It seems as if people are always in
debate over scripture due to relying on their own understanding to comprehend it.
While it's true that I've changed my mind about the place of women in church ministry, that hasn't happened because I chose cultural
relevance over Scripture.
By contrast, the traditional Catholic (and Orthodox) conception of the relationship does have the Church standing in
judgment over Scripture in some sense, for as the Catechism forthrightly states, «the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of sacred books» (emphasis added).
«Neither Peter in his work to include Gentiles in the church nor the abolitionists in their campaign against slavery argued that their experience should take
precedence over Scripture,» writes Matthew.
No matter how much indoctrination, corruption, errors, or what have you,
disputing over scripture, the validity of it and its authenticity, NEVER EQUATES to the «non-existence of God.»
It seems that ultimately, what this does is set humans up as
judge over Scripture to determine what is «true» and what is «error.»
A couple years ago, as I was reading through Scripture, I began to notice that there were numerous jokes, allusions, and euphemisms
all over Scripture for the male sexual organ.
Kavanagh is presented as a fairly typical high - church critic of evangelical liturgy who argues that liturgy ought to take
priority over scripture because it is within the liturgy that scripture becomes intelligible.
Present - day Christianity seems to value Jesus over God, scripture over Jesus,
Paul over scripture, and later theologians over Paul.
Honestly, I believe it is the responsibility of every Christian to read, analyze and
pray over Scripture to discern His will for us as we journey through life.
I would not fault a person for believing there is more to the human condition than biology while having the ability to see the inherent corruption and hypocrisy present in organized religion in it's adherence to
doctrine over scripture and political motivations.
Many millions over the 2000 years of Christianity have
pawed over scripture from that written on clay and papyrus and still are trying to understand God.
Theos (God) and Pneuma (Breath / Wind / Spirit) go together and come to the imagination like God
breathing over the scripture thus «inspiring» the Words.
Both set the interpreter's judgment
over Scripture rather than understanding it as in the service of Scripture.
People who are «religious» 24/7 and
obsess over scriptures and rules and commandments are out of touch w / reality.
I do read books of people
writing over scripture, so I was interested to hear about the books of Peter Enns and would love to read them.
Jeremy, Under the header «The Failure of the Reformation», line four, shouldn't it read «the authority of Scripture over tradition» rather than «the authority of
tradition over Scripture?»
Frankly, I am surprised at the eclipse of canon within contemporary intra-evangelical
debate over Scripture.
This led some in Matthew's church (he had come out to a small group) to accuse him of «elevating his
experience over Scripture.»
To Evangelicals it appears that, in practice if not in theory, the Catholic understanding of Magisterium, including infallibility, results in the Roman Catholic Church standing in
judgment over Scripture, instead of vice versa.
Because of this I spent many hours reading and
pouring over scripture and reading books from varying viewpoints to seek to find out just what God really felt about this subject.
Like I said, whatever we
dispute over scripture and the details have no bearing on the existence of God since it is evident to me without any scripture.
Calvinism is tradition
over scripture, and one of the biggest (Catholic) traditions that Protestants still peddle today is the Trinity.
In my reading and study, it seems that while many Reformed people talk about the authority of Scripture over tradition, in actual practice, they seem to value tradition
over Scripture, just like many of these other groups do.
If you were to compare the typical writings of the average Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and Catholic theologians, you would discover that when it comes to the issues of faith, grace, the accomplished work of Jesus Christ, the authority of tradition
over Scripture, and the goal of glorifying God in all of life, there is very little distinguishable difference (See the journal article I wrote on this several years ago).
When Justin shared his struggle, they were kind, but tended to turn every conversation into a debate
over Scripture and homosexuality.
What do you think of Matthew's response to the challenge that he is «elevating his experience
over Scripture.»
We make the vast majority of our decisions through God - given wisdom, not supernatural surprises: and when those surprises do occur, they never take precedence
over Scripture.