By what authority?

When Mark Jacobson aka Jake aka Bubbaguy first joined us on Sermonindex I almost left. Not because of Jake but because of the reaction I got when I opposed Jake. To some, I was unkind and uncaring and not exhibiting a Christian spirit in that I was not welcoming to a brother. There may still be some who feel similar, and wonder why I resist his posts with such determination. Well it all has to do with 'authority'. In fact the most important discussions in Christianity always have to do with authority.The chief priests and elders challenged Christ with the words of the title of this thread in Matthew 21. They knew that the vital question had to do with authority. The centurion whose faith Christ commended recognised that Christ was working under authority, and received a greatest commendation; I have not seen this kind of faith in Israel. (Luke 7) Faith is obeying or putting our trust in authority.And yet all Christians know that God gives them insights by micro-revelations of truth, and that a mere slavish adherence to 'facts' is not biblical Christianity. The body without the Spirit is dead; so is the scripture. How do we balance these truths?I have applied for permission to quote extensively from an excellent book written for people who have begun to think about their faith. Know the Truth written by Bruce Milne. In this concise handbook Bruce Milne summarizes in masterly fashion what the Bible teaches in the major areas of Christian doctrine (the Bible, God, humanity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church and the last things). He explains the historical understanding of these truths from the early church to the present, highlighting denominational and theological differences where appropriate. In addition, he offers for each doctrine a thorough listing of Scripture passages, questions to stimulate further reflection and study, and a bibliography. If you buy it from this link sermonindex will get a cut.It really is an excellent start for people who are beginning to think about their faith. Very accessible to the newest 'thinker'. If I get permission to quote I will post some of the main points here and try to expand them. Watch this space! or better still, start thinking and asking the questions now.

Just to add some historicity and clarity.Indeed this is true and again brings opportunity to advance the suggestion of mining back through the earlier postings from the old stalwarts around here.Lest anyone be mistaken about intent of these matters, of 'naming of names' and so forth. To malign needlessly, to tear down or to exalt one above another here is not the point nor the spirit of those who follow the Lord out of a pure heart. That is not to say that we all hold to this in perfection. That is not to say that will not happen as we become agitated over deeply held or felt convictions.But we ought to be quick to forgive and ask for forgiveness when we do fail. And we ought to not shy away from exposing error when it is found. Nor is 'naming of names' inappropriate if we are to try and lessen the affront to those who are being mislead by couching it into a generality.It is inappropriate if it is but to cause divisionand stems from some fleshly desire to exalt ourselves.This doesn't make any of us higher in the chain of knowledge in the respect to persons, it's a level field at the foot of the cross.A related thread if you are interested in past history (It's quite a volume!)Evolution proof?

Wow...quite a volume is right! I generally love evolution/creation threads but I took one look at that one and almost wet my pants... 8-)

The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present.Jake,This is not only a false statement but quite dangerous as well. This statement actually makes the person the final authority and places him in a position to be the judge of what is right and what is wrong. 1. Scripture validates our experience and not the other way around. 2. We know who the Holy Spirit is because of the revelation of God's word. The discernment and certainty that the Holy Ghost is present is due to that revelation from the word. If not then the person's experience has become the final authority of what is true and what is not. That problem goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.3. If a person rejects a part of scripture and accepts some, he has placed himself above the word of God. Man's difficulty in understanding scriptures doesn't invalidate its truthfulness. Neither is its seeming contradictions.4. Scripture is absolute in its authority. It is inerrant and infallible. The fact that the bible has been interpreted a thousand times cannot nullify its inherent authority.I know you don't agree with the above but your (or my) denial or approval doesn't nullify the authority of God's word either. It stands forever. I thank God that He doesn't make mistakes, cannot contradict Himself and can never tell a lie.In Christ,Rey

Jake writes:I fear that believing Christians can be led astray through the literal interpretation of the Bible, while ignoring the presence of the Holy Spirit. For example. Many people believing in the near time return of Christ and the imminent end of times are likely to make irrational decisions that negatively affect others.Fear often distorts judgment. (Gal 2:12) The possibility of people misusing truth is no reason to reject the truth they are misusing.

bubbaguy wrote:The authority of Scriptures, then, needs to be tested against our experiences with the Holy Ghost in the present. Thats taking for Granted that the "holy spirit" is indeed the Spirit of the Word and not any other spirit.If that is the way you are going to think use this scripture as a measuring rod.1Jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2\tHereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3\tAnd every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.We as humans have such a limited understanding of spiritual matters our perception of aparent 'truths' can lead to deception. We now see through a glass darkly. We know in part and prophesy in part. It is admirable to be totally 'lead' by the Spirit. The questions arises are you following the right 'Spirit'?

"They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and they said to them, 'you have taken too much for yourselves, for the entire nation is comprised of holy individuals, and G-d dwells among them - why, then, have you lifted yourselves above the Congregation of G-d?'" [16:3]This is what Korach and his group said to Moshe and Aaron. And you know what? For much of what he said, Korach was right: the Jewish people are indeed a holy nation, designated to serve G-d. All of us have a connection to G-d as human beings, and the Jewish people have a special responsibility and special connection as His Nation, the recipients of His Torah. As Korach put it in the original holy tongue, all of the nation are"Kedoshim," which means holy and also distinct, designated. We have a purpose to fulfil.This, however, does not mean that we have no need for guidance. To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct makes no sense. We need guidance, and teaching.The best way to learn to use or program a computer is to simply try various things, with a manual close at hand. If something doesn't work, you just try something else. This approach works well because computers provide instant feedback -- if something doesn't work, you know very quickly. In addition, assuming you are working on a development platform, there are no major consequences if something fails. Do-it-yourself learning is a fine approach -- yet even so, one always benefits when we can ask advice ofothers with greater expertise.Now imagine trying to learn to practice medicine the same way. If someone came in with a serious ailment, we would simply try one medicine after the other until one appeared to work. How many patients would die before we got it right? The feedback is not fast enough, and the consequences of wrong decisions are too grave, to attempt such an approach. In medicine, careful training and expert guidance are that much more important. One who approached this field with the arrogance of a hacker would be a murderer!In spiritual matters, we are not sufficiently in touch with the higher realms to recognize immediate feedback from our actions. According to Jewish thought, there are certainly immediate ramifications. When we domitzvos, we create angels. But, and this is very important, we don't see them. We don't know.Are we doing G-d's will, or not? How do we know? The answer, of course, is through our teachers. The Torah guides us, but the Torah's wisdom is locked in a chain of tradition. If everyone decides how he or she will interact with G-d, then the result is no dialogue, but a monologue. Such a person ends up worshipping himself.The Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avos, teach us [1:6]: "Yehoshua ben Prachya says: make a teacher for yourself." This even precedes acquiring a friend or partner in learning and growth. Rabbeinu Yonah explains in his commentary that you should even acquire a teacher if you know as much as he. _Make_ someone your teacher nonetheless, he says, for a person is more likely to remember that which he has been taught, and may find that the other party has better understood a topic.Moshe and Aharon did not lift themselves up; rather, G-d placed them in that position. The nation needed teachers, and we need teachers and guidance today, in order to rise to our full potential.

Thanks ZekeO,Well said on teachers. Do feel that is in large part what is done here through the messages available as well as in this forum amongst ourselves.What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?

bubbaguy wrote:This is called Ranterism. Quaker reject this entirely. Are you a quacker?Outward forms of religion were rejected. Even the Bible was not the Word of God. Are you sure youre not a Ranterist?

crsschk wrote:What books were you drawing the verse refrences from?Just some online Torah teachings. I find their practical wisdom refeshing.

The 'Quakers' always had a 'lunatic fringe'. (so do evangelicals, Jake, before you blow your top) So did the reformation; not all Anabaptists were reliable either!Jake will probably answer your question with a 'yes'. It is not true. He is an adherent of a pseudo-quakerism which would have been denounced by Fox and Barclay. Pseudo-quakerism pushed past the barriers of scripture that Fox and Barclay embraced and is now adrift on an ocean of infinite speculation where it often resembles Buddhism with a Christian vocabulary more than the faith once delivered to the saints.Jake rejects the necessity of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ. I have still to get him to confess that Jesus Christ is 'God come in the flesh'. He will say he believes that Christ is God and that God was in Christ, but so far he will not say the God became a human in Christ; his language seems to lean towards the idea that Christ's being God is only different to our being God in measure not in kind. He does not believe in the personality of Satan. He believes that mankind's original sin was his turning from vegitarianism, but then the Bible is a lucky dip for Jake. If it agrees with him he believes in it.This all probably sounds hard, but I bear Jake no ill will and have never yet been cross or angry with him. I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation. His supreme folly is that his inner witness confirms these notions to him and that for Jake is the end of the matter. His supreme authority is himself. I have called this idolatry and see no reason to change my opinion thus far.

philologos wrote:I go hard on his ideas because they are contrary to what God has revealed, and are mostly sheer speculation. May I add that this is a public place, which is in its nature a radically Christian voice for truth.

Hi JakeNow I know you had rejected Barclay, but now I see you turn your back on George Fox too. I once sent you a copy of Naylor's testimony and it has pride of place in my study, but Naylor rode into Bristol on the back of a donkey,with women scattering leaves before him, to show that he had the Christ-spirit. He was a gentle fool who brought the gospel into disrepute.Fox distanced himself from Naylor for the sake of the truth. Naylor's suffering was at the instigation of Downing (the man that Downing Street is named after) not Fox. I don't believe that even Naylor would have spoken 'for you'. These men, even Naylor, had a love and respect for the scriptures which is totally lacking in pseudo-quakerism.