Nathan
Member
Lol. They thought they understood, they actually do not. I think you may be exemplifying you point.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The "plain words of Scripture"
- Thread starter FreeGrace
- Start date
Lol. They thought they understood, they actually do not. I think you may be exemplifying you point.
Nathan
Member
So, you disagree with the problem I pointed out from Scripture about understanding Jesus' "figures of speech"?[/QUOTE]
No doubt He used figures of speech. However, He promised when He went away to send the Spirit. His Spirit leads us into all truth - and clarity.
The time of figures of speech is over.
tim-from-pa
Member
Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".
If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".
However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't.
First, some examples to demonstrate how Scripture isn't really being paid attention to.
Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. Yet there are no verses that state this plainly. Their prime defense is the use of verses about Christ dying for "many". They take the English word to mean "less than all". Yet, the Bible very plainly says that Christ died for all in these verses: 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. But, the Greek word is "polloi", from which we get "hoi polloi", which means "the masses". iow, Christ died for the masses, not "less than everyone" or "less than all".
On the Arminian side, the argument for loss of salvation rests primarily on verses that use figures of speech or metaphors, and these are claimed to be the "plain words of Scripture". such as John 15:1-6. So, let's see what the Bible says about clear and plain speech.
This isn't really difficult at all. The Bible even tells us how to know the difference.
Consider John 11:3-6 -
3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days,
Then this:
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural (or literal) sleep.
14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead
iow, Jesus used a figure of speech and His disciples misunderstood what He was saying to them. Only when He spoke plainly did they finally understand.
John 10:6 - Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
John 16:25 - "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. "
John 16:29-32
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered.
So, what have we learned from Scripture? When "figures of speech" or metaphors are used, there is a failure to understand what Jesus is saying. But when He spoke plainly, there was understanding.
So, hopefully, this will help people to error by claiming Scripture with figures of speech or metaphors are "the plain words of Scripture".
Only when Scripture uses actual "clear and plain" words, meaning WITHOUT figures of speech, can one claim to be quoting the "plain words of Scripture".
With this in mind, one can readily see whether any side of any debate on what the Bible teaches has the truth which is understandable.
Jesus spoke truth in figures of speech, but the message wasn't understood. But when He spoke truth in literal and clear words, without figures of speech, there was understanding.
Let the debater beware. ;)
I agree not all scripture is plain. Some of it is symbolic (but the bible interprets itself elsewhere) and Jesus spoke in parables all the time just so that people would not hear nor be healed. His disciples would eventually hear when the Spirit was given, so in the meantime he spoke to them as well in parables foreseeing a time they would eventually understand and then be able to use that truth. As we would say today, it would eventually "gel". Speaking in parables would thus separate the sheep from the goats so-to-speak, and those with spiritual understanding from those who followed Jesus to have their bellies filled. This is why you don't use the "rich man in hell" parable to form a doctrine about "hell". It's a parable for cryin' out loud symbolic of something else. Yet, when one (such as myself) comes up with some scriptural understanding, some are quick to retort, "Where is that in scripture?" as if every detail has to be pointed out letter-by-letter instead of gaining that insight by biblical laws, parables and principles. Well, I guess they would have a hard time with Jesus, too, just like the religious leaders of the day who I'm sure had their clearly spelled out "articles of faith".
Now if you are real nuts like me or the theologian Sir Isaac Newton in my avatar there, one will even entertain the idea of bible code, that the bible is a coded book or that there's messages in numbers (gematria). But don't expect that to be found stated plainly by chapter and verse. I guess God forgot that. LOL
Last edited:
I never said that God gives conflicting understanding.I can't agree. (Big surprise huh
I believe that God gives wisdom and understanding to those who ask. It's throughout the Bible - front to back. I also believe God is not the author of confusion. So I cannot see where He would give conflicting understanding.
And as I've had to point out several times on these forums, there have been a number of people who stated that all we need to do is pray and the Holy Spirit will gives us understanding. Yet they disagree with each other.
The OP said several things, among which are:
"Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".
If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".
However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't."
You were addressing more than just whether or not one can lose their salvation. My points still stand.
And, for the record, there are several passages in the NT that imply salvation can be lost, using "plain words." But I'm not interested in that pointless debate.
chessman
Member
One of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible.
When's the last time you were expelled from a synagogue?
John 16:1-2, 4, 13 (LEB) “I have said these things to you [His disciples] so that you will not fall away. They will expel you from the synagogue, but an hour is coming that everyone who kills you will think they are offering service to God. ...
But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you about them. ...
“And I have not said these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
...But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you about them. ...
“And I have not said these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
But when he—the Spirit of truth—comes, he will guide you into all the truth. For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will proclaim to you the things to come.
Agreed. It's amazing how often that gets thrown around here, despite it having been addressed several times by myself alone.
Nathan
Member
Oh, I did not mean for you to think I said you said that. I was just laying out a thought.
Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".
If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".
However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't.
First, some examples to demonstrate how Scripture isn't really being paid attention to.
Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. Yet there are no verses that state this plainly. Their prime defense is the use of verses about Christ dying for "many". They take the English word to mean "less than all". Yet, the Bible very plainly says that Christ died for all in these verses: 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. But, the Greek word is "polloi", from which we get "hoi polloi", which means "the masses". iow, Christ died for the masses, not "less than everyone" or "less than all".
On the Arminian side, the argument for loss of salvation rests primarily on verses that use figures of speech or metaphors, and these are claimed to be the "plain words of Scripture". such as John 15:1-6. So, let's see what the Bible says about clear and plain speech.
This isn't really difficult at all. The Bible even tells us how to know the difference.
Consider John 11:3-6 -
3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days,
Then this:
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural (or literal) sleep.
14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead
iow, Jesus used a figure of speech and His disciples misunderstood what He was saying to them. Only when He spoke plainly did they finally understand.
John 10:6 - Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
John 16:25 - "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. "
John 16:29-32
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered.
So, what have we learned from Scripture? When "figures of speech" or metaphors are used, there is a failure to understand what Jesus is saying. But when He spoke plainly, there was understanding.
So, hopefully, this will help people to error by claiming Scripture with figures of speech or metaphors are "the plain words of Scripture".
Only when Scripture uses actual "clear and plain" words, meaning WITHOUT figures of speech, can one claim to be quoting the "plain words of Scripture".
With this in mind, one can readily see whether any side of any debate on what the Bible teaches has the truth which is understandable.
Jesus spoke truth in figures of speech, but the message wasn't understood. But when He spoke truth in literal and clear words, without figures of speech, there was understanding.
Let the debater beware. ;)
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, Romans 2:5-8
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:6-8
JLB
Nathan
Member
Interesting. Do you put aside everything that says "you" because it's obviously not speaking about you?
Did they receive a different Spirit than we do today? Has Gods truth changed?
Those words are being spoken to the disciples. Look closely at the wording:
Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (ESV)
It doesn't say the Holy Spirit will guide into "all truth," but rather "all the truth." "All the truth" about what? About what Jesus had just been talking about, those things which the disciples could not then bear. That and as chessman has shown, the context of the passage quite clearly indicates that what Jesus was saying was for the disciples to whom he was speaking.
What do you know: plain words of Scripture over which we disagree.
chessman
Member
What's interesting is you asked three questions without answering one.
No.
No.
No.
Have you ever been expelled from a synagogue?
Jim Parker
Member
If a parable or a symbol does not relate truth about a reality then it is meaningless babble.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not a "fairy tale". We can conclude that Jesus knew there was a very unpleasant condition to which we are accustomed to refer to as "hell" and that, in some manner, people can end up there. The details of exactly what it is are not revealed to us,
So, yes, you do use that parable in forming your "doctrine of hell" because it does relate something of that reality.
And, no, you do not dismiss it because "It's a parable for cryin' out loud".
And it is not "symbolic of something else"; it is symbolic of the condition of the rich man who showed no mercy. Failure to show mercy to the hungry and sick and poor, according to Jesus, will get you sent to the eternal fire created for the devil and his angels. (Mat 25:41) As such, it is part of the total information which scripture gives us about hell and how to get there.
iakov the fool
Jethro Bodine
Member
As I started reading this (OSAS) thread, I wondered if anybody would bring up the matter of context. As you show you know, it isn't just about how plain, or not plain the words are, but what they teach us as a whole. Number 1 rule for discerning the Bible: Know everything the Bible says about a subject. Then you won't be guilty of not dividing it correctly.
The problem isn't that the words aren't plain and clear. The problem is many Christians simply don't know all the words that make it clear. Add to that the fact that there are many false teachings indoctrinating the minds of Christians so they can only look at the plain words of the Bible with a predetermined interpretation of those words already in place. It makes them gloss right over plain words of scripture as if they never saw them.
It's a big book, and it does take time to know and then put together all the pieces. And that's where the leadership comes in. But that's a joke because we have no system of checks and balances to keep loose cannons out of the clergy.
It's interesting that so many people use this verse to defend the argument that the Bible does not speak clearly. They snip this from the very context where Jesus himself gives the plain understanding of the parable he just told them. Which illustrates the point very well: People simply do not know all the words of the Bible that as a whole explain what many insist is unknowable.
Perhaps what will be more sobering than that will be when Jesus confronts all the people who knew the plain words of scripture but chose to not heed them and instead clung to ear tickling, not rightly divided interpretations to suit their personal agendas and desires. Genuine ignorance can and will be overlooked and can mitigate Judgment. Willful ignorance can not. The latter is by far, IMO, the greater concern for the church at this time in history.
Not sure of your point. Please clarify.Lol. They thought they understood, they actually do not. I think you may be exemplifying you point.
Did you understand the OP?
The OP points out the problem with figures of speech. Do you disagree with the OP?
Right. But that hasn't prevented all the denominations and directly opposable theologies that are out there.
Yes, that is my point. For those who default to passages with figures of speech, it's time to quote Scriptures that are plain words, not metaphors.The time of figures of speech is over.
Yes, the point of the OP.
Even HIs own disciples didn't understand Him. He had to explain to them privately. The parable of the soils is one example.
No, He did explain Himself to them in private. Luke 8:9-11
His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.' 11 "This is the meaning of the parable: ...
The point of the OP is that one should not use passages with figures of speech to defend a theology. They need to find verses that plainly state what they believe.
Actually, Jesus gave us a glimpse of the afterlife during His day. It was no parable, for He specifically named a person, which is never found in parables, and included Abraham in it.
The request is simply trying to find where that is plainly stated in Scripture. The point of the OP is that when Jesus spoke in figures of speech, no one understood. So why should anyone accept a theology or doctrine that is based on figures of speech?
I said this:
"With respect, I haven't seen any "plain words of Scripture" that say that one can lose salvation. As the OP pointed out, that side of the debate only uses passages of figures of speech, as I showed.
If there ever were any verses that plainly did say that salvation can be lost, they haven't been posted."
Paul described eternal life as a gift of God. That is plain language. Nothing implied. Paul then said that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Again, plain language, nothing implied or figures of speech to figure out.
"With respect, I haven't seen any "plain words of Scripture" that say that one can lose salvation. As the OP pointed out, that side of the debate only uses passages of figures of speech, as I showed.
If there ever were any verses that plainly did say that salvation can be lost, they haven't been posted."
OK. The point of the OP is that one should not use passages with figures of speech to defend beliefs, doctrines, etc. If the Bible doesn't say something plainly, there is no reason to accept someone's understanding of a metaphor or figure of speech.
We certainly disagree on that point! Esp since the Bible absolutely does use very plain words about eternal security. Just one example:
Paul described eternal life as a gift of God. That is plain language. Nothing implied. Paul then said that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Again, plain language, nothing implied or figures of speech to figure out.
This would be a perfect example of stating a lot of one's opinion, then taking Scripture references, and tagging them on a sentence that is only ones biased opinion, while never actually writing the words of scripture to be studied and honestly discussed.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:15-23
- Do you believe this passage and it's context, contrast's eternal life and death?
- Or, do you believe eternal death is never mentioned, while eternal life is?
JLB