welcome to the story.

PART TWO Jerry Coleman: I would Hope that one would be reading the Bible for ones self. and that anyone would be following their own interpretation ... Do you Follow the Bible or do you let someone else tell you what it says? Me: You said: "I would Hope that one would be reading the Bible for ones self. and that everyone would be following their own interpretation..." So every person on the world needs to follow their own interpretation? That's viewing the Truth as less absolute than you claim that I do. Eli Sanders: Jerry, Forgive me, but I must press you here, What would happen if everyone in the United States interpreted the Constitution for themselves without concern for law enforcement, the judicial system or the courts? Complete chaos and anarchy... Jerry, Don't be a "do it yourself Christian." By the way, Josh is correct. For nearly 1600 years NO ONE interpreted the Bible for themselves. And for your information, this is not some "Roman Catholic" dogma... The Eastern Church has maintained correlation to the ancient Church that was preserved by the apostles. Have you ever heard of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement of Rome? These were contemporaries of the apostles, mind you. They were personally selected and appointed by the original twelve. We have their testimony from first and second century letters describing, amplifying and explaining the traditions of the apostles. For over a millennium and a half, until the reformation, the Historic Orthodox Church has maintained consistency in doctrine, practice and tradition. They have resisted heresy and modern, individualistic interpretations of Scripture. Now, for over two millenniums, the Church has remained UN POLLUTED because of the apostolic consistency through the centuries.... (Examine any source for unbiased, non-discriminating material on Church History with an emphasis on the Eastern Church). Until the great schism of 1054, the Church (upper case) was united in form, doctrine and government (so much for autonomy of the church –lower case)… After the filioque clause was introduced to the Nicene Creed and the subordination of the other four patriarchal Churches by Rome, the eastern Church continued divorced from the triumphalistic nature of the West. The truth is, the East was never REFORMED! After 1054, the Roman perversion and betrayal of Orthodoxy characterized the middle ages… While I applaud the reformers, we must never forget that Church history is not divided into two camps… Roman Catholic and Reform…. Ultimately, my question to you is: Why is Church History such a negative phrase in your vocabulary? I guess what you are trying to say is that your post-reform, pluralistic, bigoted, legalistic mindset prevents you from evaluating the legitimacy of your own theological orientation. This inclination also guards you against heretics like Josh and I… As for me and Josh, we rejoice in our persecutions! But, since we don’t wrestle against flesh and blood, this post is not directed to you personally… Forgive my passion, I can be animated at times… While this post may not represent the most eloquent as sophisticated skills one may employ, I hope it has challenged you… Perhaps you should ask yourself, is my theological persuasion a hint of the schizophrenic framework most reform theologians work from? Another appropriate question would be: why does Josh and Eli threaten and intimidate our complacent disposition toward Church History, ecumenism, tradition, hermeneutics, etc.? Maybe the answer is because your world view reflects some measure of insecurity… Jerry Coleman: Christ died on the cross to redeem me. I now have a personal relationship with Him, I have access to the Holy of Holies. I don't need another intercessor between me and God. I don't need an intercessor other than the Holy Spirit between me and the Bible. If you two need that, then ok you follow Christ through men if you want to, just don't try to say I have to do it your way. So you say if a man on a desert Island has a bible he would end up in heresy? He needs to know what the church fathers said and believed? I am sorry, but I can not and will not hold to that assumption. I do not believe in modern day apostles, I do not put any more authority on any man than I do another. The bible is Spiritualy decerned........is it not. Your view is manly decerned. I would like you to answer one question for me.....do you believe that the average man is not capable of understanding the scripturers without knowing about the church fathers and their positions? .......that sound you heard was me throwing up my arms in defeat. My position will never cross yours, and yours would never cross mine. You can have your educated, logical views I dont need them to have a relationship with God. It would not matter if I did not even know that there was a church father I still can have a relationship with God. I have the Scriptures themselves and HE who wrote them inside of me...why do I need a church father. Me: Well you can keep clinging to the latest Georgia Baptist Convention or Southern Baptist Convention's latest bylaws and addendum and I'll keep running my interpretations through and against the grid of the triune God, the Bible, classical theology and the church fathers, church history, modern theology and its theologians, pastoral leadership, and lay leadership. In that order. And if I'm in a good mood, I might check it with what Al Moehler or whoever else is at the Baptist podium on that particular day.