The "plain words of Scripture"

[chessman]

"Scripture" is the God given books

Well then, the issue is settled:

Revelation 1:10-11 (NASB) I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
​

The Holy Spirit gave John the God given book we call the NT book of Revelation.

This NT book is Scripture, right?

(Plain enough question for you, I hope)

 

[Nathan]

Well then, the issue is settled:

Revelation 1:10-11 (NASB) I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
​

The Holy Spirit gave John the God given book we call the NT book of Revelation.

This NT book is Scripture, right?

(Plain enough question for you, I hope)

This is how we fail to understand plain scripture.

You took that comment out of context. No, the book of Revelation, is not the Scripture. The Scriptures are the collection of books/writings we call the "Old Testament".

Why is it hard to understand the difference?

Do you believe Jesus interpreted 'all' the Scriptures to the men on the road?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"Taking Matt 18:19 from a straight literal sense, one MUST self mutilate in order to avoid being cast into the fiery hell. Which is beyond nuts."

Then, obviously, you DO practice self mutilation. How's that workin' for ya?


Where in the world would one read that? Certainly not in the Bible.


Oh, so, just the "plain words" about being cast into hell? But not the "plain words" about self mutilation, huh? Just trying to have it both ways.


Then please provide an explanation for why my understanding of the passage is wrong.


How about backing that up with some actual evidence?


As I've explained, Jesus' point was that going to heaven is FAR BETTER than being cast into hell.

In fact, if one takes the WHOLE SENTENCE literally, one is REQUIRED to practice self mutilation in order to avoid being cast into hell.

That is just nuts, imo. That's NOT how to avoid being cast into hell.

You have to explain how Jesus using a metaphor for the cause of stumbling in Matthew 18:6-9 NASB makes it so that the plain words of little ones who believe in Jesus going to the actual hell because of that stumbling qualifies as basing a doctrine on the not plain words of scripture rather than on the plain words of scripture.

Make the metaphor for the cause of stumbling in Matthew 18:6-9 NASB anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that the result of the cause of the stumbling (whatever you say it is) will, if not removed, cause a little one who believes in Jesus (vs.6) to go to the actual, eternal, fiery hell (vs.8).

 

[chessman]

You took that comment out of context.

Easy thing for you to say but lacks any proof. Just like it's easy to call me hypocritical, yet not show how.

I asked for your definition of Scripture.
You then said, and I quote:

"Scripture" is the God given books,

I then showed where John (decades after Jesus' death) was told while "in the Spirit" to write the God given book of revelation (unveiling) of Christ Jesus.

Poof, Revelation is Scripture, just like the prophets of old. Even by your own definition.

Do you believe Jesus interpreted 'all' the Scriptures to the men on the road?

No. I believe specifically what the Scripture of Luke's Gospel says. He explained to them all "the things concerning Himself" within all the Scriptures that had been spoken of by Moses and all the prophets specifically about what was necessary for "Christ (Messiah) to suffer". The "these things" that had just happened in Jersusalem which was the context of their discussion.

Do you think God gave John prophecy that is revealed in the book of Revelation which you and I can read today?

 

[Nathan]

Easy thing for you to say but lacks any proof. Just like it's easy to call me hypocritical, yet not show how.

I asked for your definition of Scripture.
You then said, and I quote:

I then showed where John (decades after Jesus' death) was told while "in the Spirit" to write the God given book of revelation (unveiling) of Christ Jesus.

Poof, Revelation is Scripture, just like the prophets of old. Even by your own definition.


No. I believe specifically what the Scripture of Luke's Gospel says. He explained to them all "the things concerning Himself" within all the Scriptures that had been spoken of by Moses and all the prophets specifically about what was necessary for "Christ (Messiah) to suffer". The "these things" that had just happened in Jersusalem which was the context of their discussion.

Do you think God gave John prophecy that is revealed in the book of Revelation which you and I can read today?

It is easy for me to say, because I'm the one who said it. . You took half of my statement without including the other half. That is called taking something out of context. Plain and simple.

Your neglecting that comma you see. It connects my first statement with the next one. If I intended to make them separate, then I would have used a period.

I do find it interesting how you want to apply meanings to words only when it suits your theology. All means all. Nothing more, nothing less. If Jesus interpreted all the Scriptures, then that means He used all the Scriptures.

Yes, God gave John prophecy to write in a book. That does not make it apart of the Scriptures. It simply makes it a book written by John under the instruction of Christ.

There is no reason to think the NT books/letters are a part of the Scriptures unless you try to interpret them apart from the Scriptures. On the other hand, there is good reason why we should understand the difference. We can use the Scriptures to prove what someone says is true. Just like the Bereans did. So when someone starts making a theology based on NT passages, we can look at the Scriptures to see if it's correct.

 

[JLB]

I do find it interesting how you want to apply meanings to words only when it suits your theology.

 

[chessman]

You took half of my statement without including the other half.

I took your definition of the word "Scripture", not an example of it. The reason your sentence used the comma grammatically was to separate two related thoughts.
If you use a definition for the word "Scripture" as "the OT" that's a prime example of circular reasoning (assume your conclusion within your premise).

I asked for your definition of the word "Scripture". The second half of your sentence is an example of Scripture, not a definition of the word's meaning to you.

All means all. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know. I never said it didn't. Although your statement is another example of circular reasoning. Luckily, we aren't debating the meaning of "all" though. So I moved on.

If Jesus interpreted all the Scriptures, then that means He used all the Scriptures.

There is no verse that says Jesus interpreted "all the Scriptures" to these two men on that day. There is a verse that says Jesus interpreted "the things concerning Himself" in all the Scriptures to them that day however. You took a portion of the verse an 'ran with it' while accusing me of taking a portion of your 'definition'. Quite hypocritical, really. Furthermore, if you actually take the time to read the context of this God given Book of Luke (i.e. Scripture) you can see what those "things concerning Himself" within all the Scripture were specifically about; specifically His necessary suffering and glorification.

Luke 24:19-20, 25-26 (NASB) And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. ...
And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” ​

There are a lot of things about Christ in the OT. Some things are about Messiah's necessary suffering and entrance into His glory. Some things are about Him creating, some about His forever priesthood, etc.

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

BTW when you make Scripture plural (with an "s") you recognize the obvious. That is, there are multiple Scriptures. Classified as; History, Law, Psalm, Proverb, Prophecy, etc.

If I gave you a bag of M&Ms and you ate all the red M&Ms, have you eaten all the M&Ms in the bag or "all the red M&Ms"???

There is no reason to think the NT books/letters are a part of the Scriptures

Really? I've shown otherwise:
1. Peter literally calls Paul's wisdom given writings/letters hard to understand like "the rest of Scripture".
2. Jesus told His disciples He had more to say to them that they couldn't bear at that time. And that the Holy Spirit would give them those things later. If He'd already told them these things in the OT, why did He say He had "more" to say??? (Don't bother answering, we both know why).
3. John was directed to write theses additional things in a God given book. We call it the Revelation (the unveiling) of Christ. NT Scripture "unveils" Christ. Yes, it points to the veiled Christ in the Old Testament. But God Himself has now unveiled Him in the New. Plainly and clearly.
4. Etc.

We can use the Scriptures to prove what someone says is true.

Jesus told John He will come again (a second time, not the first time) in His resurrection body. Prove that from the OT Scripture.

Just like the Bereans did.

Prove the Berean Jews were more noble than those from Thessalonican Jews from OT Scripture.

Acts 17:11 (NASB) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received ____ with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.​

BTW: What did they "receive"?

 

[Nathan]

I took your definition of the word "Scripture", not an example of it. The reason your sentence used the comma grammatically was to separate two related thoughts.
If you use a definition for the word "Scripture" as "the OT" that's a prime example of circular reasoning (assume your conclusion within your premise).

I asked for your definition of the word "Scripture". The second half of your sentence is an example of Scripture, not a definition of the word's meaning to you.


I know. I never said it didn't. Although your statement is another example of circular reasoning. Luckily, we aren't debating the meaning of "all" though. So I moved on.


There is no verse that says Jesus interpreted "all the Scriptures" to these two men on that day. There is a verse that says Jesus interpreted "the things concerning Himself" in all the Scriptures to them that day however. You took a portion of the verse an 'ran with it' while accusing me of taking a portion of your 'definition'. Quite hypocritical, really. Furthermore, if you actually take the time to read the context of this God given Book of Luke (i.e. Scripture) you can see what those "things concerning Himself" within all the Scripture were specifically about; specifically His necessary suffering and glorification.

Luke 24:19-20, 25-26 (NASB) And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. ...
And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” ​

There are a lot of things about Christ in the OT. Some things are about Messiah's necessary suffering and entrance into His glory. Some things are about Him creating, some about His forever priesthood, etc.



BTW when you make Scripture plural (with an "s") you recognize the obvious. That is, there are multiple Scriptures. Classified as; History, Law, Psalm, Proverb, Prophecy, etc.

If I gave you a bag of M&Ms and you ate all the red M&Ms, have you eaten all the M&Ms in the bag or "all the red M&Ms"???


Really? I've shown otherwise:
1. Peter literally calls Paul's wisdom given writings/letters hard to understand like "the rest of Scripture".
2. Jesus told His disciples He had more to say to them that they couldn't bear at that time. And that the Holy Spirit would give them those things later. If He'd already told them these things in the OT, why did He say He had "more" to say??? (Don't bother answering, we both know why).
3. John was directed to write theses additional things in a God given book. We call it the Revelation (the unveiling) of Christ. NT Scripture "unveils" Christ. Yes, it points to the veiled Christ in the Old Testament. But God Himself has now unveiled Him in the New. Plainly and clearly.
4. Etc.



Jesus told John He will come again (a second time, not the first time) in His resurrection body. Prove that from the OT Scripture.


Prove the Berean Jews were more noble than those from Thessalonican Jews from OT Scripture.

Acts 17:11 (NASB) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received ____ with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.​

BTW: What did they "receive"?

 

[FreeGrace]

You have to explain how Jesus using a metaphor for the cause of stumbling in Matthew 18:6-9 NASB makes it so that the plain words of little ones who believe in Jesus going to the actual hell because of that stumbling qualifies as basing a doctrine on the not plain words of scripture rather than on the plain words of scripture.

To 'cause one to stumble' doesn't mean to 'go to hell'.

Make the metaphor for the cause of stumbling in Matthew 18:6-9 NASB anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that the result of the cause of the stumbling (whatever you say it is) will, if not removed, cause a little one who believes in Jesus (vs.6) to go to the actual, eternal, fiery hell (vs.8).

No, there is NOTHING in that, or any other passage, that says anything close to your claim.

Here is the passage:
Matt 18:6-9
6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

There isn't ANY mention of "little ones" going to hell. You've simply misread the passage.

But what's even worse; your single focus on being "thrown into the fire of hell" misses what precedes; that one MUST self mutilate in order to avoid being thrown into hell.

Do you take ALL of v.8 and 9 literally? Or just the part about hell?

If you don't take self mutilation literally, there is no issue regarding hell. If you don't take self mutilation literally, the rest doesn't matter either.

Either way, there is a huge problem with your view trying to explain those 2 verses.

 

[WIP]

I'm seeing posts interlaced with subtle personal comments that will very likely lead into less than polite exchanges. There is no place for these here. Express your differing viewpoints without striking personal jabs and blows or attempting to get "one up" on the other. These are the things that lead to bans and thread closures. This is what ToS 2.4 is all about. Respect for each other.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There isn't ANY mention of "little ones" going to hell. You've simply misread the passage.

The people for whom Jesus is concerned about stumbling are little ones who believe in Jesus:

"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble" (Matthew 18:6 NASB)

Clear, plain words. It's impossible to insist the passage is not about true believers in Christ. There's no way to make an argument that Jesus is talking about 'not really' believers.


The stumbling Christ is referring to is the stumbling that comes from people:

"woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you" (Matthew 18:7-8 NASB bold mine)

Again, just clear plain words. The 'man' through whom the stumbling comes and which is to be thrown from the little one who believes in Christ is the interpretation that Christ Himself gives for the 'hand', 'foot', and 'eye' that does the stumbling. He interprets the metaphor for us. We see that in his plain words.


It is better to cut off the man who causes the stumbling of the little ones who believes in Christ instead of the man who causes the stumbling to be retained and the little ones who believe in Christ to go to, what even you admit in the passage, is the literal, eternal, fiery hell (not some metaphor for earthly suffering).

"it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:8-9 NASB)

See, just undeniable, clear, plain words upon which to base a doctrine of non-OSAS upon. Yet, it is claimed that the doctrine is based on NOT plain words of scripture. As we can see with our own eyes these plain words of scripture prove that accusation (in the OP) to be false.

This is not a discussion about OSAS vs. not-OSAS. The argument is that the words of Matthew 18:6-9 NASB are plain words. Without discussing the issue of OSAS vs. not-OSAS itself we can see the doctrine of non-OSAS, contrary to the OP, is indeed based on clear, plain words of scripture.

 

[JLB]

It is better to cut off the man who causes the stumbling of the little ones who believes in Christ instead of the man who causes the stumbling to be retained and the little ones who believe in Christ to go to, what even you admit in the passage, is the literal, eternal, fiery hell (not some metaphor for earthly suffering).

Of course it is clear, and we would later understand, that the "part" [hand, foot, eye] of the body [of Christ] that causes the little ones in the body of Christ to stumble or become defiled, is to be removed.

IOW if Christ warns us it is better to literally remove the part of the physical body that causes "stumbling", how much more then do we apply this same rule to the body of Christ.

Paul clearly lays out this procedure in his letter to the Corinthians, from an actual example we can all learn from.

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.” 1 Corinthians 5:9-13


6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! 8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. Matthew 18:6-9

Jesus is plainly speaking to His disciples.

It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.




JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"There isn't ANY mention of "little ones" going to hell. You've simply misread the passage."

The people for whom Jesus is concerned about stumbling are little ones who believe in Jesus:

"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble" (Matthew 18:6 NASB)

I agree. And my statement stands.

Clear, plain words. It's impossible to insist the passage is not about true believers in Christ. There's no way to make an argument that Jesus is talking about 'not really' believers.

My point is that the passage does NOT say anything about "little ones" being cast into hell.

The stumbling Christ is referring to is the stumbling that comes from people:

"woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you" (Matthew 18:7-8 NASB bold mine)

Again, just clear plain words.

Again, no argument.

The 'man' through whom the stumbling comes and which is to be thrown from the little one who believes in Christ is the interpretation that Christ Himself gives for the 'hand', 'foot', and 'eye' that does the stumbling. He interprets the metaphor for us. We see that in his plain words.

What does "thrown from the little one" mean? I have no idea.

It is better to cut off the man who causes the stumbling of the little ones who believes in Christ instead of the man who causes the stumbling to be retained and the little ones who believe in Christ to go to, what even you admit in the passage, is the literal, eternal, fiery hell (not some metaphor for earthly suffering).

There is nothing about this supposed "either/or" scenario that you've just described.

"it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:8-9 NASB)

See, just undeniable, clear, plain words upon which to base a doctrine of non-OSAS upon.[/QUOTE]
I fully agree that these are undeniable clear, plain words. But I totally disagree that there is anything in this passage upon which to base a doctrine of OSNAS on.

Yet, it is claimed that the doctrine is based on NOT plain words of scripture.

Based on your application of these "plain words", have you practiced self mutilation when any of your body parts have sinned??

As we can see with our own eyes these plain words of scripture prove that accusation (in the OP) to be false.

I disagree with your opinion.

This is not a discussion about OSAS vs. not-OSAS. The argument is that the words of Matthew 18:6-9 NASB are plain words. Without discussing the issue of OSAS vs. not-OSAS itself we can see the doctrine of non-OSAS, contrary to the OP, is indeed based on clear, plain words of scripture.

Do you take these "plain words" of Jesus and practice self mutilation when your own body parts sin?

If you don't, then obviously these supposed "plain words" need some explaining.

I think your position is in quite a pickle.

 

[FreeGrace]

Of course it is clear, and we would later understand, that the "part" [hand, foot, eye] of the body [of Christ] that causes the little ones in the body of Christ to stumble or become defiled, is to be removed.

IOW if Christ warns us it is better to literally remove the part of the physical body that causes "stumbling", how much more then do we apply this same rule to the body of Christ.

Is it your practice to perform self mutilation on your own body parts when they sin?

 

[reba]

FreeGrace do you believe there is a hell?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you take these "plain words" of Jesus and practice self mutilation when your own body parts sin?

If you don't, then obviously these supposed "plain words" need some explaining.

I showed you the metaphor for the hand and foot and eye is plainly explained right in the passage using plain words....and you agreed that it is. Since Jesus himself tells us what the metaphor represents you have no basis to dismiss the passage because Jesus used a metaphor in it.

All your contentions with the passage have been addressed. There's nothing left to conclude except that Jesus is plainly warning us about little one's who believe in him going to the eternal hell because of people who cause them to stumble so as to go to that hell.

 

[Jim Parker]

I showed you the metaphor for the hand and foot and eye is plainly explained right in the passage using plain words....and you agreed that it is. Since Jesus himself tells us what the metaphor represents you have no basis to dismiss the passage because Jesus used a metaphor in it.

All your contentions with the passage have been addressed. There's nothing left to conclude except that Jesus is plainly warning us about little one's who believe in him going to the eternal hell because of people who cause them to stumble so as to go to that hell.

Interesting how "plain words" so often mean "the way I see it."

 

[WIP]

Interesting how "plain words" so often mean "the way I see it."

That's probably the most accurate way to put it. Ever wonder why our laws are written the way they are? To the everyday lay person it is nearly impossible to read our laws and statutes and make sense of them unless one is a seasoned attorney. The English language in particular is often so vague almost any statement can be understood differently by different people. Even the most seasoned attorneys can argue points of the same laws and present valid arguments for their differing positions.

For example, when I read the first point of our 1st Amendment to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I believe I clearly understand exactly what that means. In my mind it means that our government is prohibited from passing any laws governing, establishing, or influencing religion of any type. What I do not believe is that it implies that religion cannot influence our government but throughout our history cases have been argued in court and won pushing the latter premise.

 

[JLB]

Is it your practice to perform self mutilation on your own body parts when they sin?

It's my practice to repent and confess my sin and be forgiven, so that I will be cleansed of all unrighteousness.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

What is your practice, when you sin?




JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

FreeGrace do you believe there is a hell?

Wow. That is a strange question for me. Of course there is. What would make anyone think otherwise from anything I've posted??