Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
The argument is not just about "leading a church," though it is of importance to some.
But if you are going to hang your hat on what others thought about things 100, 200, 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago, then the ground of dirt doesn't have a chance. Your own argument destroys it without even having a hearing on the issue. I would suggest that it is in your own interest to drop this line of reasoning because it is clear that you have not reasoned it out very well.
And on any other teaching that you really care about, you don't give a flying flip about what leading evangelical theologians think about it.
|
Not caring about what "others", being early Christians, thought about these things is strange coming from someone professing to be a Christian, likely believing in:
The authority of Scripture, authored, 2000+ years ago
The Canon of scripture , originating, 1500-2000 years ago
The doctrine of the Trinity... originating, 1500-2000 year ago
The Nicene creed etc...
Authority of Scripture does not mean a newfangled modern day interpretation.
It means the intended meaning of the original author(s), who lived 2000+ years ago.
The only possible way you could reject what others have said is by believing that God is revealing new things today that were unknown before, or that God changed His mind and the Scripture and opinions of early Christians are no longer valid.