundreds of questions, they present hundreds of arguments, but not a single thing is answered.

And Paul may have written about that specific issue in Colossians, but the principle applies, that philosophy, whether right or wrong, is decietful.

[Philawallafox]

First Principles of Scriptural Interpretation:

1/ Scripture interprets itself
2/ refer to point 1
3/ Scripture is self interpreting.

If you stick to these principles you will not be likely to run into difficulty on doctrinal matters.

[Seventh Son]

I'm not a Christian so if you choose to disregard what I have to say regarding the bible, whatever.

But I was under the impression that the bible is littered with metaphors, allusions and all kinds of imagery? Kind of silly to take it literally with that in mind.

First Principles of Scriptural Interpretation:

1/ Scripture interprets itself
2/ refer to point 1
3/ Scripture is self interpreting.

If you stick to these principles you will not be likely to run into difficulty on doctrinal matters.

This assumes that scripture itself is infallible. Which I'm sure you are of the opinion of, but to someone else who isn't a believer it seems rather silly. "I'm right because I say so," doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise.

[Ħ]

I have three rules as well.

1) Interpret it literally.
2) Compare Scripture with Scripture.
3) Understand where things "fit."  (i. e. Don't read the law into the present, since we aren't under the law any more)

You wouldn't believe how simple it makes everything.  1 takes away the interpretation issue, 2 clears up any ambiguitiies, and 3 clears up 90% of so-called contradictions.

And SS, I hear ya, but this thread's question (which we've really strayed from) has to do with a Bible-believing viewpoint.  That's a good question though, and one that concerns a lot of people as "circular reasoning."

[Philawallafox]

What's the protocol in this situation then? Is it ok if I follow the tangent?