What limits are there to the use of Scripture? (Jesus Christ, priests)

[Lloyd]

As we know Jesus criticized his contemporaries for holding to mere human commandments rather than God's. Because of this some, Catholics particularly, have been criticized for adopting practices and teachings not mentioned in scripture. To what extent do you think people should restrict themselves to things specifically mentioned in scripture? I'm thinking specifically about Christianity, but this is a question that applies to any relgion that makes use of scripture.

I for one believe that people should allow themselves fairly wide leeway to create practices and teachings not in the Bible if it helps keep to the spirit of the Gospel though not necessarily the letter of the Bible. Though the Bible offers the framework within which we are to think about specific problems, contemporary society is too different from that of the Bible offer specific answers to the problems we face. For example, the Bible offers little guidance on the question of separation of Church and State. But with the guidance of the holy spirit we can use the Bible as a basis for thinking creatively on our own about the proper roles of church and state. Thus, we would have to live by human teachings and commandments. Even though such teachings would be of human rather than divine origin if we are allowing ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit then we're not really in conflict with God's plans.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Lloyd

I'm thinking specifically about Christianity, but this is a question that applies to any relgion that makes use of scripture.

Well, I can't speak about any other religions, but can tell you how I, as a Roman Catholic feel about this.

What I have a problem with is the worship of the Bible as a product of God that fell from the sky complete..... King James Version, of course..... hard bound with cute gold trim.

Many non-Catholics don't realize Christianity was around LONG before the completion of all the NT books.... and it was a LONG time before Christianity could agree on what was even included in the Canon of Scripture....

.... to ignore these facts and act as if the Bible defines the Church is just, well....

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Well, I can't speak about any other religions, but can tell you how I, as a Roman Catholic feel about this.

What I have a problem with is the worship of the Bible as a product of God that fell from the sky complete..... King James Version, of course..... hard bound with cute gold trim.

Many non-Catholics don't realize Christianity was around LONG before the completion of all the NT books.... and it was a LONG time before Christianity could agree on what was even included in the Canon of Scripture....

.... to ignore these facts and act as if the Bible defines the Church is just, well....

Very well stated, as usual. Jesus himself got down on the Priests of that time for attempting to read to much into it.

[Stormygale]

How the bible is written, it will have as many limits as the reader finds in it to have. Every preacher in the world is open to adding in his side of the beliefs, therefore making the web of the bible greater and the meanings deeper. There is no end to the possibilities that can come out of the meanings and referrences of the Word as long as there are thinking human minds....

[Scuba Pete]

Actually,

if we really get down to it, the only "laws" that were placed upon the early Christian were to Love God and to Love everyone else.

Galations teaches that for freedom we were set free; don't abuse it!

In fact there are a lot of truths throughout the NT that are not "cut and dried" rules. They show us how to fulfill the two main commandments: that of loving.

Too many Christians are all too ready to foist their understanding of scriptures on others with little thought to the freedom we have in Jesus and the admonition to bear with one another.

I Corinthians 8: 1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But the man who loves God is known by God.


4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. NIV

My favorite to talk about is alcohol. How many Christians preach against this "demon"??? Yet turning water INTO WINE was Jesus' very first miracle. Sure the scriptures teach us that deacons and elders should not "be given to MUCH wine", but all that is really saying is to drink responisbly. Do a search of the Lord's Supper and you will find that wine was a given at this event.

[Sanguine]

There are certainly limits to teaching children aspects of religion through scripture - I remember at the age of nine, with a very confused idea of religion (I was christened but have only ever set foot in a church once or twice and God was only used as a threat in case of lying) actually apologising to my New Testament Bible (Ladybird Children's Edition, lots of good pictures) for spending too much time on the computer and not enough reading the book.

I truly believed that the book was a deity and that by apologising to the book, it would put in a good word with God for me. My mother had jsut given me the book with the hope that somehow I'd work out Christianity on my own. By the time I realised there was a whole religion behind the pictures of men with beards holding sheep, I was fifteen and it was a little late for me to get used to the idea.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Lloyd

As we know Jesus criticized his contemporaries for holding to mere human commandments rather than God's. Because of this some, Catholics particularly, have been criticized for adopting practices and teachings not mentioned in scripture. To what extent do you think people should restrict themselves to things specifically mentioned in scripture? I'm thinking specifically about Christianity, but this is a question that applies to any relgion that makes use of scripture.

I for one believe that people should allow themselves fairly wide leeway to create practices and teachings not in the Bible if it helps keep to the spirit of the Gospel though not necessarily the letter of the Bible. Though the Bible offers the framework within which we are to think about specific problems, contemporary society is too different from that of the Bible offer specific answers to the problems we face. For example, the Bible offers little guidance on the question of separation of Church and State. But with the guidance of the holy spirit we can use the Bible as a basis for thinking creatively on our own about the proper roles of church and state. Thus, we would have to live by human teachings and commandments. Even though such teachings would be of human rather than divine origin if we are allowing ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit then we're not really in conflict with God's plans.

I agree with NetDoc; what tends to 'frighten me' (if that isn't too strong)is the idea that one should follow a dictate to the letter, that was written at a time when life was different from what it is now.

One such example is the question of Birth control. I understand and admire the Catholic Church for their determination to remain faithful to the idea that life is sacrosanct. And yet, some would advocate ways of deminishing the likelyhood of becoming pregnant (as a proactive methodology); isn't that somewhat two-faced ?

I am not treying to say "this is right, that is wrong"; neither am I picking on any religious group. I am using this example only because the Roman catholic church is one of the stalwards who will not bend with the wind.

And yet, the idea of condoms is now being considered, because of the problem of HIV/Aids. I welcome that thought; I think that God would understand the motive.
That is what counts; the motive; not the act, surely?

[Fluffy]

As we know Jesus criticized his contemporaries for holding to mere human commandments rather than God's. Because of this some, Catholics particularly, have been criticized for adopting practices and teachings not mentioned in scripture. To what extent do you think people should restrict themselves to things specifically mentioned in scripture? I'm thinking specifically about Christianity, but this is a question that applies to any relgion that makes use of scripture.

This idea that people should restrict themselves specifically to that mentioned in scripture came about with Martin Luther in his teaching of "sola scriptura" or "by scripture alone". He was criticised by his contemporaries for this theory because it, itself, is not founded in scripture. I would have to agree with the criticism.

[Sanguine]

Mm. The whole 'and if a woman should have an issue, and that issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart for seven days and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even' idea has been ignored for a good while, and yet due to certain things being scripture, other outdated systems remain. It is difficult to perceive who is deciding where and when these changes happen, and also who has the right to change them - who decided that menstruating women were not unclean, for instance? I know it's a little less 'serious' perhaps, than the usage of protection from sexually transmitted infections and otehr such issues, but it's only really a scaled down version.

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Many non-Catholics don't realize Christianity was around LONG before the completion of all the NT books.... and it was a LONG time before Christianity could agree on what was even included in the Canon of Scripture....

The traditions of the early church (eucharist, baptism, clergy, christian community, charity, missionary work) survive in every mainstream denomination. The roman catholic tradtions that have been abandoned are largely the traditions that originated much later (celibate clergy, confession to the clergy, papal infallibility, prohibitions against birth control).

What traditions of the early church do you believe the protestant churches have abandoned?