prisonchaplain

They did so to find out who should replace Judas. They did so to determine what regulations Greek Christians would be under (Acts 15 for that one). The idea that church leaders would get together to discuss concerns is well established in both Scripture and human history. You seriously do not believe it is important, or that God had no interest, is Christians being able to quickly know whether a spiritual writing was to be considered Holy Scripture or not? You do not accept the canon that the LDS Church has? The Quad is not your base point for religious writings? Traveler, you are better than this! You know full well that what I said was that whatever Jesus quoted--that quotation becomes Scripture. However, we cannot conclude that the entire book the passage came out of should likewise become Scripture. To repeat my example, most people know the "Power corrupts" quotation, but few know that Lord Acton said it, nor are they familiar with all his writings. Likewise, everytime you quote an individual, you are not, necessarily, endorsing everything that person ever said or published. You've abandoned the normal practices of dialogue, and switched to a debating style. Jesus did not address canon, because people took canon for granted. It was well established. And, again, Jesus repeating a common saying or passage, is no indication that he endorsed everything the author of the passage wrote. You have a preponderance of evidence that 2 billion Christians are wrong? That your church is wrong? OK, Traveler--of course Jesus wrote in the sand. It's possible he wrote other things too. However, he did not write anything he intended to be included in the Bible. There is nothing in the gospels, or other New Testament writings that even hints at Jesus having wrote down his thoughts for the church. Why do you keep chasing after new things? Far better to master the old things that have stood for 2000+ years. I'm not sure how to respond. Your tone has turned rather tense of late. I hope the journeying does you good. B)

To summarize: 1. Snow's approach to Mormonism and 'General Christianity' is somewhat akin to that of most Pentecostals towards non-Pentecostals: We wish you would avail yourselves of the added power and blessings we've received, but we bless you in what you have and are accomplishing, as well. One caveat--you probably agree with Blomberg/Robinson that we're not ready to share pulpits, communions, or baptisms. 2. Ray's approach is more akin to that of many fundamentalists towards Catholics: "Come out from among them and be ye separate." I'm overstating the case a bit, but whereas Snow seems to believe he's got something really neat to show his Christian acquaintances, Ray gives the impression of trying to win souls. If you're even half right then there is no need for you to qualify your statement with "outside the military."

I look forward to hearing your main point, since I thought I had restated it correctly. Please consider my statements an invitation for you to clarify. Okay, so, I at this point God has not shown me or led me in the direction of believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. So, where does my current understanding lead me? In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it? To repeat my comparison, Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, subsequent to salvation. We also believe that this experience is accompanied by tongues-speech. So, does this mean that non-Pentecostal believers don't 'have the Spirit?' No. We use terms like fullness and empowerment. Yes, we wish everyone 'got it.' But, we do not break fellowship with our non-Pentecostal bretheren. I don't disagree with you. However, as a growing Christian, willing to know more, but pleased with what God has and is doing through me, the issue of the veracity of Joseph Smith has not been high on my spiritual list. Such is the case for most Christians. Many of those who have queried God claim to have received a negative answer. Of course, 12 million Mormons claim the opposite. So, my question: Is there precedent for making the veracity of a mere messenger (no disrespect intended) a matter over which fellowship might be broken? In other words, has the messenger in this case become more important than the message, and Him who the message is about? Even Jesus did not reject the synagogue or the temple. He reacted against corrupt religious leaders, but never sought to establish a new sect, or religion. Yet, Joseph Smith starts out this way. "They're all wrong, all corrupt." Why wouldn't God hope to redeem the hundreds of millions of Christians in the established churches of his day, rather than brushing them all aside, to start anew. Note also, that Martin Luther was a most reluctant schismatic. He wanted reform, not spiritual revolution. Ironically, many theologians believe Luther's reformation actually saved the Catholic church, by forcing into to reform itself. Me thinks this pleased God. If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6). And I would suggest that the prophets never ascribed such honor to themselves, never demanded that worshippers of God affirm their office as prophets. Likewise, while Paul defended his ministry, he was quick to point his listeners to Jesus, not himself.

We were using bottled spring water, but it got pricey ($6.50 per 5-gallon bottle). So, we switched to a company that uses top-grade commercial filters, and now pay $1.80 per 5-gallon bottle. We stick them on a water cooler/heater. Very convenient, and only costs us about $5.40 per month (vs. roughly $20 before). Perhaps another option, is to get a nice water filtration system, minus the distilling. Cheap, but probably still a lot tastier and cleaner.

I hope the clips from what I said answer your question. We don't outlaw them. We ostracize them (we being the churches, not the govt), and we laugh at them.

I'm in another post, discussing this issue with Ray. My question, why the near-idolatry of Joseph Smith. In Judaism, Moses is obviously the most important prophet, as the writer of the Torah. Nevertheless, Jews do not speak much about the Prophet Moses, but rather about the Law of God, and how to obey them. Likewise, Paul castigated the Corinthians in the first chapter, for bragging about who had baptized them--to the point of making factions. The one religion in which the prophet is so highly esteemed is Islam. And, if I'm not mistaken, some here accused them of idolatry. So, even if Joseph Smith was absolutely right in what he said, saw, and did, would God not have been more pleased if the corrections and truths he brought had been successfully communicated to the Christian community, rather than a new denomination being created, and allegiance to church and messenger being demanded (I know that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God--however it is worded). Just a thought.

In a way, that's true, but that's not in the way you mean it. For instance, try imagining what will happen on the day of judgment when God will speak to everyone who now says that they were preaching the true “gospel”. (hint: what Traveler said about “I never knew you”) Do you have that image in your mind now? Can you imagine what He would say to you? Now try thinking about what it would mean for God to say He does know us, and for us to say we know God. For instance, doesn't knowledge of God necessarily involve a personal relationship with God, with God revealing His knowledge to us, and us obtaining our knowledge of God from God, rather than simply by knowing other people who will tell you what they say God told them? And wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know about people God has authorized… as we ask God about those people? Or in other words, wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by simply asking God about him? I say Yes. If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line? How interesting. I'm not sure any other Jewish prophet ever required such allegiance. I can think of only one who did: Mohammed. And I seem to recall another string in which Muslims were accused to idolatry for so elevating the importance of belief in the prophet, that it superceded belief in God. Ray, if you (not the LDS, and not other posters at ldstalk--since you're the only saying this)--demand allegiance to Joseph Smith as a PREREQUISITE to knowledge of God, then you are idolizing a mere messenger. Jesus aid He is the Way, Truth, and Life--and that no one comes to the Father, but by Him. You dare not put Joseph on the level as Jesus. I do have a testimony of what Jesus will say to me. It will be "Well done good and faithful servant, enter into my kingdom." Because, I faithfully preached Christ, and him crucified. I understand your point. But guard your zeal, Ray. We Pentecostals often must tame some of our bretheren who get excited about the fullness of Holy Spirit baptism, and start, erroneously, teaching that any True Christian would want this, seek this, and gain this. Such is not the teaching of our churches. Power tools are great. They are useful. They are not required. My question: Even if all that Joseph Smith said and experienced was as he said it was, do you not think that God would rather see all Christians come into the truths that his messenger explicated, rather than requiring allegiance to the man and the institution he fostered? It hasn't played out that way, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't have. Just a thought.

You may well be right. I based my comment on responses here to strings where the issue of authority has come up. Repeatedly I have been told that only those authorized have authority to preach the gospel. Now that I think about it, most Mormon men are ordained into priestly orders. So, the real issue is not one's office in the church, but one's membership in THE CHURCH. So, to carry your side of the argument a little further, since the LDS has a tight reign on membership, placement in roles, and doctrine, loose canons never find fertile ground to develop self-promoting "ministries." Did I capture your argument here? Again, I would argue that the importance of baptism is WHO one is being baptized into, not which church, or the rank of the one doing the officiating. Recall in 1 Corinthians 1, how disgusted Paul was with the people for breaking into factions because of who had baptized them.

True enough. However, my sense is that most Mormons would quickly call in the missionaries or other authority figures to do any training, and perhaps even to say a prayer of initiation. In a sense, what you say is true. We might well recognize--and in fact do recognize--the ministries of some of those independents as legitimate. God will judge those who are corrupt. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a person could be preaching because "it's a good gig," and while s/he might personally end up in hell for their sins and lack of faith, the followers would still receive their blessings. Why? The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger. BTW, God can use people with rough pasts. Matthew the tax collector (they were collaboraters with occupation governments), the woman at the well (5X divorcee, shacking up with boyfriend), etc. However, you do make my case that denominations do provide a greater level of unity and spiritual safety than do independent movements, though the latter are definitely experiencing the greater growth these days.

Christianity 88% Islam 42% Judaism 42% Buddhism 38% Hinduism 17% agnosticism 13% Satanism 4% Paganism 4% atheism 0% Well, I got a B+ in Christianity, and failed everything else. I guess I know which mansion I'm going to. B) I've noticed a similarity between Islam and Mormonism. A young man goes to a cave and encounters a messenger of God. New Scripture and a new religion come out of the experience. There is initial violent rejection, but afterwards tremendous growth. BTW, if Homeland security comes by to ask some questions, it wasn't me that tipped them off.

I wonder ... over the last couple thousand years ago, who has been the source of more violence and evil, Christians or Muslims? I believe the correct answer would be Communists. They did more damage in 70 years or so the Christians and Muslims combined, if I'm not mistaken. Sorry to play with words here, but I'm all for extreme and radical Christianity--the kind that got 11 disciples killed, and caused the Roman government to take notice of a tiny Jewish sect. It's the so-called Christian nutjobs that we must continue to ostracize. Fortunately, what we do here, is let them speak, then laugh at them. In the Islamic world, moderates are far too "moderate," in saying, "Well, yes, we condemn that our Hamas bretheren got a little carried away...BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE ATROCITIES OF THE ZIONIST ENTITY AND THE WESTERN COLONIALISTS..." Note which gets spoken louder. The Catholic Church is paying big bucks for protecting their criminals. Muslims will do the same, if they continue to tread softly around the gangsters in their fold.

When I said all believers are called to spread the gospel, I did not mean that all believers are called to become ordained ministers. In fact, that was part of my post--not all are called to teach, preach, etc.--yet all are to bare testimony to the greatness of God and his salvation.My own fellowship, like most Protestant churches, has stringent processes for those who would become ministers, missionaries, or even evangelists. Yet, we regularly remind our people to share truth with their neighbors, coworkers, etc. Every believer should be able to lead a soul to faith, and to begin the process of discipleship (training). The "priesthood of all believers" generally does not extend to officiating over the ordinances of the church. The focus is primarily "evangelism." In most of the instances you mention, nonbelievers, or pride-filled leaders tried to shortcut God's work. Again, we're comparing evangelism to ordinances--apples and oranges. Well, with your lack of tolerance for "controlled chaos" you're in the right fellowship, then. On the other hand, Protestantism still works. Both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart WERE ordained ministers in my fellowship. Swaggart, in particular, had been counseled by authorities about his pride. Here's how his 'fall' played out. 1. When the allegations of sexual misconduct became known, Swaggart was offered the standard program of rehabilitation for ordained ministers--a minimum of one year out of the pulpit and public ministry, accompanied by intensive religious counseling. The period could extend up to two years, depending on how church authorities evaluate the offender's progress. Ultimately a decision to reinstate or withdraw credentials is made. 2. Swaggart attempted to negotiate a four-month rehabilitation with his local district office. His ministry was pumping in 50% of the district's missionary support. 3. The national office stepped in, and said, your district has no authority to negotiate any rehabilitation. You will take the standard offer, or leave it. 4. He left it, and became independent. Yes, he's still preaching. However, the message was clear. He no longer had the approval of his peers. Many of the others you list are indeed independent. So, perhaps your concerns are mostly directed at independent ministries. For an example of apparent diversity that works, however, I look to Promise Keepers. We had a great diversity of Christian fellowships--we disagreed on some fairly serious doctrinal issues. Yet, we were united enough on the essentials, that we gathered to build Christian men up to be better husbands, fathers, and churchmen. We led a great day of repentence in 1997--one that I am convinced probably held back some things we will never know about until the second coming. I'm sorry that the universal church of believers is a rather hodge-podge, sometimes chaotic grouping. Yet, my reading of the New Testament leads me to contend that the more things change the more they remain the same. I much prefer a diversity I can see and engage, to a congregation full of people who only "say the right things."

Sorry I missed your special day...but trust you'll have many more of them. Blessings upon blessings to you!

You all realize, by now, that Ray isn't really Mormon. He's a closet Pentecostal. Or, maybe he's a sleeper-agent that I'm waiting to activate. Seriously, though, this issue of anointing vs. preparation is big in the Pentecostal movement. In African-American churches, and in India, I'm told the ministers do not prepare sermon outlines, but rather get up and read a passage, and begin speaking as the Holy Spirit leads. This can be powerful, to the moment, and insightful--IF that speaker is thoroughly immersed in the word of God. On the other hand, why can't the Holy Ghost anoint sermon/lesson preparation? Why can't my detailed points/subpoints have the same anointing as impromptu gospel presentation? The real difference is that with preparation, the lesson can be delivered in 15-30 minutes, while the impromptu type usually goes for an hour or more.

Okay, let's get to the bottom-line. There is no verse that says, "Thou shalt convene councils to determine which religious books are inspired by me, your Creator, and which are not." Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious. So, who would God use to dilineate what is and is not Scripture. The Old Testament stems from the Books of Moses. The spiritual leaders were judges early on, then prophets, priests and teachers (who became rabbis). That God would use these leaders to pray over and discern which writings are anointed of God, and succeed in explicating God's plan and how his people should carry out the Law. In the New Testament, we have the original disciples, then Paul, then those appointed as bishops and deacons. Once again, God primarily used the original apostles (plus Paul) to produce the New Testament, and church leaders to discern what fits and does not fit in. If you need a didactic verse to justify canon, you'll not find it. But, so many of the processes and practices we take for granted developed, rather than being specifically, in a single passage of Scripture, perscribed. Actually, this lack of a single author and single manuscript help me to embrace the Bible, verses the writings of other religions. It would be fairly easy for one person to develop a spiritual system, and write a cogent book about it. That the Bible developed over 1500 years, by 40+ writers, and that they come together to tell a single story that flows naturally, actually confirms that it was ultimately God who was behind it. If Jesus quotes a passage in the New Testament, that passage becomes part of the canon. Jesus was not speaking to canonization when he sites a passage. How many of us have cited the "Power corrupts absolutely," citation, without having any notion of all the writings that Lord Acton produced--or even that he was the author? In the end, we accept what the Jewish leaders of old, and the church leaders of the patristic area formulated, as God's will for us to have a Scripture. Personally, I doubt Jesus wrote anything. If he did, who would read anything else? We'd have the words of the Savior. However, it is not impossible that scholars will continue to evaluate it, and ultimately accept it. If so, praise God for the addition. My guess is that this writing probably contains little that is revolutionary to church practice.

Ultimately, my faith in the veracity of the Bible stems from my faith in God. It is writing that He commissioned. 66 books written over 1500 years, by 40+ authors, all coming together to present God's love relationship with his creation. The books mesh, they flow together, and yes, part of my faith stems from what Mormons call "testimony"--by the Holy Ghost--and partly through authority--in that we Protestant do not disown the 1500 years of the church that were almost exclusively Catholic. I concur with Prof. Blomberg (How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation)--he's the evangelical representative--that the canon cannot be declared definitively closed, soley by use of Scripture. Nevertheless, the Bible does seem to be a complete presentation of the story of God, his people, Jesus, his Church, and the end of times--with final redemption. The Sacred Works--or more specifically, the Triad, present a different stream--one to which I'm not qualified to comment too deeply, not having completely read, much less studied them. Ultimately, I am convinced that if God declared his written word to be of such import to the biblical generation, and he says his word shall not pass away, then He would have kept it preserved for our generation. The KJV, and indeed all translations, might have occasional misprints. There may be subtle nuances that could not be precisely translated. This is why God has also raised up teachers, scholars, bishops, etc. to explicate the word to his people. However, YES, I have confidence in modern translations. The more manuscripts archeaologists dig up, the more we find confirmation of what is already done. The areas of dispute amongst translators are so few and so insignficant, that we can confidently say that with our KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. we have the word of the God, preserved. Ultimately, the word of God is a spiritual book (inspired by the Holy Ghost), so it is understood fully, only by the anointing of the Spirit. My one caution--beware the excitement or passion of the flesh. Sometimes, our desire to be "on fire for God," can be misdirected. I recall a very sad period for the church from about 1990 to 1992, when there was a widespread heresy spreading that Jesus would return in Oct. 1992. A lot of well-meaning believers got caught up in the fervor, claiming to have "heard from God." We need spiritual testimonies, but we must also use reason, and yes, rely on our spiritual authorities to guide us. I'm a little confused here. The second-coming will be for judgement. Those who are ready will rejoice. Those who are not, will mourn. Nevertheless, whether in joy or terror, the Bible says every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! Amen.

In Amos 3 God explains to the Israelites that judgment is coming and the prophets have been told, and are compelled to reveal them to the people. So, the message today might well be that God will warn his church when judgment is coming, and that the prophets (whether those who exercise the gift of prophecy, or those who prophecy (or proclaim), will certainly warn the members. It seemed to me that you carried the Amos passage too far when you suggested that it not only justified the modern Mormon church office of prophet, but the passage required it. The main message of Amos is not the importance for the church of the office of prophets, but that God warns his people of judgment--they are without excuse. By the way, as to your inclination of why I interpret the passages the way I do: I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to change your theology here. I simply want you understand where I and many evangelical/pentecostal types are coming from. It's not an agenda I'm explaining, it's our beliefs. B) Yes, and these 12 (or 11) were told to make disciples, who obviously would also make disciples, etc. etc. There's even a denomination called the Disciples of Christ. In Acts 1 Jesus said this good news was to be spread to the uttermost parts of the earth. Clearly, more than 12 were needed. My understanding is that the Holy Bible contains all the truth God wants us to have in writing. Yes, there are prophecies given. Yes, teachers, preachers, evangelists, missionaries explicate truths and applications daily. And yes, there are truths that are not found in the Bible. However, the Bible is complete--it is what God wants it to be for us. I quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 because you asked me if Scripture was complete, useful or some such inquiry. The passage explains how Scripture is useful. No, it does not refer to the Bible we have today, because the Bible was not yet complete. The first test--which we both would pass--is that truth-tellers recognize Jesus as the Truth, and as Lord. Beyond that, yes, this is why the Lord gave some to be teachers, some to be pastors (overseers, bishops)--why he granted some the gift of discernment. And, ultimately, most Christians do look to their church leaders for protection and direction. I'm afraid I lost the context of your response. Are you suggesting that there can be only one human organization (i.e. denomination) that represents Christ, and that all others would be false? Scripture calls us to be united, not lock-step. Even within Mormon churches, some stakes run differently than others on secondary matters, I'm sure. I'm a little confused here. Yes, it's a cute pat answer to say, "I submit to Christ, not writings, not a church organization." Yet, you seem to have been driving at the argument that ultimately authority comes through apostolic succession--through Joseph Smith to the priestly orders, etc., not through mere Scripture interpretation by any believer who has a thought. To reword what you've surmized: Yes, I believe that God has given his general authority (POWER) for all Christians to "make disciples" to "be witnesses," etc. Not all are pastors, teachers, prophets etc. But all believers have the authority to present the good news to those in their circle of influence--the authority and the obligation, for that matter. It's more like saying anyone can do simple household repairs. Yes, professional contractors can do the tasks more efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, many choose to do minor jobs themselves. Likewise, professionally trained clergy, or missionaries, or evangelists etc. can more correctly, completely, and perhaps powerfully preach the good news than laity. On the other hand, many nonbelievers will not have or seek access to the professionals. Thus, all believers are called to bear witness to the truth they know, and to proclaim God's greatness in word and deed. When it comes to presenting the good news, all believers have the authority--or power--to witness--via the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:8

Possible opinion? I think Jesus was baptised by immersion by John. Probably no audible voice. Dove was an attempt to win over pagan converts who were accustomed to worshipping a goddess, and whereas the Dove is a symbol of the femine goddesses of the Roman Empire, it worked well. This also helps us understand the oft debated notion that the Holy Ghost is actually a female deity (aka Holy Mother). I've got a book coming from Amazon that may shed some light. I'll let you know. Matthew 3:16: ...the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. Two notes: 1. The passage says the Spirit descended like a dove, so there was likely no actual dove. 2. Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience, and any hint of pandering to pagans would have backfired. 3. In the parallel passage, Mark 1:10, the phrase is also "like a dove." Mark was geared towards the Greek, but also only pictures a dove-likelanding. Conclusion: The Holy Ghost was there, but probably landed in the fashion of a dove, rather than in appearance as one.

In a different string Snow indicated to me that Mormons are not limited to the KJV. He said that it is true that the church only publishes the KJV, and so it has an unofficial favor, but that other translations are not officially any less canonical. At the official site's section on the Holy Bible, there is no reference to translation. http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.html So, how comfortable would you be using a more modern translation? My two-cents: The New International Version is most popular amongst evangelicals. Those who prefer a more literal, word for word translation, favor the New American Standard Bible. And, for a really down-to-earth colloquial translation, try The Message. Most biblical scholars believe the the more modern translations are actually somewhat more accurate, in that they rely on a much larger collection of manuscripts that date back much closer to the original writings.

So did my tawdry little 'false advertising' work? Did you take a peak?

Non-PC it may be, but if someone is clearly too "substantial" to fit in an airline seat, the airlines will charge them for two seats.

On several strings, relating to the issue of AUTHORITY, I have made reference to the priesthood of all believers. In a nutshell, it is an understanding that the commands Jesus gave to the disciples, now fall to all believers--not just clergy, or ordinates (such as official priests or other church leaders). Interestingly, according to the below referenced article, even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible as commanding all believers to carry out the non-liturgical work of the kingdom. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers

It sounds to me as though you have definitely learned to be content when in want. In some ways it may be easier. Things tend to be more black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. For example, during the Communist reign in the Soviet Union, the Christians there would pray for Americans. They knew that we must be mightily tempted by wealth, the false sense of self-sufficiency, and the lack of outright opposition. Paul offers the following ideal in Philippians: 4:11: Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (12) I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. My sense is that we are more in danger of becoming like Lot, in Sodom & Gomorrah. He had gotten so comfortable, had learned to fit in so well, that he was indistinguishable from his ungodly neighbors. Or, perhaps, like the Church of Laodicea (see Revelation 3). We're not "hot"--not excited, not passionate about our God or our faith. We're not "cold"--we offer no refreshing, no healing, no satiating power to a lost and dying world. Instead we're lukewarm--good for nothing, other than to bolster our churches' membership claims. But, the answer is not poverty of means--but poverty of Spirit. We must once again realize our desperate need for God. We must, as Jesus said, hunger and thirst after righteousness. (Sorry folks--it's Sunday--and I'm in a preaching mentality. )

I guess it comes down to who you believe the Bible was written for. Take Matthew 28:18-19, for example: And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations... Yes, Jesus' initial audience was the disciples. However, the Bible is also written to all believers "unto the end of the world." (Mt. 28:20). So, it's written to me. It's written to all believers. That's my default reading of this, and most such passages. Authority = power, and power is for witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth. (see Acts 1:8) In my 32 years as a Christian, I never encountered an alternate understanding of reading Scripture...until I came here. Suddenly, I'm asked, "Why would that passage apply to you? You're not a disciple, nor do you have the authority of the disciples." I don't know if this helps, Traveler. When Jesus says, in Scripture, to do, most evangelicals believe it means that each of us is to do. Me thinks you are confusing faulty interpretation with biblical authorization. Much of the Bible tells story, and only incidentally relays secular information that might be useful to scientists or other professionals. I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking where, in the Bible, it says we should follow the precepts and lessons of the Bible? If so, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I suppose 1 Corinthians 12-14 lists the gifts of the Spirit, including teachers (who explicate Scripture). BTW, it's obviously not that an inanimate object (Bible) gives authority, and that the teachings empower. Well, that's a pretty vague set of accusations. If you refer to teachers who also rely on church history and doctrinal development, well, Scripture does tell us that some are gifted as teachers--and these folk also write and consult. Their words are not Holy Scripture, but as understandings undergo peer-criticism, and then are embraced and rejected by the churches, they do carry weight. Other teachers fall by the wayside, when they do not stand up. As for respecting everyone the same--no of course not. Not everyone who claims to be a gifted teacher is. Not everyone who claims to have a prophetic word does (you might have heard of the 1992 heresy, in Korea, whereby a prophet claimed Jesus would return in October of that year). Yes, we're all equal--but to use a corny refrain--some teachers/leaders are more equal than others. Finally, quite often a single verse is so powerful, that teachers will use two or three illustrations to highlight the truths. Often illustrations come from personal experience, or from modern accounts. The authority is in the Truth, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). Jesus told us that there would always be false teachers, pretenders, wolves in sheeps clothes--more so as the end of time approaches. During the Seoul Olympics, in 1988, there were 72 different "prophets" circulating their messages in Korea. Where the church leadership comes in, is to oversee the most essential truths and teachings, and to offer guidance. So, yes, there are times when human leadership exercises authority to say "Yea or Nay." However, even then, believers may sincerely disagree. We part and bless one another. How very Catholic of you. Protestants say church leadership and tradition must submit to the truths of the Bible. Catholicism says, NO--the Bible and Tradition are equal, and only the Church may interpret them.

Well, I'm glad this message resonated with you. I am also using it for today's (2/19) homily in the prison chapel. Here's a couple of sections that might make more sense, with that in mind: 3. Love does not delight in evil. A problem with many action movies is that they lead us to cheer when the bad guy gets killed. Although, some of you seem to cheer when the cops get hurt???? 2. Love is not rude. Anything you say to a friend during the chapel service is not love. In fact, you may be robbing your friend of an important word from God.