Emotional Responses to Scripture...

[Wolfeman]

On a side not, what part of NC did you minister in? I am from Hendersonville (about 30 miles west of Asheville) and that is where I was ordained and started my ministry. Oddly enough, I now live in Bellevue Washington, which has no association with Bellevue Baptist

I grew up partially in NC. Outside Fayettville. I have been saved for only 8 years and preaching for the last 6. I include my early years because I spent so much time searching. I've tried a lot of things including athieism, scientology and a wide swath of Christian denominations. I was even baptized and confirmed in a Lutheran church. Because we were talking about my observations and opinions of two denominational labels I included my history which is fairly extensive and traveled.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, perfect, complete, and without error or contradiction. I also believe that this is a fundamental of Christianity, I believe if you go to a church that does not preach this, then you do not go to a Christian church.

Which Bible? There are Bibles that say women can be Pastors (Bishops) and there are those that say they can't. There are Bibles that say "Who soever believeth" and those that say "All the believing ones".

Here in Memphis in a majority of the COGIC churches a person is deemed to be saved if they speak in tongues. The Bible teaches that without someone to translate this it is not of God. Yet no matter how many times you show the Bible verses concerning speaking in tongues and the need for a translator to any person from a GOGIC church showing what they are teaching is wrong. The response is always "I know what I felt". That is what I am speaking of when I say they put experience over Scripture.

 

[ChristGuard]

Which Bible?

Which Bible??? The Holy One...

There are Bibles that say women can be Pastors (Bishops) and there are those that say they can't. There are Bibles that say "Who soever believeth" and those that say "All the believing ones".

No, none of that is true. There is only one Bible, God's true Word as given through prophets and apostles. The Bible says neither "Who soever believeth" nor does it say "all the believing ones", what it does say is "πᾶς πιστεύω". You are inappropriately using the word "Bible" to mean "Translation". I do not believe that any translation is the Word of God, nor any manuscript except the originals (The older the manuscript the better). So our challenge as modern Christian's is to see past interpretational error and exegete the scriptures properly.

Here in Memphis in a majority of the COGIC churches a person is deemed to be saved if they speak in tongues. The Bible teaches that without someone to translate this it is not of God. Yet no matter how many times you show the Bible verses concerning speaking in tongues and the need for a translator to any person from a GOGIC church showing what they are teaching is wrong. The response is always "I know what I felt". That is what I am speaking of when I say they put experience over Scripture.

Again, you are stating your opinion or interpretation of scripture as fact, it's not. I can make a strong argument, Biblicaly, for speaking in tongues without an interpreter. And, while I don't believe this myself, I can make a strong Biblical argument for speaking in tongues being a requirement of salvation. But, that is the case for a different thread, and if you want to debate that please start a new thread. As far as this comment "The response is always "I know what I felt"." that really doesn't mean much to me, I don't think there is any pastor who would tell you that, a young or immature Christian sure, but I am sure there are Christians in your own or my own congregation who would say the same thing if I lay out the scientific argument for evolution (I don't believe in evolution, but I could easily trap an immature Christian with logical fallacies into backing down and saying "I know what I believe" instead of giving a Biblical rebuttal.) My point is, they are not putting emotion above scripture, they just don't know scripture enough to argue with a vetted pastor.

 

[Lloren]

Speaking of emotional responses........ Let's get back on the topic and not the gun slinging or we'll close this thread.

 

[ChristGuard]

Speaking of emotional responses........ Let's get back on the topic and not the gun slinging or we'll close this thread.

What on Earth are you talking about? Who is 'Slinging Guns'? Personally I feel the conversation between Wolfman and myself, while passionate, has been professional and helpful.

 

[Wolfeman]

No, none of that is true. There is only one Bible, God's true Word as given through prophets and apostles. The Bible says neither "Who soever believeth" nor does it say "all the believing ones", what it does say is "πᾶς πιστεύω". You are inappropriately using the word "Bible" to mean "Translation". I do not believe that any translation is the Word of God, nor any manuscript except the originals (The older the manuscript the better). So our challenge as modern Christian's is to see past interpretational error and exegete the scriptures properly.

It is difficult to have an indepth discussion when we do not even agree on foundation from where our arguments come from. I am King James only. Part of this is from my research and understanding of Church History combined with the Catholic church history of destroying groups and their writings that did not agree with them. When we view the Catholic Churches destructive history of past documents the "older is better' argument develops a lot of doubt for me. Also the use of manuscripts that were rejected by earlier translators gives me reason to pause. This is a subject I've put a lot of thought, prayer and research into. If the King James Bible is not perfect, there certainly isn't a better translation available given the material used for current day translations.

Again, you are stating your opinion or interpretation of scripture as fact, it's not.

I am most thoroughly sorry. I felt I had made it very clear that these were my opinions of differing groups based upon my experience with them. As far as interpreting Scripture, there are no groups that can claim their interpretations of scripture are fact. I felt it was understood we all were merely stating our understandings. This is why I brought up the Bible / Translations issue. With multiple translations available with which to pull interpretations from the issue gets even muddier.

As far as this comment "The response is always "I know what I felt"." that really doesn't mean much to me, I don't think there is any pastor who would tell you that, a young or immature Christian sure, but

Come to Memphis. There area is full of such people. I was asked not to come back to a homeless shelter I was preaching at after such a conversation with the Pastor of the sponsoring church. Another incident was a man I worked with. He was an Elder in his church. He was bragging about his son getting saved and mentioned speaking in tongues. I was a very immature Christian at the time and yet all he could offer me when I showed him the Bible passages in reference to his own salvation was "I know what I felt".

I made a generalization based upon my experience. Such a broad generalization was wrong and for that I offer my apology. But you continue to make the same sort of broad generalizations to refute my argument. It is frustrating in spite of all the good conversation we've had. To that end, let us agree to disagree, try not to generalize as much in our statements, part ways in fellowship and pray God's blessings upon each other.

 

[ChristGuard]

Wolman, no need to split ways unless thats what you want, I am enjoying our discourse =D

As far as the King James Version, I love the KJV and have no problem using it as our standard for conversation moving forward. Just like you said, it's not perfect, but I do think it is one of the most solid translations. I to agree that some people have done evil things in the past to promote themselves or their ideas, including tampering with manuscripts, that's why I say the only true Bible is the Original, as told to the prophets and apostles by God. Since we don't have these, we have to do the best with what we have =D I think we are mostly on the same page here (I am not King James Only, but I am closer to that then most).

 

[Wolfeman]

I also am enjoying our discussion. However, it has sidetracked the topic at hand and I was trying to get it back on track.

 

[cadeyrn]

I have a few points to add here.

The first is with regards to pentecostals and charismatics. Pentecostalism was a movement that began in the early 1900s. The charismatic movement began in the mid-1900s and was built off of pentecostalism (sometimes referred to as a second wave of pentecostalism). There was another group of movements (sometimes referred to as a third wave) that began in the late 1900s and includes the Vineyard movement ad the Toronto Blessing, among others. Although both denominations and individual churches have formed as a result of each movement, none of the movements is a cohesive group. There have also been many individual churches that have taken in aspects of some or all of these movements.

Second, and somewhat similar to the first, it is possible to find a "baptist" church that believes almost any protestant view that you want. Baptist is not a denomination, or even a cohesive group. There is very little that can be generalized about "baptists."

Third, there are many protestants that do place a high emphasis on experience. This generally shows itself as some sort of mysticism. Most often I have seen this with lay members of churches that give very little theological education. When people are not taught what the Bible teaches they will, generally speaking, fall back on that which they do know: experience. I would argue that this has been all too common throughout church history and has been present in every denomination (even Roman Catholic).

Now Ghengis, I realize this did not exactly answer your question but it is a bit of a start that I will hopefully be able to add to soon.

 

[ChristGuard]

Well, we have now all suggested what "other people" believe (I did this to) but does anyone here actually put emotion or experience above scripture? I would say we have a pretty good sampling of protestants here, if we all speak for ourselves I think we can have a good survey of protestants beliefs.

I for one hold scripture higher than anything else, especially emotions and discourage others from thinking of emotion as anything more than cursed by the fall.

 

[Abba San]

I for one do not hold scripture higher than emotions and discourage others from thinking of emotion as anything more than cursed by the fall.

Wait - is that what you meant to say? You "do not hold scripture higher than emotions"? That seems contrary to what you were saying previously. I thought you did hold scripture higher than emotion/feelings. Am I misreading something?

 

[Mordos]

That is what one would call a Fraudian slip... I am emailing your board now.... mwhahahaha!

 

[Wolfeman]

I'm not Protestant for the record.

 

[ChristGuard]

That is what one would call a Fraudian slip... I am emailing your board now.... mwhahahaha!

Oh man, egg on my face for that one! I fixed that post... I am special.

 

[ChristGuard]

I'm not Protestant for the record.

You are Catholic? I thought you were an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Now I am confused.

 

[Wolfeman]

You are Catholic? I thought you were an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Now I am confused.

I am IFB. We never protested out of the Catholic Church nor any Protestant denomination therefore we are neither Catholic nor Protestant. We were before the Catholic Church was.

 

[ChristGuard]

"Prot·es·tant
noun /ˈprätəstənt/ 
Protestants, plural

A member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches"
Source

Pick your battles man, Protestant means not orthodox or catholic. What you are saying, while well intended, is going to give the wrong impression to most people who hear it. Not to mention, you were "before the catholic church"? That's almost as bad as saying you were before Jesus.

 

[Wolfeman]

Just goes to show you that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. I found this definition on line. Not even gonna mention what I found in my Websters 1828.

Prot·es·tant   [prot-uh-stuhnt]
noun
1. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

Before the reformation there were still groups that did not align with the Catholic Church and were persecuted and destroyed for it. Both Catholic and Protestant historians record them as far back as 150 AD. Christ started a Church before He left. We see it hold a business meeting in Acts 1 and then receive power in Acts 2. This Church was not Catholic as Catholic history would like us to believe. The Catholic church did not come into being until after Paul's persecution of the Church and it's dispersal. This is why I say that before the Catholic church was, we were. We were in existence before the reformation so we never protested out of the Catholic church with Luther and the other Protestants. We trace our history, our doctrinal and church DNA back thru various groups like the Waldenses, the Petrobrusians and the Anabaptist.

If you choose to ignore this history or believe otherwise I'm fine with that. But don't tell me I'm Protestant or that what I say is as bad as saying we came before Jesus. That is as insulting to me as me telling you everything you do is wrong because you fail to follow the directives of the church you say Jesus started. A church He claimed would never fail.

 

[ChristGuard]

You can call yourself whatever you want, just know, if you tell people you are not protestant they will believe you are either Catholic or Orthodox.

Side note: Please link any quotes with a source.

 

[Wolfeman]

You can call yourself whatever you want, just know, if you tell people you are not protestant they will believe you are either Catholic or Orthodox.

Side note: Please link any quotes with a source.

Their misunderstanding is my opportunity to teach them Church History. It's also an opportunity to tell them about what Jesus did for them on the Cross and why no matter how good of a life they live, it's not enough to get them to Heaven. When door to door soulwinning you need all kinds of hooks to get people to listen without slamming the door (thanks a lot JW's).

And it was the number 2 definition of Protestant on Dictionary.com.

 

[cadeyrn]

I know this just continues this off-topic subject, but Wolfeman I would really like to see sources that trace the IFB directly back to 150 AD or earlier without connection to the Roman Catholic church (I specify Roman because there is a distinction between "Roman Catholic" and "catholic") or Protestant churches. I am very familiar with the Waldenses, Petrobusians, Hussites, Lollards, and many other pre-Reformation, non-Roman Catholic churches. The problem is that all of these groups either 1.) left the Roman Catholic church or 2.) ceased to exist only a short time after they began. The Anabaptists are Protestants. They might not be directly connected to the Lutherans or Calvinists, but they are most certain a product of the Protestant Reformation.

I would also like to point out that the Roman Catholic church did not begin after Paul's execution. Rather, it formed very slowly over a number of centuries (I do realize that Ghengis and other Roman Catholics would probably disagree with me on this). If I remember correctly, the first time Peter was said to have been the first Pope was by Jerome in the 4th century. The first time (again, if my memory is correct) the first time that the Roman Bishopric is placed over the other bishoprics is at the time of the Council of Constantinople held at Hagia Irene (which, by the way, is still standing today and is a beautiful church if you ever have the opportunity to see it) in the late 4th century to deal with the Arian controversy. This was not done by a group of bishops, but by one in particular for the purpose of getting the upper hand over the Arians.

Now, I will agree with you that most western, non-Roman Catholic churches trace their roots to the very earliest days of the reformation. Martin Luther and John Calvin often made reference to Augustine (as well as many others) and considered him one of their theological fathers. And the IFB would not be the first to try to claim a direct descendency from the early church without connection to the Roman Catholics. The most prominent group would be the Anglicans.

However, if the IFB churches trace their roots to the Anabaptists (i.e the so-called radical reformation) then they are most definitely Protestant churches. This is not a negative thing. It just is. It does not mean that the IFB does not have roots in the early church. I would argue that any "church" that does not trace its theological roots to the early church has some serious problems and needs to reevaluate itself. I will not saying that what you state is "bad," but from a historical perspective I must disagree. Please do not take anything here as an offense to you, because it is not meant that way.