Is the bible enough and do you respect it when you dislike its use?

[MoreCoffee]

Is the Bible enough in that does it point you to the Savior who saves you? If man misinterprets the bible, that's man's fault, not the Holy Spirit's. God has given enough to tell us about how He saves us.

Paul's sermon in Athens is enough to point me to the Lord Jesus as saviour. No one needs more if that is the sole criterion one is to apply in deciding what is enough. So to answer your questions I say this the holy scriptures do indeed tell us who the saviour is and that one must believe in Jesus Christ for one’s salvation but being told about Jesus and salvation is not enough to enter into God’s presence one needs God’s grace to believe the message and to live the life that God calls the faithful to live. So the interpretations that people put on the holy scriptures matter a great deal and for interpretation of the holy scriptures the holy scriptures can help only so far and only in matters that are so obvious that few can dispute the truth of them but for matters with any complexity and finesse the holy scriptures do not self-interpret as is evident from the state of the denominations which claim to rely on holy scripture alone for their doctrine in matters pertaining to salvation yet who dispute vigorously one with another about salvation and sacraments and all manner of things that are important to the life of the faithful.

 

[TurtleHare]

Coffee man, the Lutherans (if they are listening to Luther on this) don't like James. His epistle is like an "epistle of straw" to them.

You must be thinking of the old Luther but then you haven't heard that Luther sat down and discovered that James didn't contradict the salvation of the Savior instead of promoting works because James doesn't promote works for our salvation. You been reading some twisted things because Lutherans like James except when it's manipulated to avoid what Jesus did ya know?

 

[Stravinsk]

You must be thinking of the old Luther but then you haven't heard that Luther sat down and discovered that James didn't contradict the salvation of the Savior instead of promoting works because James doesn't promote works for our salvation. You been reading some twisted things because Lutherans like James except when it's manipulated to avoid what Jesus did ya know?

I don't need to read anything but the text written to know what it says. The epistle of James - especially chapter 2 - is rarely heard in Lutheran churches. Bible readings insofar as the epistles go are almost always by Saul/Paul. Now maybe the Lutheran church I used to attend for years had a strange aversion to the writings of James - however I suspect, given Luther's sentiments regarding these Epistles as well as Jude and the Revelation of John - that this is the reason they are rarely heard in sermons, bible studies, etc. from those of the Lutheran persuasion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree that in some Protestant churches/denominations/independent-meetings Paul is read a great deal, the gospels less, and James almost not at all. The Presbyterian denomination of which I was formerly member preached Paul a great deal and judging from the pod-casts that some of their pastors include in their local church web sites Paul is still the mainstay of their preaching.

 

[Lamb]

The Lutheran church follows Lectionary readings. Pastors just do not pick out things they want to read. James is included in those readings but it's only one book out of the 66 we read from.

 

[Rens]

Is the bible enough and do you respect it when you dislike its use?

OK, back to the OP.
Two questions:

1. Is the bible enough?
Enough for what?
Coming from a Catholic, I would be surprised to find you were advocating Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. As someone with deep Reformed Baptist roots, I would affirm all 5 'Solas' including Sola Scriptura and would say "Yes and Amen", the Bible is more than enough, it is God breathed!
1 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


2. Do you respect it when you dislike its use?
I suspect that you are asking "When I run across a scripture that doesn't agree with my preconceptions about how things work, what do I do?"
I find it annoying. Then I check multiple translations and commentaries and the broader context that the verse falls in. Not to shop for a translation that I like better, or a commentary that tells me what I want to hear, but because I want to know what it really says and this is the closest I can come to being an expert in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. I want input from lots of experts to get as clear a picture as possible. Then I trust God and prayer to show me truth. Not my truth, but His truth. If His truth agrees with my old position, then I stand by it and defend the alternative explanation of the verse. If His truth contradicts my old truth, then I abandon my old truth and accept His Truth.

A practical case is infant baptism. I was taught in church that infant baptism was wrong because of all the scriptures on "repent and be baptized" (and a baby can't repent). A rather agressive Presbyterian and I had a debate on the subject that was both intensely passionate and grounded in scripture, church fathers and biblical covenants and typology. From Scripture, I found the position that forbid 'infant baptism' was biblically unsupportable, not because it was clear that infants should be sprinkled with water (you people need to work on making your case there, the 'families' being baptized is a weak argument from a small sample), but because the argument from scripture that children are included in the new covenant is irrefutable. So my "secret Baptist Handshake and Membership Card is in jeopardy since I can no longer support one of their key beliefs. That's life. I have to honor what God says over the traditions of my Church.

Now, the misuse of the Bible really ticks me off. I hate it when someone mines verses to manipulate or control. (A common tactic in 'name it and claim it' theology.) I once heard "By his stripes you ARE healed. It doesn't say were healed. It doesn't say will be healed. It says you are healed, that means right this minute. So you just tell that diabetes to go away. By the Blood of Jesus I AM healed. Now throw away those pills. It says that you cannot have any doubt. If you have any doubt you will not be healed. Do you believe? Do you really believe that you are healed? Then stand up and claim that healing right now!" I wanted to stand up and ask for 15 minutes for a rebuttal from scripture, because he had done great harm to several scriptures and was placing lives in danger.

What's weird is that little kids who accepted Jesus can't get baptized in an evangelical church. They have to be 12. They just made that up. It's nowhere in the Bible.

 

[Stravinsk]

The Lutheran church follows Lectionary readings. Pastors just do not pick out things they want to read. James is included in those readings but it's only one book out of the 66 we read from.

As a Lutheran, have you ever once heard a sermon on James Chapter 2, in it's entirety, including verses 14 to the end?

- That treats it as the truth without trying to explain it away, minimize it or otherwise contradict it with Saul/Paul's writings?

I know I haven't. Not from the last Lutheran church I attended for quite a few years and not any before that. So while it may be true that James is read from - that chapter and those verses in particular have never been a focus in any Lutheran church I've gone to.

 

[Lamb]

As a Lutheran, have you ever once heard a sermon on James Chapter 2, in it's entirety, including verses 14 to the end?

- That treats it as the truth without trying to explain it away, minimize it or otherwise contradict it with Saul/Paul's writings?

I know I haven't. Not from the last Lutheran church I attended for quite a few years and not any before that. So while it may be true that James is read from - that chapter and those verses in particular have never been a focus in any Lutheran church I've gone to.

Lutheran sermons don't preach on one entire bible from beginning to end during their sermon. That's not how a sermon is done. There is Law preached and there is Gospel. James has been preached on and yes, explained properly in light of the fact that it's written to those who already are believers because of Christ's death on the cross and given faith by God as a gift.

Now if you want to know if Lutherans do bible studies from beginning to end on James, yes they do.

 

[Stravinsk]

Lutheran sermons don't preach on one entire bible from beginning to end during their sermon. That's not how a sermon is done. There is Law preached and there is Gospel. James has been preached on and yes, explained properly in light of the fact that it's written to those who already are believers because of Christ's death on the cross and given faith by God as a gift.

Now if you want to know if Lutherans do bible studies from beginning to end on James, yes they do.

Lam, it's not properly "explained". James chapter 2 directly conflicts with Paul's teaching - and a specific example where the same story is used is Romans 4.

One can't read Romans 4 and compare it directly to James 2:14 onwards and say there is no problem here. It is a direct conflict between teachings.

Speaking generally about Bible studies, I've been to plenty in my lifetime. At Lutheran churches - James chapter 2 was not focused on.

During sermons by pastors in churches probably the most used term after "Jesus" is "Paul says". It is obvious that Paul is given the most air time with regards to teaching. It's one reason I don't go to church.

 

[Lamb]

Lam, it's not properly "explained". James chapter 2 directly conflicts with Paul's teaching - and a specific example where the same story is used is Romans 4.

One can't read Romans 4 and compare it directly to James 2:14 onwards and say there is no problem here. It is a direct conflict between teachings.

Speaking generally about Bible studies, I've been to plenty in my lifetime. At Lutheran churches - James chapter 2 was not focused on.

During sermons by pastors in churches probably the most used term after "Jesus" is "Paul says". It is obvious that Paul is given the most air time with regards to teaching. It's one reason I don't go to church.

James is written to believers. What do you do after you believe that Christ is your Savior and your sins are forgiven? You do the works that the Holy Spirit intends for you to do.

 

[Stravinsk]

James is written to believers. What do you do after you believe that Christ is your Savior and your sins are forgiven? You do the works that the Holy Spirit intends for you to do.

And the "justification" issue? Paul says in Romans 4 using Abraham and Isaac that Abraham's "faith" - *apart from his works* - his belief - saves or justifies him.

James directly contradicts Paul in James 2:14-onwards. Using the same story.

 

[Lamb]

And the "justification" issue? Paul says in Romans 4 using Abraham and Isaac that Abraham's "faith" - *apart from his works* - his belief - saves or justifies him.

James directly contradicts Paul in James 2:14-onwards. Using the same story.

You can't use one verse to form theology. There is more within the book of James to show how a man who is justified because of Christ, shows that justification because a true believer has works that follow. James never removed Christ as our propitiation.

 

[Stravinsk]

You can't use one verse to form theology. There is more within the book of James to show how a man who is justified because of Christ, shows that justification because a true believer has works that follow. James never removed Christ as our propitiation.

I didn't say James removed Christ. I said he uses the same story that Paul uses to rebuke Paul's teaching about faith apart from works. Which he does, quite clearly if you read not only "one verse" - but what follows it, as I have been mentioning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You can't use one verse to form theology. There is more within the book of James to show how a man who is justified because of Christ, shows that justification because a true believer has works that follow. James never removed Christ as our propitiation.

He said "expiation"

 

[atpollard]

What's weird is that little kids who accepted Jesus can't get baptized in an evangelical church. They have to be 12. They just made that up. It's nowhere in the Bible.

Isn't it also wierd that an adult is repenting for an infant so they can be baptized with a sprinkle they will not even remember as the "one baptism into the Body of Christ"?
(The Evangelical Free Church I attended does not have a minimum age, just a requirement for understanding.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't it also wierd that an adult is repenting for an infant so they can be baptized with a sprinkle they will not even remember as the "one baptism into the Body of Christ"?
(The Evangelical Free Church I attended does not have a minimum age, just a requirement for understanding.)

In Catholic teaching it is the community, the Church, that gives baptism, teaches the faith, helps its members find faith and repentance because God promises to be with the church and give grace for the things I listed. In brief one sins alone because sin is at its core lonely rejection of goodness and one finds repentance in the community because goodness is communal in the body of Christ. Thus infant and adult come to the same font of grace and receive it from God regardless of age, knowledge, or prior preparation. Grace is given freely without preconditions in the case of saving grace.

 

[Lamb]

Isn't it also wierd that an adult is repenting for an infant so they can be baptized with a sprinkle they will not even remember as the "one baptism into the Body of Christ"?
(The Evangelical Free Church I attended does not have a minimum age, just a requirement for understanding.)

God remembers the baptism. Isn't that more important. Do you remember your birth? I bet your parents do

 

[atpollard]

God remembers the baptism. Isn't that more important. Do you remember your birth? I bet your parents do

That is both cute and clever (which is why I liked it), but here is a chance to put to the test the question of respecting scripture when you dislike it:

Matthew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Did the baby confess his/her sins? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
Does the baby believe? If not, then why was the baby baptized?

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Did the baby repent? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Did the baby accept his message? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

1 Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Galatians 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
For the baby, these statements are a crapshoot. The baby may or may not be given the one Spirit to drink. The baby may or may not be clothed with Christ. Surely no church believes that every infant baptized will obtain eternal salvation without ever confessing, repenting, believing or accepting as the other verses I have posted call us to. Therefore some babies are being sprinkled with what will ultimately prove an ineffectual baptism.

So what will you do with THESE verses that at least appear to potentially contradict your beliefs?
(Which is the question asked in the OP.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

That is both cute and clever (which is why I liked it), but here is a chance to put to the test the question of respecting scripture when you dislike it:

I liked it too

Matthew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Did the baby confess his/her sins? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

John's baptism was not Christian baptism. It was a forerunner to it. Just like John was a forerunner to Christ but not Christ. John 1:19-28

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
Does the baby believe? If not, then why was the baby baptized?

Each person does what is within his/her capacity. People who are able to believe are called to believe. People who are apparently not able to believe are not required to do what is apparently not possible for them. Romans 12:3-8 helps here noting what comes according to one's measure of faith and according to the grace given by God. And it is significant that we are saved by grace rather than by faith (much less by knowledge). Ephesians 2:8-10

You are, however, on the right track about the ways and means by which passage is set against passage and the ultimate arbiter becomes one's tradition or one's theology or one's opinion. And that is precisely the point being made in the original post and in the video and in the reference to the passage from John's gospel. People have expectations, theology, opinions and they can make a profession of faith a very short lived experience if the theology, opinion, and tradition contradict the teaching of Christ and if the theology, tradition, and opinion are pursued with vigour.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Did the baby repent? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Did the baby accept his message? If not, then why was he/she baptized?

These passages do not give significant information about who was in the crowd so it is not possible to know if infants were there and if any infants that may have been there were baptised. Reading further into the book of Acts helps with deciding if households were baptised but even then there is no explicit mention of infants being in the households. Baptism is a magnificent issue for debate between Christians and it is particularly intractable for those who say they want clear scriptural proofs before they will accept a doctrine or practise.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Galatians 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
For the baby, these statements are a crapshoot. The baby may or may not be given the one Spirit to drink. The baby may or may not be clothed with Christ. Surely no church believes that every infant baptized will obtain eternal salvation without ever confessing, repenting, believing or accepting as the other verses I have posted call us to. Therefore some babies are being sprinkled with what will ultimately prove an ineffectual baptism.

One must be careful not to read one's theology into a passage. Infants may have received the Spirit and may have been given the Spirit to drink because the passage does not explicitly include or exclude anybody who is in the Corinthian church. It is tempting to read into verses whatever we ourselves hold to be true. The same is rightly said regarding the Galatian churches.

So what will you do with THESE verses that at least appear to potentially contradict your beliefs?
(Which is the question asked in the OP.)

Yes, it is the question and it is clear that our traditions and our theology weigh very heavy in the balance when we read the bible and need to decide its meaning in this or that passage.

 

[atpollard]

Does an 18 month old participate in the communion table at your church? Why or why not?
My point with 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27 was why should the same thinking not apply to baptism?
(This is just to clarify the intent of my earlier comments).

Just to set the record straight, before I get branded as being against whole household covenant theology (which I am not against).
I believe that the case for whole households being brought into the covenant, particularly the verse about one believing parent making the children clean, is scripturally irrefutable. One can only reject it by doing great harm to so much other scripture that an honest reader must accept that children and even infants are included in the New Covenant just as they were in the Old Covenant.

Where I remain, personally, unconvinced and believe that you may have done harm to scriptures like the ones I quoted is the assumption that sprinkling a baby is the one baptism and is the ritual required for entrance into the covenant. This is not the place to expound my beliefs or present the scriptures. I simply wanted to make it clear that I do not hate infants in the church.