Would you pastors object to being called "brother" instead?

[praise_yeshua]

If Paul's writings are not God-breathed, then they are not Scripture. They are not authoritative.

Authority comes via God's word. For the legalist, authority comes through opinion.

Everything God breathed... didn't find its way into the Scriptures.

Paul's writings are Truth. All Truth ultimately finds its source in God. We might well consider them Scriptures but there is very little difference in both. Arguing over the distinction between the two is usually frivilous.

 

[FSSL]

That would be fodder for another thread.

We can't get some on this forum to accept the authority of Paul and his apostleship to begin with.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

I agree 100%.  The progressives here are using the title "pastor" (rabbi/teacher), which Christ forbids.  The progressives here give the pastor authority and central focus that belongs only to Christ.  The progressives here say Paul speaks the very words of God, but ignore Paul when he says let 2 or 3 speak in the assembly, forbid women to speak, and that women should have their heads covered, among many other instructions.  And so on...

Those progressives are just picking and choosing what to accept from the Bible. 

 

[FSSL]

Shout it loud and shout it proud, Tomato!

You already told us Paul was not..
...an apostle
...writer of Scripture

That's a lot of NT to toss out!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

There is no denying that. What is being denied is that everyone accepts what 'fits their desires'. Those who claim Scriptural authoritarianism do not really practice it as they have to believe their hermeneutic of the Scripture is their authority. You would not accept those who believe the Scriptures to be final authority but have a Mormon or Catholic hermeneutic in interpretation even though they claim Scripture authoritarianism. In the end, every person relies on his own accepted hermeneutic.

Yes, the pot is black but so is the kettle. But only one will admit it.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

There is no denying that. What is being denied is that everyone accepts what 'fits their desires'. Those who claim Scriptural authoritarianism do not really practice it as they have to believe their hermeneutic of the Scripture is their authority. You would not accept those who believe the Scriptures to be final authority but have a Mormon or Catholic hermeneutic in interpretation even though they claim Scripture authoritarianism. In the end, every person relies on his own accepted hermeneutic.

Yes, the pot is black but so is the kettle. But only one will admit it.

^This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

There is no denying that. What is being denied is that everyone accepts what 'fits their desires'. Those who claim Scriptural authoritarianism do not really practice it as they have to believe their hermeneutic of the Scripture is their authority. You would not accept those who believe the Scriptures to be final authority but have a Mormon or Catholic hermeneutic in interpretation even though they claim Scripture authoritarianism. In the end, every person relies on his own accepted hermeneutic.

Yes, the pot is black but so is the kettle. But only one will admit it.

Hermeneutic only changes the end result. It does not change the source. You're extending your hermeneutics to exclude the source. This is much more dangerous.

Why are you blurring the lines? Do you know the distinction between the "higher critic" and "textual criticism"?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

There is no denying that. What is being denied is that everyone accepts what 'fits their desires'. Those who claim Scriptural authoritarianism do not really practice it as they have to believe their hermeneutic of the Scripture is their authority. You would not accept those who believe the Scriptures to be final authority but have a Mormon or Catholic hermeneutic in interpretation even though they claim Scripture authoritarianism. In the end, every person relies on his own accepted hermeneutic.

Yes, the pot is black but so is the kettle. But only one will admit it.

Hermeneutic only changes the end result. It does not change the source. You're extending your hermeneutics to exclude the source. This is much more dangerous.

Why are you blurring the lines? Do you know the distinction between the "higher critic" and "textual criticism"?

No, one has to accept a hermeneutic. How else do we get the "Free-Will vs. Election" debates? Both sides use the same source as final authority and yet even the issue of salvation is at stake in the argument of both sides. How much different is it for Catholics or Mormons vs. Evangelicals?

It comes down to believing both the source AND hermeneutic. This means BOTH are necessary to claim one's 'source of authority'.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."

There is no denying that. What is being denied is that everyone accepts what 'fits their desires'. Those who claim Scriptural authoritarianism do not really practice it as they have to believe their hermeneutic of the Scripture is their authority. You would not accept those who believe the Scriptures to be final authority but have a Mormon or Catholic hermeneutic in interpretation even though they claim Scripture authoritarianism. In the end, every person relies on his own accepted hermeneutic.

Yes, the pot is black but so is the kettle. But only one will admit it.

Hermeneutic only changes the end result. It does not change the source. You're extending your hermeneutics to exclude the source. This is much more dangerous.

Why are you blurring the lines? Do you know the distinction between the "higher critic" and "textual criticism"?

No, one has to accept a hermeneutic. How else do we get the "Free-Will vs. Election" debates? Both sides use the same source as final authority and yet even the issue of salvation is at stake in the argument of both sides. How much different is it for Catholics or Mormons vs. Evangelicals?

It comes down to believing both the source AND hermeneutic. This means BOTH are necessary to claim one's 'source of authority'.

So the source and hermeneutic are separate? I'm glad you agree. Why did you treat them as being one in the same? You're all over the place. You deny and then confirm this...

Bad hermeneutics doesn't remove the Book of Romans as being authoritative. No matter the bad hermeneutics....I still can embrace the source as being authoritative.

No matter how you spin it.... You're change the source of truth from the texts to hermeneutics.

 

[FSSL]

This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Wait a minute. Not one of us EVER says that Paul was lying about being an apostle. THAT is not a hermeneutical problem. That is a rejection of Paul's words altogether.

Why are you interested in Paul, anyways?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So the source and hermeneutic are separate? I'm glad you agree. Why did you treat them as being one in the same? You're all over the place. You deny and then confirm this...

Because they subject to interpretation.

This original 'ugly' painting sold for $142 million dollars.

Some find it a thing of beauty. Others find it horrendous. Same source but different perspective.

In essence, a person cannot but view it from his own perspective. Where the Bible may or may not be deemed as authoritative, it is done so with relative perspective. To be dogmatic about a particular interpretation when another might view a different interpretation of the same source is the issue I am talking about. Though be absolute, our detached view is what molds our opinion. We will lean our perspective toward that which best suits are particular worldview. 2+2+4 which is not open to relative interpretation. The authority of a 66-book canon (or any other canon) is subject to the individual because we are dealing with matters of opinion and not fact.

Bad hermeneutics doesn't remove the Book of Romans as being authoritative. No matter the bad hermeneutics....I still can embrace the source as being authoritative.

The idea of a particular book being authoritative is a matter of study/conclusion or opinion. Not fact. What would you do with the individual who claims James is authoritative when you might not believe such? It is your hermeneutic and/or study about James that drew you to your conclusion. Your final opinion is decided upon your relative opinion, which means you are not relying solely on the Bible itself as being authoritative, but your interpretation of what books of the Bible would be deemed as authoritative.

No matter how you spin it.... You're change the source of truth from the texts to hermeneutics.

Not really. They are separate entities but the hermeneutic through which we view distorts/clarifies our perception and forms our acceptance of what that truth is based on how we perceive it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Wait a minute. Not one of us EVER says that Paul was lying about being an apostle. THAT is not a hermeneutical problem. That is a rejection of Paul's words altogether.

Why are you interested in Paul, anyways?

I find myself in an awkward position, that of having to agree with FSSL AND praise_yeshua simultaneously.    Yes, it's one thing to disagree on Biblical interpretation and application and quite another to deny the authoritative nature of whole epistles.

 

[ALAYMAN]

^This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Translation:  "Anybody who disagrees with me is a phraisee, AND a poopie-head."

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Wait a minute. Not one of us EVER says that Paul was lying about being an apostle. THAT is not a hermeneutical problem. That is a rejection of Paul's words altogether.

Why are you interested in Paul, anyways?

I find myself in an awkward position, that of having to agree with FSSL AND praise_yeshua simultaneously.    Yes, it's one thing to disagree on Biblical interpretation and application and quite another to deny the authoritative nature of whole epistles.

An awkward position for you indeed!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Smellin, could you tell me why this "relative interpretation" hermeneutic doesn't apply tot he words of Jesus himself?  And for a bonus question why 2+2=4 is an unassailable truth not subject to similar relative interpretations?

So the source and hermeneutic are separate? I'm glad you agree. Why did you treat them as being one in the same? You're all over the place. You deny and then confirm this...

Because they subject to interpretation.

Some find it a thing of beauty. Others find it horrendous. Same source but different perspective.

In essence, a person cannot but view it from his own perspective. Where the Bible may or may not be deemed as authoritative, it is done so with relative perspective. To be dogmatic about a particular interpretation when another might view a different interpretation of the same source is the issue I am talking about. Though be absolute, our detached view is what molds our opinion. We will lean our perspective toward that which best suits are particular worldview. 2+2+4 which is not open to relative interpretation. The authority of a 66-book canon (or any other canon) is subject to the individual because we are dealing with matters of opinion and not fact.

Bad hermeneutics doesn't remove the Book of Romans as being authoritative. No matter the bad hermeneutics....I still can embrace the source as being authoritative.

The idea of a particular book being authoritative is a matter of study/conclusion or opinion. Not fact. What would you do with the individual who claims James is authoritative when you might not believe such? It is your hermeneutic and/or study about James that drew you to your conclusion. Your final opinion is decided upon your relative opinion, which means you are not relying solely on the Bible itself as being authoritative, but your interpretation of what books of the Bible would be deemed as authoritative.

No matter how you spin it.... You're change the source of truth from the texts to hermeneutics.

Not really. They are separate entities but the hermeneutic through which we view distorts/clarifies our perception and forms our acceptance of what that truth is based on how we perceive it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

An awkward position for you indeed!

It was a relative figure of speech, meant allegorically but not meant to take literally.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In essence, a person cannot but view it from his own perspective. Where the Bible may or may not be deemed as authoritative, it is done so with relative perspective. To be dogmatic about a particular interpretation when another might view a different interpretation of the same source is the issue I am talking about. Though be absolute, our detached view is what molds our opinion. We will lean our perspective toward that which best suits are particular worldview. 2+2+4 which is not open to relative interpretation. The authority of a 66-book canon (or any other canon) is subject to the individual because we are dealing with matters of opinion and not fact.

A text isn't a painting. You're comparison is invalid. In fact, your approach the subject shows your inexperience with dealing with the matter.

The idea of a particular book being authoritative is a matter of study/conclusion or opinion. Not fact. What would you do with the individual who claims James is authoritative when you might not believe such? It is your hermeneutic and/or study about James that drew you to your conclusion. Your final opinion is decided upon your relative opinion, which means you are not relying solely on the Bible itself as being authoritative, but your interpretation of what books of the Bible would be deemed as authoritative.

In textual criticism, there are many means to determine the reliability of the text. I don't base my opinion on the hermeneutics of the author. Nor my own....

External and internal evidence influences my choice. Not hermeneutics. The "higher critic" certainly does. Not a true textual critic.

Not really. They are separate entities but the hermeneutic through which we view distorts/clarifies our perception and forms our acceptance of what that truth is based on how we perceive it.

Hermeneutics doesn't change the internal evidence for who wrote the various text. Evidence is evidence. I don't determine evidence based on my hermeneutic view of what its says. The textual critic identifies the evidence.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

An awkward position for you indeed!

It was a relative figure of speech, meant allegorically but not meant to take literally.

Either way...

 

[T-Bone]

This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Wait a minute. Not one of us EVER says that Paul was lying about being an apostle. THAT is not a hermeneutical problem. That is a rejection of Paul's words altogether.

Hyperbole and false claims allows him to make his point...its okay, he does it to Paul, that's pretty good company.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This time infinity.  People like FSSL, ALAYMAN, T-Bone, etc., shout with pride how they adhere to scriptural authority while picking and re-interpreting scriptures to fit their personal outlook on how things should be.  They give lip service to the authority of scripture in order to support their self-righteous pride, but scripture isn't their final authority at all.  The worst part of it all is that the way they interpret Paul contradicts the clear words of Christ, and somehow they think that's okay.

Wait a minute. Not one of us EVER says that Paul was lying about being an apostle. THAT is not a hermeneutical problem. That is a rejection of Paul's words altogether.

Hyperbole and false claims allows him to make his point...its okay, he does it to Paul, that's pretty good company.

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Gotta agree with Paul on this point.  And so should you agree, who claim Paul's words are the very words of God.