Scriptural fundamentalism & literal interpretation

[for_his_glory]

FHG,

Can I 'reason the spiritual things with logic'? Yep! I need logic to understand the language I speak and to read what you have written here and to read the Scripture. God has invented logic so that we can understand each other when we speak or write. I'm blessed to know that God created logic so that we can communicate with each other and that He can communicate with us.

Now to John 14:26. Its context is John 14:22-29,



You want John 14:26 (NLT) to mean what it does not mean in context. Jesus told his disciples information while he was still with them on earth, but he was going away and the disciples would need reminding what Jesus told them. Obviously they didn't have a perfect memory of all that he had told them. For that purpose, the Holy Spirit (the Advocate, Paraclete) would remind them what Jesus had told them. The Advocate would not be giving them new revelation through teaching (your language is 'that is why we need the Holy Spirit to teach us, John 14:26'). Not so!

Jesus was addressing Judas (not Iscariot) and the other disciples. He was instructing them about what would happen when he left them. He was not giving information for Christians down to the 21st century to follow. This has caused leading evangelical commentator, D A Carson, to write about John 14:26 (NIV):


In context, John 14:26 (NLT) is teaching something quite different to what you want to promote. Careful exposition of the text is necessary, rather than cherry picking a verse to make a point that is not in the text in context.

As for John 3:12, Jesus was speaking to a respected Jewish leader, Nicodemus, who did not know the Lord. He needed his spiritual eyes to be opened. This verse is not telling information that you want it to mean. Again, cherry picking a verse aborts the meaning you are pushing.

As for John 3:1-6 (NLT) and Nicodemus, the issue had nothing to do with dumbing down 'logical reasoning' (your language). Nicodemus, a Pharisee, knew Jesus, the Teacher, was sent from God 'to teach us', but he needed his eyes opened regarding being born again (John 3:3 NLT). Then Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the need to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5-6 NLT). This was an issue of proclamation of the Gospel (even though prior to Jesus' death and resurrection). These 6 verses are not teaching antagonism to logical reasoning. They are teaching content - the need to be born again to enter God's kingdom.

If you try these kinds of cherry picking exercises again, I'll not reply as you have demonstrated here that you cherry pick verses to make them say what they do not mean in context.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Yes, Nicodemus needed his spiritual eyes opened for his logic could not spiritually discern what Jesus was telling him about being spiritually born again. Logic can not spiritually discern. I am going to use Isaiah 40:10-14 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-16 for two examples of the literal logic and the spiritual discernment in the OT and NT. One can literally read these words and try to use logic for understanding, but yet do not grasp the spiritual teaching if they do not use spiritual discernment that can only come by the Holy Spirit and not the logical mind. Like I said way back in the beginning that scripture is both literal and spiritual as it takes spiritual discernment at times to understand the literal for what God wants our spiritual eyes and ears to hear and understand.

 

[OzSpen]

Logic is dependant on the carnal mind, I'll give you that. But as for the language being logical and the Bible not being able to be written without logic...

Uh, no. None of the earths languages are logical. (Ok, probably none of them.) But English (was my best subject) is seriously illogical!!

If English was logical, you'd see grammar check alongside spell check. Where is it? Lol the computer can't make grammar check work.

Your example did not demonstrate logic effectively, but I applaud your effort. The lack of logic is apparent all over the English language, there is no hard & fast rules for our language.

Suppose you kiss your wife. Suppose you give her more than one kiss, what's that? Kisses, right.
Suppose you have an ox. Suppose you have more than one ox, what's that? The logical answer is oxes, but English isn't logical, so it's oxen. See what I mean, Brother?

And what's up with silent letters? Either put it in there and pronounce it, or leave it out, geez.

You can demonstrate understanding in language, but not logic. For there is no logic. Where's the word logic, in scripture? In fact, show me anything logical in scripture!

It says what is and it isn't logical...but it's true.
:wink :tongue

Edward,

I thought you were pulling my leg but you have revealed in another post you were serious.

• You got your first sentence wrong. I did NOT say that ‘logic is dependant on the carnal mind’. I said, ‘Logic – in itself – is NOT dependent on the carnal mind’ (emphasis added. See #139).

• ‘None of the earth’s languages are logical’. You have a strange view of logic. What does logic mean? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines logic as, ‘a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something’ (s v logic). Therefore, all of the earth’s languages are logical in the sense that they use language to engage in a reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something.

• You have given examples of: spell check, grammar check, kissing my wife, oxen, silent letter, nothing logical in Scripture. These examples demonstrate that you have a distorted understanding of the role of logic.

• Whether it is oxes or oxen is a tradition that has crept into English spelling. It has NOTHING to do with whether it is logical or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with convention in spelling. And have a guess what? You need to use logic to be able to read whether your statement about oxes vs oxen is what you want to discuss. Remember that logic is a reasonable way of thinking about something. You think it should be oxes but others consider oxen is the better name. Why don’t you investigate the etymology of why oxen was chosen and not oxes. By the way, here’s a logical explanation of why it is oxen and not oxes. Are you able to use logic to read this article?

• As for the singular kiss, I’m happy with that logic and with the plural, kisses, that’s convention. How about you investigate why the plural is kisses and not kisss?

• Like it or not, you must use logic in language to obtain understanding. Your distortion of the meaning of logic is coming through.

• Where’s the word logic in Scripture? Let’s try 3 examples:

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool".

Isaiah 43:26
"Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right".

Mark 11:29-33
And Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. "Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me." They began reasoning among themselves….

• By the way, a word doesn’t have to be used in Scripture for its teaching to be there. Try finding Trinity or Bible as words in the Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, Nicodemus needed his spiritual eyes opened for his logic could not spiritually discern what Jesus was telling him about being spiritually born again. Logic can not spiritually discern. I am going to use Isaiah 40:10-14 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-16 for two examples of the literal logic and the spiritual discernment in the OT and NT. One can literally read these words and try to use logic for understanding, but yet do not grasp the spiritual teaching if they do not use spiritual discernment that can only come by the Holy Spirit and not the logical mind. Like I said way back in the beginning that scripture is both literal and spiritual as it takes spiritual discernment at times to understand the literal for what God wants our spiritual eyes and ears to hear and understand.

You did not deal with the content of what I wrote and especially John 14:26 (NIV) and John 3:12 (NIV). You ignored what I wrote that showed cherry picking verses by ignoring the context leads to a misleading interpretation.

 

[for_his_glory]

In this response to me, you did not deal with the core of what I wrote about John 3:1-6 (NLT); John 3:12 (NLT) and John 14:26 (NIV). Seems as though I'm wasting my time doing the exposition of these passages in context when you refuse to deal with what I wrote.

I have dealt with the core of this whole thread and those verses repeatedly. I do not cherry pick scripture just to prove a point. One should always read above and below that of whatever scripture is given to get the full context of what is being said. I'm a little tired of your insults towards me and feel it's time to walk away from this topic.You believe as you will and I will believe how I will and may God bless you.