The errors and contradictions in the Bible are only problematic for inerrantists. This is something I understood before taking "the class."
I think I've been pretty clear about what inspiration of scripture means to me. But maybe I haven't. Truth is pointed to in the Bible AND outside the Bible in other scripture written by other people at different times. Truth is not confined to one collection of writings from one place in time.
Whatever path I am on is exactly the path I need to go down. I DO need to go down it, whether or not the proselytizer or I like it or want it to be so. I don't know this because of discarded "faith." In fact, without "faith" I couldn't know this or accept it.
Doctrine is of man's whimsy, arbitration and opinion. This is not a problem as long as we pay attention and are aware of the inherent limits. Teachers and teachings can be helpful pointers, but, ultimately, one must find out for oneself, otherwise the path will only be illuminated by someone else... has nothing been learned here?
Just kidding. I strongly recommend each of you exercise prayer for guidance and wisdom as you explore these issues, because in my experience the observations you're making are A. absolutely accurate, and B. part of a progression that can but need not lead to a loss of faith.
I said after the great S.I.T. arguments that one need not abandon Christianity to agree that something was Biblically wrong with how Wierwille taught it and how we practiced it. Some of you agreed with me. Some did not. I'm not aware of anyone having a crisis of faith over it.
Same with the observation that the Bible is not the Word of God. It's just not. It never says it is. It is not even aware of its existence as a collection of documents. Why would it be? No matter how you parse inspiration, you can't seriously believe Paul knew we would be reading his thoughts on slavery 2,000 years after he wrote a the Philemon letter. Scripture? This goes in the same collection as Leviticus? Dude, I wasn't even sober!
Ok, just kidding again.
Once you realize that the Bible is not the revealed Word and Will of God, some things fall into place rather easily. First and foremost, contradictions and errors no longer need to be explained. Whew! What a load off! "Given by inspiration of God" no longer has to mean "God-breathed" in the manner we were taught, but rather in the manner defined right there in the verse: profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
That's the point of reading scripture. It's not without error. It's not without contradiction. It is for doctrine, of which reproof and correction are subsets.
It is very easy to reach that point in understanding and take it a step further, from the position that it has no authority to it has no inspiration at all. I did not arrive at that conclusion (through that process). Neither should you. My rejection of the authority of Scripture did not lead to atheism. Rather, my atheism led to a rejection of the authority of scripture. I guess the relationship is symbiotic, but bear with me. For me, the progression was not "scripture has no authority, therefore Yahweh does not exist." It was the other way around: "I no longer believe Yahweh exists. As a consequence of this belief, scripture no longer has authority to me."
YOU do NOT need to go down that path.
You can have an entire denomination with a hundreds of millions of followers, let's call it "Catholicism," without believing that the Bible is a perfect book that is error free.
The Bible is not the Word of God, but what is IS depends on where you stand.
Even as I was writing this post I came to an amusing realization: If one were to accept the proposition that Weirwille WAS wrong about what it means for the Bible to be God-breathed, then you could conclude that the PFAL writings are God-breathed without suddenly having to explain dozens of actual errors and contradictions in the canon.
In any event, that the Bible is not what the Bible is talking about when it talks about The Word of God should have been self evident to all of us years ago.
Thanks, Raf – great post!
The essence of your post should be part of a preface for Grease Spotters to read before posting in doctrinal.
For want of a better way to put it – for me atheists and agnostics are a secret weapon in my battle against fundamentalism.
The reason I believe that is because of the way I understand critical thinking skills, the Socratic method and such. Not that I’m really good at any of that – but I imagine the goal is to breakdown an idea or an issue into its nuts and bolts…and then keep going until every element is seen for what it is…I’ll take someone who is honest and sensible and can read the Bible like any other book. Leave the business of faith to each individual…but a discussion over WHAT the text says or means is up for grabs.
what’s really the harm in putting scripture under intense scrutiny? John 1 says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. If you cut the Word, he bled. If you crucified the Word, he died. It’s odd, Jesus Christ never wrote a gospel. That God…a higher power would try communicating with mere mortals through the agency of mere mortals seems problematic.
For some reason my mind jumps to “the medium is the message - it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. "The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964. McLuhan proposes that a communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, should be the primary focus of study. He showed that artifacts as media affect any society by their characteristics, or content…my mind is trying to find some correlation between that idea and the Word became flesh. The medium literally was the message.
I don’t need someone with a TWI-mindset - cuz they don’t realize they’ve got wierwille-blinders on. I think an unnamed sublime philosophy that was promoted in TWI – was the idea that the Bible…”The Word” was akin to a magic lamp. Your believing…your faith was needed to rub the lamp and release the genie…I mean make God do your bidding.
Back in my TWI-daze, I would have taken offense if some “rank unbeliever” was being critical about anything in the Bible. But since I joined Grease Spot, I’ve come to appreciate the perspective of others. If memory serves – wierwille had a term “faith-blasters” – I don’t remember the context in which he said it, but I think I had a latent fear of “faith-blasters” when I first came to Grease Spot.
Fortunately since I left TWI in ’86 I knew I was venturing way off the reservation and quickly came to terms with the status of my faith…For 12 years in TWI I thought my faith was in God and His Word…after my escape - one of the mind-blowing-confidence-shattering realizations was that my faith was really in wierwille and the belief that he was faithful to always “rightly divide the word” or in less clunky King James terms – I believed wierwille was always correct in his interpretation and explanation of anything in the Bible.
It's funny how things change. I will always think of PFAL as getting me interested in systematic theology, hermeneutics, and philosophy of religion. For 12 years of involvement – PFAL was like the gold standard of all that for me. Upon exiting – the more I got into checking out non-TWI authors who were honest and had a lot higher intellectual standards – the more I found out how screwy wierwille was! As a hobby I’m still interested in those subjects – and now it’s more often a remedial process to my faith…and not a misplaced faith in a human being – and a really flawed human being at that - but a reaffirming faith in a higher power that I know so little about.
In reading up on systematic theologies from scholars of various theological “pedigrees” I’ve come to realize what chaotic and stupefying nonsense wierwille pushed.
Reading commentaries and books written for the layman on how to understand the Bible I’ve come to realize what shoddy, manipulative and obfuscating methods wierwille used to interpret the Bible.
Reading up on philosophy of religion I’ve come to realize how biased, ill-informed, narrowminded, and delusional wierwille was in PFAL and any situation where he could bloviate off-script in tirades against Roman Catholics, the Jews, other Christian groups...and really anyone else that challenged wierwille's ideology.
“You have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, in your hearts, so that you don’t need anyone to teach you what is right. For he teaches you all things, and he is the Truth, and no liar.” (I John 2:27).
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
Quote
1 John 2:26-27
26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit — just as it has taught you, remain in him. (NIV)
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
Scripture seems to say that no person is doing the teaching.
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
Even though I have shared this with you in a simple manner. Perhaps you do not want to learn from me because I do not have a special high title. Therefore you could learn in a more detailed way from a bible commentary.
Quote
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
[But the anointing which ye have received] That ointment, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, mentioned 1 John 2:20, where see the note.
Surety is a nice idea, but it's highly overrated. There's a dangerous hubris involved in claiming any kind of moral authority or precise theological clarity other than "Here's the best guess I can make based on the available information--though I very well may be wrong."
Page 39, If God is Love, Don't Be A Jerk by John Pavlovitz.
It just seems to me NOW that the quote by Pavlovitz (not a new idea, of course, and he wasn't the first to reflect on being certain about truth) that this notion completely blows the entire foundation out of PFLAP and TWI.
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
I’m inclined to think the context stresses the importance of the Holy Spirit’s teaching…I also think wierwille-ideology gave intuition a bad name… and in this day and age we also have the convenience of printed Bibles. So how does the Holy Spirit’s teaching work? Perhaps one of the avenues is through intuition.
Maybe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...in TWI we were taught to trust wierwille’s intuition over our own. That eroded our self-confidence.
But it’s important to realize that intuition is not perfect, and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages like Proverbs 16:25 and Judges 21:25 will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are occasionally prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray.
I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17 is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…”
We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23 and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes Proverbs 2:3-5 , Ecclesiastes 7:12 , Psalm 37:23 Psalm 111:10 , and James 1:5 .
I agree we can learn from the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 .
The Baker Illustrated Commentary also explains I John 2:27 along a similar idea:
“Here the emphasis is placed on the spiritual anointing that believers have received from the one who abides in him and in whom they abide. Reminding them of the words of Jesus about God’s direct instruction through the Spirit (John 6: 45; 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 1–15), the elder affirms the importance of abiding in Christ as the present teacher (2: 27; cf. John 15: 1–15).”
From: The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Andrew E. Hill
Edited by T-Bone the editor fixes typos intuitively
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
Kinda. But not really. It says nothing whatsoever about getting taught by the right mortal teacher. It says nothing about getting a "teaching from a true follower of Christ."
The point, purpose and meaning of these verses show who or what is the only reliable teacher where matters Truth are concerned. It's right there in the verses. It's the whole point of the passage. You even highlighted the forms of teach. Can you see it? It's not coded. It's not a trick. Hint: it's not any man born of a woman with a dogmatic doctrinal class or a book or a tax exempt 501C3.
The New Testament is a collection of varied perspectives teaching against each other, and ALL of them were the TRUE followers of Christ - so each one says about himself. Everyone is claiming to have the real truth but the other doesn't: Paul vs. James; John vs. Thomas; Mathew vs Mark; and so on.... There is something to be learned from each of these perspectives.
Who is the truthful one? Which teacher will you follow? Who will light your path? How will you see the path when that teacher, born of a woman, is gone?
So, when it come to matters of Truth, Love, that which is eternal, who will be your teacher? Whoever wrote the epistle of 1John offers an answer.
Obviously, we can learn from one another. We can even learn from the liars. (Hopefully, we learn something about BELIEVING them - that's all they require.) But how will you know if your teacher is truthful? This is why there can be no authority in these matters.
Contrived, systematic, dogmatic doctrines of belief can only illuminate the path they have carved for themselves. Their prophesy must be self-fulfilling and self-sustaining. Self-referential. Circular. Finite.
Belief has no place where Truth is concerned. And that includes belief in a teacher so anxious to teach. Why are the religious teachers so anxious to teach? Why do they hold forth, write books, form corporations?
26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit — just as it has taught you, remain in him. (NIV)
Obviously other scriptures read that we can learn from true followers of Christ who are truthfully and not deceptively teaching. Perhaps you do not want to learn from someone named Mark Sanguinetti. Therefore you can instead learn from T-Bone who also teaches with scriptures. However, I wonder if T-Bone will now be ignored because of any even small compliment from Mark?
Obviously other scriptures read that we can learn from true followers of Christ who are truthfully and not deceptively teaching.
Gosh. Really? I wonder if you took the time too read what I wrote? It's a longer post than normal for me. It was even longer, but I work hard at concision - obviously not hard enough.
1 hour ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:
Perhaps you do not want to learn from someone named Mark Sanguinetti
*Sigh* I'm open to learning from anyone. Even those who think they have it all figured out. I wonder if you've read anything I've ever written here?
1 hour ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:
Therefore you can instead learn from T-Bone who also teaches with scriptures. However, I wonder if T-Bone will now be ignored because of any even small compliment from Mark?
What an odd, galactic leap of logic that's required to form this conclusion! I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all.
The deceptive, untrue followers of Christ written about in the Bible were the true followers of Christ, according to themselves. Everyone claims the truth and calls all the others liars. The exact same thing is happening today. "I'm right, you're wrong," the mantra of each and every TRUE proselytizer of Christ.
Every true follower of Christ can't be right. It's mathematically impossible. But every true follower of Christ could be wrong. This is a mathematical possibility. 1John 2:26-27 solves for this problem.
Obviously other scriptures read that we can learn from true followers of Christ who are truthfully and not deceptively teaching. Perhaps you do not want to learn from someone named Mark Sanguinetti. Therefore you can instead learn from T-Bone who also teaches with scriptures. However, I wonder if T-Bone will now be ignored because of any even small compliment from Mark?
Mark,
Who are the true followers of Christ who are truthfully, not deceptively, teaching?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
23
24
Popular Days
Jul 3
20
Jun 30
16
Jul 2
14
Jul 1
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 6 posts
T-Bone 6 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
Nathan_Jr 24 posts
Popular Days
Jul 3 2022
20 posts
Jun 30 2022
16 posts
Jul 2 2022
14 posts
Jul 1 2022
11 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
My plan is working perfectly... Just kidding. I strongly recommend each of you exercise prayer for guidance and wisdom as you explore these issues, because in my experience the observations you'r
T-Bone
Thanks, Raf – great post! The essence of your post should be part of a preface for Grease Spotters to read before posting in doctrinal. For want of a better way to put it – for me atheist
T-Bone
I’m inclined to think the context stresses the importance of the Holy Spirit’s teaching…I also think wierwille-ideology gave intuition a bad name… and in this day and age we also have the convenie
Nathan_Jr
Oooh... like the way engravings on bracelets vouchsafe credentials?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
better if you don't know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If you say so. I’ll keep my queries in abeyance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like my wallet my choice, pass the cornycopia.
God-breathed on some dirt and out came Adam. Scripture is God-breathed and interprets itself . . . It has its own soul-life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Are The Dead Alive Now? . . . Well, Scripture Interprets Itself. . . So . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Since "believing implies obedience" (Life Lines), and the dead no longer believe, they are not only not alive now, they are disobedient.
The Dead Are Disobedient Now.
Edited by Nathan_JrDon't take my word for it. Ask the music coordinator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's The Living Word.
A living document means new information can be added.
Bot jot and tittlies.
So it's a dead document.
The dead are NOT alive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Coming to a Grease Spot thread as soon as it’s this day and time and hour a new book from ex-way corps titled wierwille Is Not Jesus Christ
Look for it wherever you find these other dubious TWI-lights exposed by using the ex-Way machine…(cue Elmer Fudd’s laugh):
Are the Dead Held in Abeyance Now?
Cower in Redundant Nonsense
Cower in Redundant Nonsense Today
The Wino Tells Me So
The New Dynamic Cult-Leader
The wierwille Way
God Dang It -It’s More of wierwille’s Magnified Nonsense
Reviving that Unholy $hit Today (subtitle : How to Start an Offshoot)
Christians in TWI Should Be Promiscuous
Deadlines …quotations of victor paul wierwille that were dead on arrival. Are the Deadlines Alive Now? I don’t think so, vic!
The Way: Living It Up and Loving It - Lifestyles of Those Bi+ching Infamous Cult-Leaders
The Way Magazine - high-capacity storage of propaganda to assault cognitive skills
Edited by T-Bonethe long-a$$ sustaining note was held by Beyonce
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks, Raf – great post!
The essence of your post should be part of a preface for Grease Spotters to read before posting in doctrinal.
For want of a better way to put it – for me atheists and agnostics are a secret weapon in my battle against fundamentalism.
The reason I believe that is because of the way I understand critical thinking skills, the Socratic method and such. Not that I’m really good at any of that – but I imagine the goal is to breakdown an idea or an issue into its nuts and bolts…and then keep going until every element is seen for what it is…I’ll take someone who is honest and sensible and can read the Bible like any other book. Leave the business of faith to each individual…but a discussion over WHAT the text says or means is up for grabs.
what’s really the harm in putting scripture under intense scrutiny? John 1 says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. If you cut the Word, he bled. If you crucified the Word, he died. It’s odd, Jesus Christ never wrote a gospel. That God…a higher power would try communicating with mere mortals through the agency of mere mortals seems problematic.
For some reason my mind jumps to “the medium is the message - it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. "The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964. McLuhan proposes that a communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, should be the primary focus of study. He showed that artifacts as media affect any society by their characteristics, or content…my mind is trying to find some correlation between that idea and the Word became flesh. The medium literally was the message.
I don’t need someone with a TWI-mindset - cuz they don’t realize they’ve got wierwille-blinders on. I think an unnamed sublime philosophy that was promoted in TWI – was the idea that the Bible…”The Word” was akin to a magic lamp. Your believing…your faith was needed to rub the lamp and release the genie…I mean make God do your bidding.
Back in my TWI-daze, I would have taken offense if some “rank unbeliever” was being critical about anything in the Bible. But since I joined Grease Spot, I’ve come to appreciate the perspective of others. If memory serves – wierwille had a term “faith-blasters” – I don’t remember the context in which he said it, but I think I had a latent fear of “faith-blasters” when I first came to Grease Spot.
Fortunately since I left TWI in ’86 I knew I was venturing way off the reservation and quickly came to terms with the status of my faith…For 12 years in TWI I thought my faith was in God and His Word…after my escape - one of the mind-blowing-confidence-shattering realizations was that my faith was really in wierwille and the belief that he was faithful to always “rightly divide the word” or in less clunky King James terms – I believed wierwille was always correct in his interpretation and explanation of anything in the Bible.
It's funny how things change. I will always think of PFAL as getting me interested in systematic theology, hermeneutics, and philosophy of religion. For 12 years of involvement – PFAL was like the gold standard of all that for me. Upon exiting – the more I got into checking out non-TWI authors who were honest and had a lot higher intellectual standards – the more I found out how screwy wierwille was! As a hobby I’m still interested in those subjects – and now it’s more often a remedial process to my faith…and not a misplaced faith in a human being – and a really flawed human being at that - but a reaffirming faith in a higher power that I know so little about.
In reading up on systematic theologies from scholars of various theological “pedigrees” I’ve come to realize what chaotic and stupefying nonsense wierwille pushed.
Reading commentaries and books written for the layman on how to understand the Bible I’ve come to realize what shoddy, manipulative and obfuscating methods wierwille used to interpret the Bible.
Reading up on philosophy of religion I’ve come to realize how biased, ill-informed, narrowminded, and delusional wierwille was in PFAL and any situation where he could bloviate off-script in tirades against Roman Catholics, the Jews, other Christian groups...and really anyone else that challenged wierwille's ideology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
In context, this is referring to a teaching from a deceptive person and not a teaching from a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, we can learn from each other as long as we are truthful.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Scripture seems to say that no person is doing the teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Even though I have shared this with you in a simple manner. Perhaps you do not want to learn from me because I do not have a special high title. Therefore you could learn in a more detailed way from a bible commentary.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Edited by RockyI just started a new thread in the About the Way forum, based on that quote.
It just seems to me NOW that the quote by Pavlovitz (not a new idea, of course, and he wasn't the first to reflect on being certain about truth) that this notion completely blows the entire foundation out of PFLAP and TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m inclined to think the context stresses the importance of the Holy Spirit’s teaching…I also think wierwille-ideology gave intuition a bad name… and in this day and age we also have the convenience of printed Bibles. So how does the Holy Spirit’s teaching work? Perhaps one of the avenues is through intuition.
Maybe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...in TWI we were taught to trust wierwille’s intuition over our own. That eroded our self-confidence.
But it’s important to realize that intuition is not perfect, and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages like Proverbs 16:25 and Judges 21:25 will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are occasionally prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray.
I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17 is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…”
We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23 and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes Proverbs 2:3-5 , Ecclesiastes 7:12 , Psalm 37:23 Psalm 111:10 , and James 1:5 .
I agree we can learn from the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 .
The Baker Illustrated Commentary also explains I John 2:27 along a similar idea:
“Here the emphasis is placed on the spiritual anointing that believers have received from the one who abides in him and in whom they abide. Reminding them of the words of Jesus about God’s direct instruction through the Spirit (John 6: 45; 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 1–15), the elder affirms the importance of abiding in Christ as the present teacher (2: 27; cf. John 15: 1–15).”
From: The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Andrew E. Hill
Edited by T-Bonethe editor fixes typos intuitively
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Kinda. But not really. It says nothing whatsoever about getting taught by the right mortal teacher. It says nothing about getting a "teaching from a true follower of Christ."
The point, purpose and meaning of these verses show who or what is the only reliable teacher where matters Truth are concerned. It's right there in the verses. It's the whole point of the passage. You even highlighted the forms of teach. Can you see it? It's not coded. It's not a trick. Hint: it's not any man born of a woman with a dogmatic doctrinal class or a book or a tax exempt 501C3.
The New Testament is a collection of varied perspectives teaching against each other, and ALL of them were the TRUE followers of Christ - so each one says about himself. Everyone is claiming to have the real truth but the other doesn't: Paul vs. James; John vs. Thomas; Mathew vs Mark; and so on.... There is something to be learned from each of these perspectives.
Who is the truthful one? Which teacher will you follow? Who will light your path? How will you see the path when that teacher, born of a woman, is gone?
So, when it come to matters of Truth, Love, that which is eternal, who will be your teacher? Whoever wrote the epistle of 1John offers an answer.
Obviously, we can learn from one another. We can even learn from the liars. (Hopefully, we learn something about BELIEVING them - that's all they require.) But how will you know if your teacher is truthful? This is why there can be no authority in these matters.
Contrived, systematic, dogmatic doctrines of belief can only illuminate the path they have carved for themselves. Their prophesy must be self-fulfilling and self-sustaining. Self-referential. Circular. Finite.
Belief has no place where Truth is concerned. And that includes belief in a teacher so anxious to teach. Why are the religious teachers so anxious to teach? Why do they hold forth, write books, form corporations?
One must find out for one's self.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe editing IS the writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Obviously other scriptures read that we can learn from true followers of Christ who are truthfully and not deceptively teaching. Perhaps you do not want to learn from someone named Mark Sanguinetti. Therefore you can instead learn from T-Bone who also teaches with scriptures. However, I wonder if T-Bone will now be ignored because of any even small compliment from Mark?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, we can only learn from Christians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Gosh. Really? I wonder if you took the time too read what I wrote? It's a longer post than normal for me. It was even longer, but I work hard at concision - obviously not hard enough.
*Sigh* I'm open to learning from anyone. Even those who think they have it all figured out. I wonder if you've read anything I've ever written here?
What an odd, galactic leap of logic that's required to form this conclusion! I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(I'm not yelling at you, I'm teaching you)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Obviously not true.
The deceptive, untrue followers of Christ written about in the Bible were the true followers of Christ, according to themselves. Everyone claims the truth and calls all the others liars. The exact same thing is happening today. "I'm right, you're wrong," the mantra of each and every TRUE proselytizer of Christ.
Every true follower of Christ can't be right. It's mathematically impossible. But every true follower of Christ could be wrong. This is a mathematical possibility. 1John 2:26-27 solves for this problem.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
(I’m not raping you, I’m loving you)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mark,
Who are the true followers of Christ who are truthfully, not deceptively, teaching?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(Shhh . . . Just let it. . . .)
"I'm teaching you" is a phrase I heard numerous times in Wayworld.
What they mean by teaching likely does not mean teaching. A "teaching" is what exactly, aside from TWI teach vs preach . . . um . . . teaching?
It's just a command to be obeyed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.