welcome to the story.

Remember that the natural progression of this conversation starts at Part 1 and that Part 5 is the last one in order. Part Five - The Final Rant Jerry Coleman: If the bible is your authority.....but not your own interpretation of it....may I just ask you one question...How can it be your authority if you do not know what is in it? If you have to get someone else to show you what is in it, then what is the authority...the book or the man? I do undertand that my interpretation must come thru the Holy Spirirt....not of myself...But my authority is what my interpretaion of the Bible says to me with the help of the Holy Spirit. Yes I need man to guide me with knowledge about the history of the books, the background the reason for writting the book, to whom it is written...but after that its up to me and the Holy Spirit to get it right....will I always be absoulutly right...I would guess not, but I would rather be wrong on my own position as the Holy Spirit guided me than to listen to another person. You people can call me a Baptist heritec all you want....you can laugh at my positions....but at least they are mine, or should I say what the Holy Spirit has shown to me.........I dont have know way of telling if anyone has the the gudance of the Holy Spirit. Why would I listen to a man over the Spirit... I have a personal standing with God, equal to any other man on this earth. I do not believe in modern day apostles. So my standing with the Holy Spirit is equal to any. So why sould I listen to another man, when I have the Spirit whithin me. I hope, and this is my prayer, that all here would alwasys fol the Holy Spirit and never a man...we should always have are eyes on Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our faith. He alone will guide you, men can let you down. Teacher can teach falsly. Do I hold the view of all of my professors...heavens no....but can each and every one of them guide me in some way, can they not increase my knowledge of God...the answer is yes....very much yes....but my ultimate interpretation of the Scriptures is between me and the Holy Spirit...not me and men. That is why Christ died on the cross, to reconcile me to the Father, I now have direct access to Him for prayer....and guess what...its a two way street...He teaches me the Scripture...Does it not say that in the Bible, that it is Spiritualy decerned. If this is a Baptist position,,, then by all means lable me the biggest Baptist you have ever known..... And yes you are right, we should not even be arguing about this, there is a point when it just becomes a personal pious contest and this did. Once you pass the point of changing minds, or in guidance, then it is time to shut up...my opologies to all if I have gone too far in defending my faith. I really dont understand why people with such views that are totaly anti-Baptist would be going to a Baptist Seminary. Had to get in one last punch..........lol Me: My positions aren't anti-Baptist. They're anti-Pharisee if that helps me clarify myself. And would it surprise you if I told you that I'm 22 years old and for 20 years of my life, I was as Baptist as Baptist gets? This might surprise you since you perceive me to be a heretic for thinking outside the Baptist box for a second, but I agree more with "Baptist" theology than any other "denominations". But I think denominations are unbiblical, so I'm really a walking contradiction. But that's why I began at Luther Rice. Now the only reason I'm still here is to learn what not to do as a pastor. To learn how not to be a close-minded fundamentalist. To learn how not to just "know" the truth, but to experience it as well. Essentially I'm learning more of what not to do than in ministry than learning what I should do. But that's another story for another day. And one that I'm sure no one else agrees with. But since I'm already a heretic, I'd figured I'd go ahead and say it just so you could have more fuel for your fire. And thanks for the last punch. I'm sure it won't be the last in my ministry to connect people with God in a vital relationship. But I imagine if I said the right things, and kissed the right . . . . feet . . . . and did the religion gig, I wouldn't be getting any punches. But that's just not my style. Jerry Coleman: I ran what you said by a Church History professor here at Luther Rice...I will not post what he said of your opinions. But of course that would be a Baptist position. The funny thing, I learned in Church History that all the reformers we trying to get the Bible into the peoples hands, they believed in the priest hood of the believer...You claim to have reformed position. but your positions would go against most of the reformers positions. You may have a different history book than me. But I am not accusing you of herasy, nor have I. I oppologize for being strait forward, its much easier to type straight forward than to talk it. Me: I agree with your assessment of the Reformers, but with a different slant. I do not believe that there main goal was to get the Bible into the hands of the believers, so much as it was to overturn the corrupt AUTHORITY that was perverting portions of Scripture. Putting the Bible in the hands of the believers as you put it wasn't even possible at this time because of the high price that it cost to own a Bible. But it nonetheless became a byproduct of the Reformation. While I applaud the Reformation and the changes that it brought for the better, I do not think the Reformation accomplished everything that it could have. The Reformers were justified in their frustration with the corrupt AUTHORITY structures that were in place. But in their zeal to topple that system, they fell into the same trap that they were seeking to get away from. The Reformers (the majority of them) instead of going back to the biblical AUTHORITY structures of the Old Testament Jews and New Testament church, as well as the first 400 years of the early church (before Constantine screwed it up with his wedding of church and state-which led to the corruption of the AUTHORITY that the Reformers were rebelling against), instead of going back to the past to REFORM the current abused AUTHORITY, they simply went forward and REFORMED the current abused AUTHORITY by placing an emphasis on the individual as sole AUTHORITY. This led to "the priesthood of all believers". Now I believe in the priesthood of all believers. But I don't know if our interpretations are the same. You believe in the individual priesthood of all believers and you stop there. I believe in the same thing, but I believe that the priesthood of all believers is only "active" (and i can't really think of a better word, sorry) when it is in a community of believers fleshing out their priesthood. I know I'm getting wordy, but I'm trying to bring clarification to my point and share in love. Neither one is easy for me to do at times. :) Now lets think about this for a minute. I'm begging you to please just stop and think and drop any presuppositions you might have. And prayerfully discern this question. Should Scripture be interpreted in community or individually? I'm sure your first answer is individually. I agree with you to a certain extent. But by saying that interpretation is solely individual, you are putting one person (out of the entire population of the world-past, present, and future) as the sole authority of Scripture. I believe in this style of interpretation, the "priesthood of all believers" individually. But only in so far as that there is a communal aspect to this interpretation. That's why I would say that it is imperative that interpretation is done through community and not individually. Because I'm tainted, because I have my own context and needs that I'm reading into my interpretations, because I live in America with a Western mind, because I have only been exposed to limited interpretations (for me Southern Baptist), because of these things, I need a community to interpret Scripture with me. But because we've placed such a high emphasis on the individual and his interpretation, that as soon as someone disagrees with me, I have the "right" to break fellowship with Him or to start another denomination. Do you see what I'm saying? You've said that an AUTHORITY should not interpret Scripture for us? But you yourself went to a church history professor to check what I was posting on. You yourself run your every interpretation through the grid of Southern Baptist doctrine, which is more than fine by me because I'm sure I run all of my interpretations through my own set. But realizing that Southern Baptist doctrine has only been around for . . . . I don't know . . . I've been fortunate enough not to have to sit through a Baptist History class. :) But for a very short time in light of the past 2000 years. And what is so wrong with having the PROPER AUTHORITY structures interpret Scripture with us in community? There obviously has to be accountability to the AUTHORITIES that interpret so that they do not become corrupt such as the ones that the Reformers were trying to break away from. But wouldn't it make sense to let people who have studied the history of church, know the original languages fluently, know the contexts of the passages, etc, wouldn't it make sense for them to interpret Scripture and then pass down the interpretations for us as we interpret it for ourselves to hold them accountable? I know you probably don't agree with this, and that's fine. It just makes more sense to me to have it that way. Instead of me with very little schooling, very little intelligence, the wrong heart half the time, and a hard head interpreting it how "I" see fit? You say that we all have the same Spirit in us and that it was given to reveal Scripture and God to us? Correct? Well how then do we end up with millions upon millions of interpretations that openly contradict each other if we have the "SAME SPIRIT". The Spirit was given to empower our lives and to illuminate Scripture. But I don't think the Spirit was given to illuminate Scripture to us individually. But as a corporate body in community. Sadly, I do not think this is a possibility for the modern mind anymore because we have already gone to far down the line to revert back to submitting to God ordained authority. But can you see the picture? Instead of me sitting in my room at night with my Bible and my Southern Baptist commentaries and my Southern Baptist upbringing and my Western American mindset, and all the needs that I have on that particular night, interpreting Scripture by myself. Instead of that, couldn't you imagine the beauty of myself, a brother from 3rd world Africa, a sister from oriental China, and others who are different, sitting down and interpreting Scripture together? In this way, our interpretations would be checked by others. However, as I said, I do not know if this is a possibility in today's climate and culture. Because it would require that we drop our own interpretations for a second and be challenged by someone else's. It would put our "Southern Baptist" doctrine in jeopardy at times. God forbid. :) There would have to be some tension that would have to be allowed as we sifted through Scripture together. You might say this is done today in Bible studies and so forth. But how much diversity of interpretation is brought to the table in a Sunday School room? Not much. You usually have 20 people who grew up with the same mindset, live in the same contexts, and believe the same thing. That is why we usually end up assimilating with like-minded people. Methodists do this. Baptists do this. Episcopalians do this. Lutherans do this. Even the "liberals" do this. And even within those groups, there are sub-groups of more like-minded people. But this is not what I'm talking about. And I am not talking about ecumenical unity. But I am talking about communal interpretation that is done amongst a diversified group of people run through the grids of an AUTHORITY structure. This is what the New Testament church did. This is what the early church did. This is not what we do. My thoughts for what it's worth. I'm sure I'll be getting kicked out sometime soon anyway so enjoy them while you can.