brightfame52
Well-known member
Did you read the post ? It has a very important message in it
An Article on free will
- Thread starter TomL
- Start date
brightfame52
Well-known member
Red, you really should know what Augustine said. It is the very source of your faulty soteriology.
Red, Jesus was speaking to scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites (Matt23:13,15,16,1719,2324,25,26,27,28,31,33.
Clearly, they are not the work of God, they have set themselves up for their own end.
And your version makes Satan the creator of man's spirit given him in his first birth. For shame.
Yes, by nature; but not until he acts in response to that nature. You are, being human, by nature a liar, a thief, a murder , etc., etc. But until you actually lie, until you steal, until you murder, etc., etc., you are none of those.
No that is not what he is talking about. He said, " I was once alive". He said, "I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me". He is recounting when He, himself, came to the age of accountability, the age at which he first understood God's commandment to not covet (v.7).
And again, you show your adherence to the Augustinian Gnosticism of the evil physical creation.
Johann
Well-known member
Scripture alone-
Presuppositions
I believe the Bible is the sole inspired self-revelation of the one true God. Therefore, it must be interpreted in light of the intent of the original divine author through a human writer in a specific historical setting.
I believe the Bible was written for the common person—for all people! God accommodated Himself to speak to us clearly within a historical and cultural context. God does not hide truth—He wants us to understand! Therefore, it must be interpreted in light of its day, not ours. The Bible should not mean to us what it never meant to those who first read or heard it. It is understandable by the average human mind and uses normal human communication forms and techniques.
I believe the Bible has a unified message and purpose. It does not contradict itself, though it does contain difficult and paradoxical passages. Thus, the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself.
I believe that every passage (excluding prophesies) has one and only one meaning based on the intent of the original, inspired author. Although we can never be absolutely certain we know the original author’s intent, many indicators point in its direction:
the genre (literary type) chosen to express the message
the historical setting and/or specific occasion that elicited the writing
the literary context of the entire book as well as each literary unit
the textual design (outline) of the literary units as they relate to the whole message
the specific grammatical features employed to communicate the message
the words chosen to present the message
The study of each of these areas becomes the object of our study of a passage. Before I explain my methodology for good Bible reading, let me delineate some of the inappropriate methods being used today that have caused so much diversity of interpretation, and that consequently should be avoided:
II. Inappropriate Methods
Ignoring the literary context of the books of the Bible and using every sentence, clause, or even individual words as statements of truth unrelated to the author’s intent or the larger context. This is often called "proof-texting.”
Ignoring the historical setting of the books by substituting a supposed historical setting that has little or no support from the text itself.
Ignoring the historical setting of the books and reading it as the morning hometown newspaper written primarily to modern individual Christians.
Ignoring the historical setting of the books by allegorizing the text into a philosophical/theological message totally unrelated to the first hearers and the original author’s intent.
Ignoring the original message by substituting one’s own system of theology, pet doctrine, or contemporary issue unrelated to the original author’s purpose and stated message. This phenomenon often follows the initial reading of the Bible as a means of establishing a speaker’s authority. This is often referred to as "reader response” ("what-the-text-means-to-me” interpretation).
At least three related components may be found in all written human communication:
Free Bible Commentaries by Dr. Bob Utley, Professor of Hermeneutics
In the past, different reading techniques have focused on one of the three components. But to truly affirm the unique inspiration of the Bible, a modified diagram is more appropriate:
Free Bible Commentaries by Dr. Bob Utley, Professor of Hermeneutics
In truth all three components must be included in the interpretive process. For the purpose of verification, my interpretation focuses on the first two components: the original author and the text. I am probably reacting to the abuses I have observed
1. allegorizing or spiritualizing texts
2. "reader response” interpretation (what-it-means-to-me)
Abuse may occur at each stage. We must always check our motives, biases, techniques, and applications. But how do we check them if there are no boundaries to interpretations, no limits, no criteria? This is where authorial intent and textual structure provide me with some criteria for limiting the scope of possible valid interpretations. Hermeneutics cannot always tell you what a text means, but it can tell you what it cannot mean!
In light of these inappropriate reading techniques, what are some possible approaches to good Bible reading and interpretation which offer a degree of verification and consistency?
III. Possible Approaches to Good Bible Reading
At this point I am not discussing the unique techniques of interpreting specific genres but general hermeneutical principles valid for all types of biblical texts. A good book for genre-specific approaches is How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, published by Zondervan.
My methodology focuses initially on the reader allowing the HolySpirit to illumine the Bible through four personal reading cycles. This makes the Spirit, the text and the reader primary, not secondary. This also protects the reader from being unduly influenced by commentators. I have heard it said: "The Bible throws a lot of light on commentaries.” This is not meant to be a depreciating comment about study aids, but rather a plea for an appropriate timing for their use.
We must be able to support our interpretations from the text itself. Five areas provide at least limited verification:
historical setting
literary context
grammatical structures (syntax)
contemporary word usage
relevant parallel passages
genre
We need to be able to provide the reasons and logic behind our interpretations. The Bible is our only source for faith and practice. Sadly, Christians often disagree about what it teaches or affirms. The four reading cycles are designed to provide the following interpretive insights:
The first reading cycle
Read the book in a single sitting. Read it again in a different translation, hopefully from a different translation theory
(1) word-for-word (NKJV, NASB, NRSV)
(2) dynamic equivalent (TEV, JB)
(3) paraphrase (Living Bible, Amplified Bible)
Look for the central purpose of the entire writing. Identify its theme.
Isolate (if possible) a literary unit, a chapter, a paragraph or a sentence which clearly expresses this central purpose or theme.
Identify the predominant literary genre
(1) Old Testament
a) Hebrew narrative
b) Hebrew poetry (wisdom literature, psalm)
c) Hebrew prophecy (prose, poetry)
d) Law codes
(2) New Testament
a) Narratives (Gospels, Acts)
b) Parables (Gospels)
c) Letters/epistles
d) Apocalyptic literature
The second reading cycle
Read the entire book again, seeking to identify major topics or subjects.
Outline the major topics and briefly state their contents in a simple statement.
Check your purpose statement and broad outline with study aids.
The third reading cycle
Read the entire book again, seeking to identify the historical setting and specific occasion for the writing from the Bible book itself.
List the historical items that are mentioned in the Bible book
(1) the author
(2) the date
(3) the recipients
(4) the specific reason for writing
(5) aspects of the cultural setting that relate to the purpose of the writing
(6) references to historical people and events
Expand your outline to paragraph level for that part of the biblical book you are interpreting. Always identify and outline the literary unit. This may be several chapters or paragraphs. This enables you to follow the original author’s logic and textual design.
Check your historical setting by using study aids.
The fourth reading cycle
Read the specific literary unit again in several translations
(1) word-for-word (NKJV, NASB, NRSV)
(2) dynamic equivalent (TEV, JB)
(3) paraphrase (Living Bible, Amplified Bible)
Look for literary or grammatical structures
(1) repeated phrases, Eph. 1:6,12,14
(2) repeated grammatical structures, Rom. 8:31
(3) contrasting concepts
List the following items
(1) significant terms
(2) unusual terms
(3) important grammatical structures
(4) particularly difficult words, clauses, and sentences
Look for relevant parallel passages
(1) look for the clearest teaching passage on your subject using a) "systematic theology” books b) reference Bibles c) concordances
(2) look for a possible paradoxical pair within your subject. Many biblical truths are presented in dialectical pairs; many denominational conflicts come from proof-texting half of a biblical tension. All of the Bible is inspired, and we must seek out its complete message in order to provide a Scriptural balance to our interpretation.
(3) look for parallels within the same book, same author or same genre; the Bible is its own best interpreter because it has one author, the Spirit.
Use study aids to check your observations of historical setting and occasion
(1) study Bibles
(2) Bible encyclopedias, handbooks and dictionaries
(3) Bible introductions
(4) Bible commentaries (at this point in your study, allow the believing community, past and present, to aid and correct your personal study.)
IV. Application of Bible Interpretation
At this point we turn to application. You have taken the time to understand the text in its original setting; now you must apply it to your life, your culture. I define biblical authority as "understanding what the original biblical author was saying to his day and applying that truth to our day with the same power.”
Application must follow interpretation of the original author’s intent both in time and logic. We cannot apply a Bible passage to our own day until we know what it was saying to its day! A Bible passage should not mean what it never meant!
Your detailed outline, to paragraph level (reading cycle #3), will be your guide. Application should be made at paragraph level, not word level. Words have meaning only in context; clauses have meaning only in context; sentences have meaning only in context. The only inspired person involved in the interpretive process is the original author. We only follow his lead by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But illumination is not inspiration. To say "thus saith the Lord,” we must abide by the original author’s intent. Application must relate specifically to the general intent of the whole writing, the specific literary unit and paragraph level thought development.
Do not let the issues of our day nor denominational distinctives interpret the Bible; let the Bible speak! This may require us to draw principles from the text. This is valid if the text supports a principle. Unfortunately, many times our principles are just that, "our” principles—not the text’s principles.
In applying the Bible, it is important to remember that (except in prophecy) one and only one meaning is valid for a particular Bible text. That meaning is related to the intent of the original author as he addressed a crisis or need in his day. Many possible applications may be derived from this one meaning. However, the application will be based on the modern recipients’ needs but must be related to the original author’s meaning.
V. The Spiritual Aspect of Interpretation
So far I have discussed the logical process involved in interpretation and application. Now let me discuss briefly the spiritual aspect of interpretation. The following checklist has been helpful for me:
Pray for the Spirit’s help every time we open the Bible (cf. I Cor. 1:26-2:16).
Pray for personal forgiveness and cleansing from known sin (cf. I John 1:9).
Pray for a greater desire to know God (cf. Ps. 19:7-14; 42:1ff.; 119:1ff).
Apply any new insight immediately to your own life.
Remain humble and teachable.
It is so hard to keep the balance between the logical process and the spiritual leadership of the Holy Spirit. The following quotes have helped me balance the two:
from James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting, pp. 17-18:
"The illumination comes to the minds of God’s people—not just to the spiritual elite. There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people through whom all proper interpretation must come. And so, while the Holy Spirit gives special gifts of wisdom, knowledge and spiritual discernment, He does not assign these gifted Christians to be the only authoritative interpreters of His Word. It is up to each of His people to learn, to judge and to discern by reference to the Bible which stands as the authority even to those to whom God has given special abilities. To summarize, the assumption I am making throughout the entire book is that the Bible is God’s true revelation to all humanity, that it is our ultimate authority on all matters about which it speaks, that it is not a total mystery but can be adequately understood by ordinary people in every culture.”
on Kierkegaard, found in Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 75:
According to Kierkegaard the grammatical, lexical, and historical study of the Bible was necessary but preliminary to the true reading of the Bible. "To read the Bible as God’s word one must read it with his heart in his mouth, on tip-toe, with eager expectancy, in conversation with God. To read the Bible thoughtlessly or carelessly or academically or professionally is not to read the Bible as God’s Word. As one reads it as a love letter is read, then one reads it as the Word of God.”
H. H. Rowley in The Relevance of the Bible, p. 19:
"No merely intellectual understanding of the Bible, however complete, can possess all its treasures. It does not despise such understanding, for it is essential to a complete understanding. But it must lead to a spiritual understanding of the spiritual treasures of this book if it is to be complete. And for that spiritual understanding something more than intellectual alertness is necessary. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and the Bible student needs an attitude of spiritual receptivity, an eagerness to find God that he may yield himself to Him, if he is to pass beyond his scientific study unto the richer inheritance of this greatest of all books.”
A Guide to Good Bible Reading
Guide to Good Bible Reading by Dr. Bob Utley: A Search for Verifiable Truth, retired professor of hermeneutics.
www.freebiblecommentary.org
Something you should study.
J.
brightfame52
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
he supported the original language written in Koine Greek which you know nothing about that proves you are wrong.
brightfame52
Well-known member
lol, he supports arminianism as well as you
Jim, you need to go back and read @Red Baker's posts to you such as post #7,819.
The absence of the Word of God from your post tells about you.
You free-willians believe you buy your way into heaven with your natural fleshly free-will faith payment in their "apart from Christ, I chose to believe in Christ so Christ must profit me with salvation", yet the Christ of us Christians declares "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (The Word of God, John 15:5) and "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3) and “you did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19, includes salvation) and “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29) and “It is the Spirit who gives Life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life” (John 6:63), so they believe falsehood (2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:9-10).
Free-will is a conjured concept of the traditions of men leading to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9).
In Truth (John 14:6), the Almighty God is Sovereign (Genesis 1:1) in man's salvation and affairs of man (Daniel 4:34-35)! PRAISE SHEPHERD JESUS WHO ALONE IS WORTHY OF PRAISE!!
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann
Romans 7:9 ~ "For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Jim, Paul was alive without the law when as a Pharisee; but when the commandment came with the power of the Spirit, then it slew him, and destroyed all his legal hopes. I was alive ~That is, in my own opinion
Paul as a Pharisee believed as many do, that salvation legally is earned by works of the law. Nothing can be clearer than this meaning with the whole context, and such scriptures as Philippians 3, etc.
Without the law once ~ Was Paul ever without the law? He was in ignorance of it till his conversion; and this he here calls being without the law. He was ignorant of its spirituality, and its purpose, and consequently had no true discernment of his innate corruption~his old man. So you and others ask: "But when did the commandment come?" and you and others answer..... "We may suppose it to be in childhood, or when he first sinned in riper years." It cannot have been in childhood, or in riper years, at any time previous to his seeing Christ in Acts 9. For if he had had such a view of the law previously, he would not, in his own opinion, have been blameless concerning its righteousness. It is obvious that Paul had his proper view of the law only in the cross of Christ at his conversion after Acts 9:1.
When the commandment came~ That is, when he understood the true import of the commandment as forbidding the desire of anything prohibited by the law. He had heard and studied it before in its letter; but never till then did it come in its full extent and power to his conscience. All men know that, to a certain extent, they are sinners; but from this passage and its context, in which the Apostle gives an account of his own experience both in his unconverted and renewed state, we learn that unconverted men do not perceive the sin that is in them in its root, called, in the 7th and 8th verses,"lust or concupiscence." This is only felt and known when, by the Holy Spirit, a man is convinced of sin ~ when, as it is here said, the commandment comes ~ when it comes to him with power, so that he perceives its realextent and spiritual import. He then discerns sin, not only in its various ramifications and actings, both internal and external, but also sees that it is inherent in him, and that in his flesh dwells no good thing; that he is not only by nature a sinner and at enmity to God, but that he is without strength, per Romans 5:6, entirely unable to deliver himself from the power of sin, and that this can only be affected by the Spirit of God, by whom he is at the same time convinced of the righteousness of God ~ that righteousness which has been secured for those who are destitute in themselves of all righteousness.
Sin revived~ It was, in a manner, dead before, dormant, and unobserved. Now that the law was understood, it was raised to new life, and came to be perceived as living and moving. The contrast is with sin as dead, without the understanding of the law. Jim, it is observes, that sin gathers additional strength in such circumstances; but this is not the idea held forth in the context.
I died ~That is, I saw myself dead by the law, as far as my own observance of the law was concerned. All Paul’s hopes, founded on what he was in himself and the religion of the Jews, were destroyed, and he discovered that he was a sinner condemned by the law; so that the law which promised life to those who observed it, to which he had looked for justification, he now saw subjected him to death. At the period when Paul died, in the sense of this passage, he was really brought to know the true source of spiritual life. It was then that he, through the law, became dead to the law, that he might live unto God per Galatians 2:19.
Thus Paul was without the law during all that time when he profited in the Jews’ religion above many of his equals, when, according to the straightest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee, and when, as touching the law, according to the common estimation, he was blameless. He was without the true knowledge of it and its spiritual application to his heart; (just as you are now) but, in his own esteem, he was alive. (much like you are Jim in what you believe to be the truth!) He was confident of the Divine favor. Sin lay as dead in his heart. He could therefore go about to establish his own righteousness. He had not found the law to be a ‘killing letter,’ working wrath; so far from it, he could make his boast of the law, and assume it as the ground of his rejoicing before God. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died. Such is the account which Paul now gives of himself, who declared, Acts 22:3, that formerly he had been, and, as he affirms in the beginning of the tenth chapter of this Epistle, that the unconverted (though no doubt born again) Jews still were, "zealous towards God, and fear him"~but, living in ignorance, much like you and others are.
Jim this is the truth of Romans 7:9, your understanding is not even close to the truth!
Jim, your understanding of the doctrine of Soteriology is so far from the truth ~ the Church of Christ have led you far from the truth, even though you do not profess to follow them, your understanding has been greatly affected by them in listening to your favorite preacher among them~name withheld.
Romans 7:9 ~ "For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Jim, Paul was alive without the law when as a Pharisee; but when the commandment came with the power of the Spirit, then it slew him, and destroyed all his legal hopes. I was alive ~That is, in my own opinion
Paul as a Pharisee believed as many do, that salvation legally is earned by works of the law. Nothing can be clearer than this meaning with the whole context, and such scriptures as Philippians 3, etc.
Without the law once ~ Was Paul ever without the law? He was in ignorance of it till his conversion; and this he here calls being without the law. He was ignorant of its spirituality, and its purpose, and consequently had no true discernment of his innate corruption~his old man. So you and others ask: "But when did the commandment come?" and you and others answer..... "We may suppose it to be in childhood, or when he first sinned in riper years." It cannot have been in childhood, or in riper years, at any time previous to his seeing Christ in Acts 9. For if he had had such a view of the law previously, he would not, in his own opinion, have been blameless concerning its righteousness. It is obvious that Paul had his proper view of the law only in the cross of Christ at his conversion after Acts 9:1.
When the commandment came~ That is, when he understood the true import of the commandment as forbidding the desire of anything prohibited by the law. He had heard and studied it before in its letter; but never till then did it come in its full extent and power to his conscience. All men know that, to a certain extent, they are sinners; but from this passage and its context, in which the Apostle gives an account of his own experience both in his unconverted and renewed state, we learn that unconverted men do not perceive the sin that is in them in its root, called, in the 7th and 8th verses,"lust or concupiscence." This is only felt and known when, by the Holy Spirit, a man is convinced of sin ~ when, as it is here said, the commandment comes ~ when it comes to him with power, so that he perceives its realextent and spiritual import. He then discerns sin, not only in its various ramifications and actings, both internal and external, but also sees that it is inherent in him, and that in his flesh dwells no good thing; that he is not only by nature a sinner and at enmity to God, but that he is without strength, per Romans 5:6, entirely unable to deliver himself from the power of sin, and that this can only be affected by the Spirit of God, by whom he is at the same time convinced of the righteousness of God ~ that righteousness which has been secured for those who are destitute in themselves of all righteousness.
Sin revived~ It was, in a manner, dead before, dormant, and unobserved. Now that the law was understood, it was raised to new life, and came to be perceived as living and moving. The contrast is with sin as dead, without the understanding of the law. Jim, it is observes, that sin gathers additional strength in such circumstances; but this is not the idea held forth in the context.
I died ~That is, I saw myself dead by the law, as far as my own observance of the law was concerned. All Paul’s hopes, founded on what he was in himself and the religion of the Jews, were destroyed, and he discovered that he was a sinner condemned by the law; so that the law which promised life to those who observed it, to which he had looked for justification, he now saw subjected him to death. At the period when Paul died, in the sense of this passage, he was really brought to know the true source of spiritual life. It was then that he, through the law, became dead to the law, that he might live unto God per Galatians 2:19.
Thus Paul was without the law during all that time when he profited in the Jews’ religion above many of his equals, when, according to the straightest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee, and when, as touching the law, according to the common estimation, he was blameless. He was without the true knowledge of it and its spiritual application to his heart; (just as you are now) but, in his own esteem, he was alive. (much like you are Jim in what you believe to be the truth!) He was confident of the Divine favor. Sin lay as dead in his heart. He could therefore go about to establish his own righteousness. He had not found the law to be a ‘killing letter,’ working wrath; so far from it, he could make his boast of the law, and assume it as the ground of his rejoicing before God. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died. Such is the account which Paul now gives of himself, who declared, Acts 22:3, that formerly he had been, and, as he affirms in the beginning of the tenth chapter of this Epistle, that the unconverted (though no doubt born again) Jews still were, "zealous towards God, and fear him"~but, living in ignorance, much like you and others are.
Jim this is the truth of Romans 7:9, your understanding is not even close to the truth!
civic let's go to a thread on this subject and discuss it in depth, it is one of my favorite subjects.
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann
Jim, there is no such a doctrine as the age of accountability as taught by men on your side of the fence. All were accountable "IN ADAM"!
civic
Well-known member
Me too
. It is my favorite topic the Deity of Christ and the TrinityA reallly stupid statement.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So, your views are from various authors.
Giving them credit isn't the issue. The issue is rightful one of origin. You acts if they would agree with you. That is what you did. It is what everyone does. They are not here to agree with you. They are not here to defend what you posted that you claim agrees with you.
Integrity demands that I not agree with you.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I don't care what "Mountain Retreat" has to say about anything.
English words were coined based upon certain assumptions that are not true. Over time, dichotomy and trichotomy have come to mean different things. Such context has come from philosophy. Not saying philosophy is bad. It isn't.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Okay.
The creation, including all life, is set to be freed in the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
This includes animal life.
Animals don't just die and disappear.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Abel never sinned. There was no accountability of Abel to Adam. Abel was murdered. The first "innocent blood" to be shed for the good in humanity. Abel's life was taken from him by evil men. He did not die under the condemnation of Adam.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Get angry if you like. The first man is of the earth and is contrasted against Jesus Christ. The second Adam.
Joh 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
It is the spirit that quickens.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Monergism is found in certain Jewish sects. They might deny this but what they taught requires it.
Example....
Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
It certainly is when you speak of plagiarism. Your claim is definitionally false and creates a false impression.
That would be a lack of integrity.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
