Believing God

I am glad to have this discussion because it helps me test my thinking and might show me if I am in error. But so far I do not think I am in error.

I think I understand your position better, so I will put it in my own words, and you can tell me if I have misunderstood you.

You believe that the church (meaning the true church of course) will not make errors in its doctrines and traditions because, though the church is made up of fallible men, God will guide the church by His Holy Spirit and preserve the church from serious error. Perhaps you haven't stated it that way, and I may be making some assumptions here, but that is the way it comes across to me so far. Because the church is right in its doctrines and traditions, and because the Bible is also true, then both the church and the Bible are true, and the way the church interprets the Bible is the correct way to interpret it. Thus, if it seems to me or to anyone that there is a contradiction between the teachings of the church and what the Bible says, it is the person who disagrees with the church, not the church, who is in error. This must be true no matter how strongly that person feels that the Bible clearly teaches the opposite of the church.

Using myself as an example, I believe that the Bible is very clear that we are not to use images to represent God in our worship of God, but no matter how clear that seems to me, I must be in error because God would not permit the church to be wrong in a matter of such importance. No matter how accurate "my interpretation" of the Bible seems to me, and no matter how unlikely the church's interpretation seems to me, my interpretation must be wrong and the church's must be right.

You might not word it that way exactly, but I think this is your position. Let me know if I am wrong.

But there are questions and issues that position raises in my mind.

First of all, the Bible is full of examples where true men of God have made mistakes, and God allowed it. King David, a man who had God's Holy Spirit within him just as members of God's Church do today, erred in judgement in ordering Joab to number Israel, and God punished David and Israel for it. Peter was rebuked by Paul because Peter was not dealing fairly with Gentile Christians. In the days of the apostles Paul and John, some in the Church in positions of power were putting true Christians out. And the messages Christ gives to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 show that even parts of the true Church can have doctrinal error. Notice Revelation 2:14-16: "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth." There are two doctrines Christ mentions in this passage that this church needed to repent of or God would visit them with punishment. And this message is not even to a false church! The message is to part of the true Church, the "foundation of the truth" as you phrase it. All seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are part of the true church (Revelation 1:4-6, 11-20). This seems to prove that the true church CAN be wrong in doctrine.

But more importantly than that, how can a person know that the church they attend today is the true church established by Jesus Christ and the original first century apostles and not a false church? There are many churches today that claim to be Christian and claim to follow the same traditions as the first century church, but their teachings are very different from each other on a number of issues. I am talking about the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Church of God Seventh Day and various other Churches of God. The fact there there is such a diversity of beliefs among churches that claim to follow the traditions of the first century church should raise a red flag about the idea that the church one follows must be teaching true doctrine.

How can you tell the difference between a true church and a false church?

How do you know what is the tradition of men and what is the tradition of the original apostles which they received from God? How can you tell which is the tradition which has God as its source? How can you tell which are the false traditions and which are the apostolic or holy traditions?

There was an apostasy forming even in the first century, a "falling away" as the apostle Paul put it (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4), and even the apostle John was not accepted by those who were leading an apostasy, and they apparently had begun to gain some power in the church (3 John 9-10). How do you know that the Greek Orthodox Church, or any church for that matter, is not a church that comes from the traditions of a false church, an apostate church, that was forming late in the first century?

The only way you can know is by the Bible. The traditions and doctrines given by God are those that are recorded in the Bible. Traditions and doctrines of churches today must be compared with the teaching of the Bible for us to know if they are true. We must be like the Bereans who checked what Paul told them against the scriptures to see if Paul was speaking the truth (Acts 17:10-12). No one can assume that the traditions of the church he belongs to must be correct because God would not allow the church he attends to be in error.

Also, we must let the Bible interpret itself. Some scriptures are clear and some are difficult, but we must let the clear scriptures interpret unclear ones.

The idea that we cannot correctly understand clear scriptures in the Bible apart from the interpretation of the church is wrong. Likewise it is wrong to think that if we see something in the Bible that clearly contradicts the church we attend, we must be interpreting it wrong. Some things are plain and need no interpretation. 2 + 2 = 4 does not need to be "interpreted." Likewise the Bible teaching against using images in worship is so clear it need no interpretation. The interpretation issue becomes an excuse to not believe and strive to obey what God says.

You wrote, "How do you know you are correct when I tell you point blank that the Holy Spirit has lead me into truth and that truth is diametrically opposed to what you claim?"

Like anything else, I turn to the Bible, and I find these scriptures: 1 John 4:1, Isaiah 8:20, and Deuteronomy 13:1-4. Then I look up all the verses that pertain to the particular subject you are talking about to find out what the Bible actually says, always in an attitude of being willing to believe God as Abraham did. Those scriptures that are plain and need no interpretation, I believe. Those that are difficult I let be interpreted by the other scriptures that are plain. When I know what the Bible says on the subject, that is what I believe, and if you do not believe the Bible on that subject, I know which of us is wrong.

There were false teachers and a false church rising up even before the close of the first century, and that false church and its offshoots can still exist today. For a church to claim it has stood for 2,000 years does not guarentee that it is the same church that Jesus Christ founded. I need to know which church is the true church and which is Satan's counterfeit (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 3 John 9-10). The only way I can tell is by the Bible.

You wrote, "Upon what do you base your interpretations? On your studies? How can you prove that your studies are not really the fanciful imaginings of your own preconceived ideas...?"

That is a fair question, and I will answer this way. God gave me a mind and the ability to reason and He expects me to use it in seeking Him. In this I need to strive to have an open mind and not be influenced by pre-conceived ideas in reading the Bible. I need to be willing to admit when I am wrong. I need to be willing to believe what God says even when it is hard or even when it requires that I make difficult changes in my life. Now, anyone, including myself, is capable of self-deception. But God, who can read my heart, is the judge of whether I am being honest in my study of the Bible or am twisting it to say what I want it to say, even unconsciously. So if I am twisting the scriptures, God is my judge. But if I am believing what God says in the Bible and trying to obey Him the best I can, then God will help me understand more of the Bible one point at a time. The more I believe and strive to obey, the more understanding God will give me (Psalm 111:10).

But if at some point I become unwilling to believe what God plainly says, and instead choose to believe a church, a minister, my traditions, or my own opinions, then I have committed the sin of disbelieving God, and the understanding stops. Then I become subject to self-deception and Satan's deceptions.

You wrote, "...particularly when they have no historic foundation? Beyond a few hundred years your ideas of biblical interpretation find no basis. By whom were they held in the sixth century? tenth century? thirteenth century? I'm afraid you will search in vain for evidence of support because there is none prior to the Reformation."

There is not a lot of historical evidence because the true Church has always been small and usually persecuted among the hundreds of millions of those claiming to be Christian (Luke 12:32, Matthew 7:13-14). But I have read of some historical evidence that the Church that believes as I do has existed during the last 2,000 years and has made its mark in written records at various times.

Originally posted by leushino:

But when you turn to the bible (as you mentioned in your first sentence) and I turn to mine, we arrive at different interpretations.

Of course, because by your own admission you let the Orthodox Church guide your interpretation of the Bible, and I do not. If I am willing to believe what the Bible clearly says without twisting it through interpretation, but letting clear scriptures interpret difficult ones (God is my judge as to whether I am sincere about this or not), and you let your understanding of the Bible be controlled by an institution that is in turn controlled by tradtions that have come, not from the true church, but from a false church that began in the late first century, of course we will not understand the Bible the same way.

As far as historical evidence over the last 2,000 years of the true church, I am not relying on any one particular source. My reliance is on the Bible itself. When I see churches with traditions opposite to those of the original church that Christ founded as recorded in the Bible, I do not need history books written by men to tell me that those churches are not the true church.

I have read quotes of various books indicating the existance of groups here and there in the world over the last 2,000 years that remained faithful to the original teachings of Jesus Christ, and I am inclined to think they are probably accurate. But that is not important to me because whether history records these small groups or not has no bearing on whether the true church has existed for 2,000 years.