“…from my Bible schools days they seem to go from Calvin, to Spurgeon…”

Would that be C.H. Spurgeon? Long ago, my greatgranmother gave me alittle devotional book by him. I still read it every day.

In that regard, I think Luther deduced through scripture that the Pope’s teaching was corrupt. Luther’s conscience was strengthened by his reference to scripture…Am I tracking this right?

Yeah, tracking very nicely. It’s what I love about the Bible. If you approach it humbly, prayerfully, inquisitvely, open to the voice of the Spirit — it speaks. He speaks!

In reading commentaries, studying the works of skilled Biblical scholars, learning about history,language and context , discussing, debating — asking for the Holy Spirit to enlighten your understanding and motivated by a love for God and for his children — it comes alive.

Much can be deduced — and better yet, applied. Many things suddenly come into focus like never before! I remember the night I accepted Jesus, in January of 1971. I had been attending a Christian club on campus — trying to stir up some atheist trouble — trying to make these people think.

That night, a very bright and caring youth ministert opened the Bible to me and helped me deduce that there was a loving, intelligent, just and merciful God. And I could know him.

He gave me a small copy of “Good News For Modern Man”. I read the entire New Testament before morning. Had never really read the Bible before. I was captivated.

It was mind-blowing! I furiously underlined and highlighted passages — writing things in the margin like “Yes!’ and “Of course” and “Wow!” I also wrote things, like “i don’t get this” and “What?” — and even “I disagree!”

I have read the BIble now many times over in many different translations — and I still get the same feeling — and write the same things.

“Our Founding Fathers” many or most, perhaps. I think Adams is a prominent exception to this, who later became a one-term president (replaced by Jefferson).

It is difficult to figure out which religious beliefs the Founding Father’s viewed as “dogma” and which they viewed as intrinsic principals to support a democratic, self-governing people.

“All men are created equal…and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights….” Is a spiritual and religious principal…

Somehow, however, the right of the person to own another person as property is maintained by this group of men who “worried about religious dogma”….as well as not championing a woman’s right to vote…or non-property owners to vote.

I make these arguments to redirect the frequent assertion that excluding religious values in the formation of our democracy was a good thing…it probably was in some circumstances; probably wasn’t in others.

Thanks,

I cannot figure out how the whole indulgences thing got started, from a scriptural standpoint.

In that regard, I think Luther deduced through scripture that the Pope’s teaching was corrupt.

Luther’s conscience was strengthened by his reference to scripture…

Am I tracking this right?

Do you know of any scriptural support for the Pope’s use of indulgences—to grant shorter stays in Purgatory for relatives?

No. But I think Calvin, Luther and reformed protestant teaching about “individual conscience before God” extends far beyond those issues. Seems to me our founding fathers had little patience for religious authorities dictating or legislating their dogma.

We can start with your 2 greatest commandments (you emphasize the second a great deal (the first is the most demanding: heart, soul and mind to love God).

I am sorry if it seems that I give more importance to the second. I think we are to do both – and they are both very demanding indeed. I believe that #2 flows logically from #1.

If we truly love God as God — as Creator of us all — we will want to treat His other Children as we would want to be treated. It is not enough to love God. We must love, honor and respect Him — in large part by acting on the knowledge that the other person is His child, too. To do less is a violation of the first.

You have framed it as arrogance in the past

.

What I have callerd “arroagnce” in the past was the rather black/white manner in which you ststed your assertions and beliefs about Scripture — as though your interpetation — and only yours — was correct, self-evident, indisputable.

Now, I realize that you just believe very strongly, as I do. They were your assertions, not facts, as you pointed out. Like you, I believe in the “humility (that) begins with submission to the scriptures; and submission, thoughtfully, to biblical scholars who are extraordinarily trained.” I can and do see the need for humility in that.

But when those “extraordinarliy trained” Biblical scholars disagree, or when an issue is not clear to us, we then must act in accordance with our own individual conscience before God. Actually, we should always do this. To do otherwise is unwise and dangerous.

Do you know of any scriptural support for the Pope’s use of indulgences—to grant shorter stays in Purgatory for relatives?

It is one thing to tax citizens…it is quite another to pervert scripture to morally coerce contributions.

If it seems I am being mysterious…that is not my intent…and if my vagueness has made you overwork in our discussion; that is not fair and I apologize.

I am trying to be forthright about a basic issue of humility…that you and I see from different directions.

You have framed it as arrogance in the past.

Humility begins with submission to the scriptures; submission, thoughtfully, to biblical scholars who are extraordinarily trained (which ones…from my Bible schools days they seem to go from Calvin, to Spurgeon, to JI Packer to Luther, apologists like Hanna and Schaeffer; subjectives such as Powell).

We can start with your 2 greatest commandments (you emphasize the second a great deal (the first is the most demanding: heart, soul and mind to love God).

We move from there to the Sermon on the Mount.

From there to Paul’s interpretation of the Law and Grace (Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound?).

From there to the OT….

I think that is my framework…I hope this is clearer. Can you see the humility in this model? I Know you can see the potential for Pride and Arrogance.

If I understand you, the 2 commandments are central. And in the affairs of man the second is pre-eminent. I know you see the humility in this….can you see the potential for Pride and Arrogance?

“I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience.”

These words were spoken against the practice of Indulgences…correct?

Yes, I think they were. However, the idea of obeying one’s own conscience seems to have a much broader application. It is a concept very deeply imbedded in reformed protestantism, puritan, baptist, presbyterian, etc.

It does not miminize the authority of Scripture. It rejects the notion that any religious authority, heirarchy, exegete or scholar can “hold” a believer to any particular view of Scripture. Why does this concept seem to trouble you so much?