For sola scriptura, or similar sentiments, it’s important to reflect that not every single translation and language of the Bible has the correct translation and meaning.

Scholars pore over these things and do their best, but unless you are absolutely fluent in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, AND also understood deeply the cultural, social, political, agricultural and all other elements of a tiny-ass region in the ancient world…

At best, you are echoing the general sentiment of what was intended, and that’s ok - God was well aware that would happen.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
For sola scriptura, or similar sentiments, it’s important to reflect that not every single translation and language of the Bible has the correct translation and meaning.

Scholars pore over these things and do their best, but unless you are absolutely fluent in the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, AND also understood deeply the cultural, social, political, agricultural and all other elements of a tiny-ass region in the ancient world…

At best, you are echoing the general sentiment of what was intended, and that’s ok - God was well aware that would happen.

I would disagree, it does not take much to understand what is written, especially in our day and age. We still have good records of the culture, good translations. There is more info available than at any other point in time. But, even without all of that, everything important could be discerned.

I believe in the solas - and I understand language changes over time/that I have my own ignorance of language.

Ergo, I read additional materials, which help me adjust for the changes in language from the era of translation to present/address my own ignorance.

For the first time, in a long time, I am in a great church. We are focused on discipleship, and a bunch of nerds, mostly, but it is focused on being a genuine Christian family.

Going alone is, IMO, very dangerous, and very hard.

Martin Luther did it, for a period, if I remember things correctly.

Humans do not do isolation well, and we will bend our principles to avoid it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I believe in the solas - and I understand language changes over time/that I have my own ignorance of language.

Ergo, I read additional materials, which help me adjust for the changes in language from the era of translation to present/address my own ignorance.

For the first time, in a long time, I am in a great church. We are focused on discipleship, and a bunch of nerds, mostly, but it is focused on being a genuine Christian family.

Going alone is, IMO, very dangerous, and very hard.

Martin Luther did it, for a period, if I remember things correctly.

Humans do not do isolation well, and we will bend our principles to avoid it.

Wow. You bring up a very good point. With Martin Luther, it wasn't "you're a christian and we're going to persecute you;" it was "you can't be the only one correct among us who are a group of theologians." It's the same thing when Galileo was put in house arrest for asserting it's the earth that circles around the sun and not the other way around as was believed by the best minds of the time.

That is a lot of pressure to doubt yourself. it brings to mind the Star Trek episode where Picard was captured and repeatedly subjected to suggestions there were five lights instead of four. He successfully maintained there were four lights until he was captured but, in the end, he confessed that he actually could see five lights. Even as I write this, I don't know whether he was simply lying to his captor in order to not give them a "win" or whether that was "faith" in what he knew to be true despite what his senses told him.

At first, I was simply glad for your post to make me think of what Luther had to endure to make known the truth. Now, it gives me something to think about if that is what faith is. It's easy to believe in something contrary to general opinion when there's no pressure; but when faced with unrelenting pressure and the threat of consequences, how do you decide that what you believe is true despite the consequences or, perhaps, you might actually be sincerely wrong?

I've been personally just by myself on one side of a technical issue while the people in my department and a second department was on the opposite side. And the issue lasted over a week until we could get the system's expert on a conference call. I knew I was correct just as everybody else "knew" I was wrong. In that case, I was correct and the vendor agreed with me. I knew that I was correct because I knew what I know so I stuck to my guns. But if I was a little less certain, I might have relented.

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (v. 89).

“Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou
hast founded them for ever.” (v. 152).

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy
righteous judgments endureth for ever” (v. 160).

The combined testimony of these three Scriptures in Psalm 119 teach that God’s Word is settled both in heaven and on earth.

The Word of God was settled in the eternal plan of God. Other references to the pre-existence of the Word of God are found in Isa.40:8; Da.10:21; Joh.8:26,28; 17:8. The Bible is an eternal, supernatural book from beginning to end.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I believe in the solas - and I understand language changes over time/that I have my own ignorance of language.

Ergo, I read additional materials, which help me adjust for the changes in language from the era of translation to present/address my own ignorance.

The concepts are simple. You don't have to even learn a new language in our era. Reading additional materials is good as long as they aren't focusing on proving a doctrine and instead are looking for truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
For the first time, in a long time, I am in a great church. We are focused on discipleship, and a bunch of nerds, mostly, but it is focused on being a genuine Christian family.

That's great. May I ask discipleship of what? When Jesus said to make disciples of all nations, what did that mean to Him and those that he was talking to?

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Going alone is, IMO, very dangerous, and very hard.

Martin Luther did it, for a period, if I remember things correctly.

Humans do not do isolation well, and we will bend our principles to avoid it.

I'm not sure that's relevant anymore. You can literally have church and fellowship without leaving your house these days. We're doing it right here.

Bringing up Luther is another good discussion. It seems his problem was with the pope and not doctrine. Protestants are basically catholics with most of the same syncretisms.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Wow. You bring up a very good point. With Martin Luther, it wasn't "you're a christian and we're going to persecute you;" it was "you can't be the only one correct among us who are a group of theologians." ...

... It's easy to believe in something contrary to general opinion when there's no pressure; but when faced with unrelenting pressure and the threat of consequences, how do you decide that what you believe is true despite the consequences or, perhaps, you might actually be sincerely wrong?

That's a good discussion. Personally, I've found that applying a variation of Pascal's wager to all these things can be helpful. If there's a possibility of sin on one side and no possibility of sin on the other, I go with the less dangerous. I'm talking about Pascal's position that if God does not exist then all I would lose by believing in Him would be giving up things that are bad for me anyway and I'd have to be good to people. If He does exist and I don't believe I lose absolutely everything.

Take for example the Sabbath, there is no possible sin in ceasing work for one day. The only thing you'd ever lose is a small amount of income. However, switching to demanding the "Lord's day" be kept there is a possibility of sin by not keeping the Sabbath holy. Being included in the 10 commandments lends a lot of credibility to Sabbath keeping and the fact that it existed from the beginning. I've weighed these things out and found that there is no possibility of sin in my position on the subject. There is also no adding or taking away from scripture in my position.

The same process can be used concerning eating foods that are considered unclean. There is no possibility of sin in abstaining from biblically unclean foods. There is also no adding or taking away from scripture in this position.

Paul alluded to this technique when he said "against such there is no law". (Galatians 5:23b)

All great discussions here, as far as discussions go. The one very important fact is that Believers in Jesus, those born again by His Holy Spirit, are members of His Body. Each has a functioning Hos Body. We are the Bride of Christ. While it’s true that many have various “levels” of revelation, understanding, and dedication to following Him, we are still a part of the whole, the Ecclesia. We are commanded to love one another, not judge one another. Growth in understanding is God’s business along with the individual seeking Him, Truth.

quote:

Scripture is all we need. What it comes down to is rebellion. Those who don’t want to follow the Scriptures add to or take away from them. Or we try to play ala carte and pick and choose what we want to obey.

God said His word will never pass away. That should be warning enough to do our best to follow His word.

quote:

God was well aware that would happen.

quote:

If there's a possibility of sin on one side and no possibility of sin on the other, I go with the less dangerous.

As reloader-1 said, God knew this would happen. Just so long as someone is not unwaveringly entrenched in whatever their twisted (or not) interpretation is, and is willing/eager to learn, in an effort to be a better emulation of Christ, it's ok to have varying opinions on how Christ means for us to act. We're all participating in this conversation because we want ourselves to be better reflections of Christ. If we could have this conversation for the duration of multiple lifetimes, we may very-well come near to a total understanding and agreement upon the "proper" interpretations of everything. We don't have that long, but the smaller increments of spiritual growth one may experience in their lifetime, as a result of discussions like these, make a difference.

When it comes to the more debated and controversial issues, I tend to apply the logic mentioned by mark123: Which side of the debate has zero possibility of sin?

This conversation, and other aspects of our lives, is us doing our best, as PowerSurge warned we should.

Thank you to everyone, for the continued discussion.

The mention of God knew this would happen reminds me of Alvin Plantinga. Check him out on YouTube.

quote:

Originally posted by Bentonville:
All great discussions here, as far as discussions go. The one very important fact is that Believers in Jesus, those born again by His Holy Spirit, are members of His Body. Each has a functioning Hos Body. We are the Bride of Christ. While it’s true that many have various “levels” of revelation, understanding, and dedication to following Him, we are still a part of the whole, the Ecclesia. We are commanded to love one another, not judge one another. Growth in understanding is God’s business along with the individual seeking Him, Truth.

I agree with most of what you said except on judging. 1 Cor 5:12 states otherwise. We actually are to judge one another just not self righteously.

“ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

- The creative Word -

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Jhn 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

2Co 4:3-7
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

^^^^^^^
2Co 4:4
[note]: Satan is the culprit. He is here called the god of this world. He has succeeded in putting a veil over the minds of the unbelieving ones. He would keep them in perpetual darkness, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ ... should shine unto them that they might be saved.

Jeremiah 10:5 - Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field,

Jeremiah 10:6-7, 10

6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

Closely related to the OP: What is "conviction"?

I have heard it said by the preacher more than a few times, and I am now hearing it even more in an extracurricular Wednesday night "life group".

"The Lord convicted me."
"I was in conviction."
"The Lord was convicting me."
...etc

It's seemingly almost always a condition that precedes one's salvation. I do get the impression we can be "convicted" after being saved as well though.

I get the impression it's a synonym for feeling guilt or shame for having sinned.

What say the group here?

^^^^^^^

CONVICT. In theology it means being condemned at the bar of one’s own conscience as a sinner in view of the law of God. It is the antecedent to repentance, and is often accompanied by a painful sense of exposure to God’s wrath. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, showing the heinousness of sin and the soul’s exposure to divine wrath. The means of conviction are various: Gospel truth, the law read or heard, reflection, calamity, etc. It often comes suddenly and may be stifled, as it surely is, if not heeded” (The People’s Bible Encyclopedia). The Greek word translated “convict” in Jn.8:9 (elegcho) is also translated “reprove” (Jn.16:8; Ep.5:11), “rebuke” (1 Ti.5:20), “convince”(Tit.1:9), and “tell fault” (Mt.18:15). These various usages of the Greek word for convict remind us of the fact that conviction is for the saved as well as for the unsaved. The child of God needs the continual reproof of the Word of God and conviction of the Holy Spirit to keep him walking in the light. (Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity).

CONVINCE. To make manifest; to convict; to persuade or satisfy the mind by evidence; to subdue the opposition of the mind to truth (Webster) (Job 32:12; Jn.8:46; Ac.18:28; 1Co.14:24; Tit.1:9; Jude 15). The Greek word most commonly translated “convince” (elenko) is also translated “tell him his fault” (Mt.18:15), “reproved” (Lk. 3:19; Jn. 16:8; Ep.5:11, 13), and “rebuke” (1 Ti. 5:20; Tit.1:13; 2:15). The conviction of sin comes chiefly through two channels: (1) The work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8). (2) The preaching of the Word of God (Tit. 2:15). (Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity).

Thank you, Pavilion. It seems I was on the right track.

Is it safe (and accurate) to paraphrase in the following manner?...

An awareness of one's sinfulness; brought-on by an act of the Holy Spirit, the hearing or reading of Gospel truth and/or the law of God, personal reflection, etc.

An awareness of fault in the eyes of God. The antecedent to repentance, and sometimes even salvation.

KSMG: “ Is it safe (and accurate) to paraphrase”

A paraphrase is loose translation of the Bible. In a paraphrase the translator is not concerned to translate the exact words, not even the exact meaning, of the original text. Instead, the goal of the paraphrase is to be easily understood even by non-Christians. A paraphrase can be misleading. Paraphrases are not the exact Word of God, and they should be used only like commentaries—if at all.

I understand and respect your position, Pavilion. Thank you for providing the source material for me to learn from. For now, at this point in my spiritual growth and learning, it is helpful to me to "boil down" text like you provided, so I can better file the point away in my (sometimes seemingly barely capable) noodle.

Though they do have the potential to be misleading, I can't say I'd be too harsh on a paraphrasing that helps things to be better understood by non-believers or those in the earliest stages of their spiritual growth.