Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me, FC, that you have more of a problem with terminology than with substance. Christianity has taken on a bad name because there are so many who aren't true believers. It's too bad it's come to that, but I know many people who instead just refer to themselves as believers. The same seems to be true for interpretation. There are so many different doctrines and false interpretations that it's impossible to allign yourself with any of them. We're to separate ourselves from the world and, unfortunately, too many churches have become a part of the world system rather than being separate. I figure it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Personally, I haven't been comfortable in any regular church for many years. I just find other members of the body meeting in homes or small buildings in the New Testament style. I believe as the church age draws to a close we'll be seeing more and more of that.
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Some Things.. Hard To Be Understood..
- Thread starter Eventide
- Start date
FC, I read this post and I think your use of the word "interpretation" is a little fuzzy. I must admit I am having difficulties interpretating what you mean by the word "interpretation." I would ask someone else to interpret what you mean, maybe someone experienced in reading your words, but of course then I must depend upon their ability. I would much rather use my knowledge of the rules of grammar of the english language and simply read your words in context. The meaning of your words can usually be derived from context, but in this case, I am questioning if you are using the word "interpretation" correctly. Now you must be wondering if your interpreting my words correctly. You might think I am joking here, or maybe you think I am just babbling nonsense. Hopefully our words are clear enough that we are not responsible for differing interpretations, but if different interpretations happen, sometimes its because people read what they want to read.
Very interesting. You can read Koine Greek? What GNT do you use? I just purchased a new one, a readers GNT.
The "true church"..... is that that one with all the perfect people in it?
........"interpretive idea of the Church"........"Christianity"............."Body of Christ"............"Other denominations"...
Hmmm, I will let others more capable than me work on this one.
Your under the influence of what? I was under the influence on a few occasions in my youth. It was not Galatians in action, more like, well, Corinthians.
You did not understand the bible by its grammar, syntax, and historical setting? Then why did you study Greek?
Yeah, taken as a whole, Christianity is not so hot. Even Paul would have agreed with my statement. He wrote some fairly angry epistles. What does all this have to do with interpretation of the Bible?
I think I am getting it now. Denominationalism through its practice of misinterpretation has changed a few things. Did I interpret you correctly? You said "interpretation" but meant "misinterpretation?"
The diversity of opinions in Christianity is not so great as you might think. Also, I would disagree with you as to the causes of this diversity. Take for instance the protestant world. The main issue of diversity among protestants involves liberalism. Actually, Machen wrote a book that Liberalism is a completely different religion from evangelicalism. Its not interpretive issues that we differ on so much, its the nature of the bible itself. Its not that liberal cannot interpret the bible correctly, its that they just do not take it as seriously as an evangelical would.
I think you are talking about mysticism. Certainly there is a mystic part of Christianity, I do not doubt that, but when you give up the bible, that is the foundation. Once you give up the bible, certainly you cannot claim to be a christian. Of course you whole nick is "Former Christian." I think you know that.
Would you like to talk about some specific text?
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Eventide
We need to be sure we understand words in the same way.
I understand opinion to mean, “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledgeâ€. I understand that something that’s just a matter of opinion is “something not capable of being proven either wayâ€.
That implies something individually believed, rather than believed in common. That would also imply that to refer to someone else’s opinion of reality as “wise in their own conceits†is an arrogant belief in one’s own opinions. That’s how your use of that phrase comes across to me, unless you don’t actually think that your opinion is an opinion.
I understand reality to mean, “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of themâ€.
Being one who requires certainty of what we consider reality, that implies the necessity of an understanding of reality that is more certain than opinion can provide. An understanding of reality that has more evidence than opinion can provide. For me, evidence for the supernatural has been experiential, something more than my mind can see on its own through the senses or its own ability to reason. Reality for all is determined by experience. Whether it’s through an experience that fire is hot, or through a reasoned out understanding of what’s true. My experience of the supernatural was more like the heat of fire than of personal reasoning in its existence.
I expected that those who have the same experience would have a greater unity of understanding of that experience than I found in Christianity. Which is why I’m now a former Christian. Even if I thought that my experience was a result of personal opinion, it would have come out the same way since my “opinions†coincide with no Christian denomination known to me. Actually that’s not quite true. I probably would have reverted to Atheism by now.
Perhaps that enlightens you (or at least other readers of this thread) as to why this is such an important issue to me. Christianity reveals itself to be nothing more than opinions. I continue to hope the Bible isn’t just more of the same. Not that Naturalistic Evolutionism is such a bad thing to believe, if it’s the true reality. It’s just that the reality presented by the Bible, especially in the New Testament, makes for a much better story. That there’s more to life than death in the end. That there’s a reason for the suffering in the world. That there’s a God who cares and has provided an escape from the reality we can only see with our mind as experienced through our physical senses. It continues to be my hope that what the Bible presents is more than just opinions of the past, more than just their version of Science Fiction, their version of what today is considered, even by many who call themselves Christian, to be more mythology than not. Not that mythology is such a bad thing either, since most mythology has some basis in some sort of true experience.
(Definitions from the Oxford Dictionary)
Here is a question that is hard to answer in Christianity because every Biblical idea has become a matter of opinion. Even the nature of God and of Christ, what Christ has done. Even how we are to relate to the person and work of God and of Christ has become just a matter of opinion.
What in your opinion should we share in common, if being in Christ, if the existence of the supernatural, is real? Providing, of course, we actually share a common reality that’s more than just a matter of opinion. And I’m doing my best to be convinced we share a common reality. You only presented one side of a coin that requires a look at both sides to be properly understood. What should be those things that aren’t hard to be understood, that can be understood as transcending opinion, if the Bible truly has a supernatural source?
FC
We need to be sure we understand words in the same way.
I understand opinion to mean, “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledgeâ€. I understand that something that’s just a matter of opinion is “something not capable of being proven either wayâ€.
That implies something individually believed, rather than believed in common. That would also imply that to refer to someone else’s opinion of reality as “wise in their own conceits†is an arrogant belief in one’s own opinions. That’s how your use of that phrase comes across to me, unless you don’t actually think that your opinion is an opinion.
I understand reality to mean, “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of themâ€.
Being one who requires certainty of what we consider reality, that implies the necessity of an understanding of reality that is more certain than opinion can provide. An understanding of reality that has more evidence than opinion can provide. For me, evidence for the supernatural has been experiential, something more than my mind can see on its own through the senses or its own ability to reason. Reality for all is determined by experience. Whether it’s through an experience that fire is hot, or through a reasoned out understanding of what’s true. My experience of the supernatural was more like the heat of fire than of personal reasoning in its existence.
I expected that those who have the same experience would have a greater unity of understanding of that experience than I found in Christianity. Which is why I’m now a former Christian. Even if I thought that my experience was a result of personal opinion, it would have come out the same way since my “opinions†coincide with no Christian denomination known to me. Actually that’s not quite true. I probably would have reverted to Atheism by now.
Perhaps that enlightens you (or at least other readers of this thread) as to why this is such an important issue to me. Christianity reveals itself to be nothing more than opinions. I continue to hope the Bible isn’t just more of the same. Not that Naturalistic Evolutionism is such a bad thing to believe, if it’s the true reality. It’s just that the reality presented by the Bible, especially in the New Testament, makes for a much better story. That there’s more to life than death in the end. That there’s a reason for the suffering in the world. That there’s a God who cares and has provided an escape from the reality we can only see with our mind as experienced through our physical senses. It continues to be my hope that what the Bible presents is more than just opinions of the past, more than just their version of Science Fiction, their version of what today is considered, even by many who call themselves Christian, to be more mythology than not. Not that mythology is such a bad thing either, since most mythology has some basis in some sort of true experience.
(Definitions from the Oxford Dictionary)
Here is a question that is hard to answer in Christianity because every Biblical idea has become a matter of opinion. Even the nature of God and of Christ, what Christ has done. Even how we are to relate to the person and work of God and of Christ has become just a matter of opinion.
What in your opinion should we share in common, if being in Christ, if the existence of the supernatural, is real? Providing, of course, we actually share a common reality that’s more than just a matter of opinion. And I’m doing my best to be convinced we share a common reality. You only presented one side of a coin that requires a look at both sides to be properly understood. What should be those things that aren’t hard to be understood, that can be understood as transcending opinion, if the Bible truly has a supernatural source?
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Glorydaz
“Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me, FC, that you have more of a problem with terminology than with substance.â€
While the terms Christian and Christianity are an issue to me, I also have an issue with the substance of Christianity. If Christianity has a bad name, in my opinion it’s deserved. That doesn’t apply to all who call themselves Christian. Though individual Christians tend to be thought of by that with which they have associated themselves.
“I know many people who instead just refer to themselves as believers. The same seems to be true for interpretation. There are so many different doctrines and false interpretations that it's impossible to allign yourself with any of them. We're to separate ourselves from the world and, unfortunately, too many churches have become a part of the world system rather than being separate. I figure it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Personally, I haven't been comfortable in any regular church for many years. I just find other members of the body meeting in homes or small buildings in the New Testament style. I believe as the church age draws to a close we'll be seeing more and more of that.â€
Our experiences seem to agree. I attend a mainline Church. But if they knew what I believed I wouldn’t be there long. So I’m quiet about it. I participate in their ritual, but am not really a part of the community apart from that participation. I know of no meetings in the New Testament style in my vicinity, unfortunately. I know of a couple of home meetings being run by individual Protestants. Which would just be the same kind of situation as where I am. So no reason to change. I sincerely hope the change you foresee comes about.
FC
“Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me, FC, that you have more of a problem with terminology than with substance.â€
While the terms Christian and Christianity are an issue to me, I also have an issue with the substance of Christianity. If Christianity has a bad name, in my opinion it’s deserved. That doesn’t apply to all who call themselves Christian. Though individual Christians tend to be thought of by that with which they have associated themselves.
“I know many people who instead just refer to themselves as believers. The same seems to be true for interpretation. There are so many different doctrines and false interpretations that it's impossible to allign yourself with any of them. We're to separate ourselves from the world and, unfortunately, too many churches have become a part of the world system rather than being separate. I figure it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Personally, I haven't been comfortable in any regular church for many years. I just find other members of the body meeting in homes or small buildings in the New Testament style. I believe as the church age draws to a close we'll be seeing more and more of that.â€
Our experiences seem to agree. I attend a mainline Church. But if they knew what I believed I wouldn’t be there long. So I’m quiet about it. I participate in their ritual, but am not really a part of the community apart from that participation. I know of no meetings in the New Testament style in my vicinity, unfortunately. I know of a couple of home meetings being run by individual Protestants. Which would just be the same kind of situation as where I am. So no reason to change. I sincerely hope the change you foresee comes about.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Mondar
“I must admit I am having difficulties interpretating what you mean by the word "interpretation.".... if different interpretations happen, sometimes its because people read what they want to read.”
That whole paragraph is a nice play on words. But you're right in the end. A lot of people get a certain notion in their head and they read what they want to read. What they read becomes proof for their notion. One doesn’t need to be Christian for that to happen.
Interpretation, “the action of explaining the meaning of something, an explanation or way of explaining”
(Oxford Dictionary)
Some think that a supernatural influence can influence the interpretation. But I don’t think that’s conducive of understanding the definition properly. The source is the human mind, pure and simple. Whatever is received from the outside, whether natural or supernatural, if it is interpreted, the interpretation changes the nature of that being interpreted so that the interpretation becomes something different from that which was received.
“What GNT do you use?”
I’ve collected several through the years.
Since Greek is a second language to me, I tend to use an interlinear more often than not, to be sure I’m understanding the words correctly. I don’t have to second guess and can concentrate on what I’m reading. When I read a plain Greek text, I use one put out by a publisher in Greece and uses their version of the Byzantine compilation. It’s very close to the Majority text of Maurice Robinson. You will, of course, have to find out as you go along what works best for you. The only thing I would recommend, because of the differences between Greek and English letters, that you use a Greek text wherein the Greek letters are distinct and clear. That is the most obvious help in avoiding misunderstanding of the text.
“The "true church"..... is that that one with all the perfect people in it?”
LOL Hardly. Surely you’ve noticed that the only perfect person to walk on this earth for the last several thousand years was Jesus Christ. Or so the NT says. Otherwise I would have to go by the maxim, “everyone’s crazy but me and thee, and I wonder about thee”.
“........"interpretive idea of the Church"........"Christianity"............."Body of Christ"............"Other denominations"...
Hmmm, I will let others more capable than me work on this one.”
It’s not as difficult as it appears. All the terms are commonly understood. But in a certain way. Christianity, for example, is usually equated with that which the Bible proclaims. I see a difference.
Denomination just refers to the divisions within Christianity.
The interpretive idea of the Church refers to how the Church is generally perceived. It has two aspects: universal and local. The local is considered to be part of the universal. There are several universal Churches in Christianity, corresponding to the denominations.
The idea of the Body of Christ is contained in Paul’s writings chiefly. All Christian denominations consider their community to be an earthly expression of the Body of Christ, or the closest thing to it. A few understand Christianity itself as the earthly expression of the Body of Christ. I see the matter differently from both. Key to my understanding of the issue is the difference between the ekklesia in the NT (generally translated as church in the English translations) and the idea of Church in Christianity. Due to the indoctrination of most in the thinking of Christianity, this seems to be very difficult to understand, let alone believe.
“.......I began to understand the Bible through interpretation under the influence of Christianity...
Your under the influence of what? I was under the influence on a few occasions in my youth. It was not Galatians in action, more like, well, Corinthians.”
I did for a time equate modern Christianity with the Corinthian experience. Until I realized that denominationalism is much worse than the Corinthian experience. The divisions in Corinth were limited to one ekklesia. That isn’t the experience of Christianity at all. But my experience was definitely a beginning in the Spirit and going on in the flesh after attending a Christian community, which was the experience of the Galatians.
“You did not understand the bible by its grammar, syntax, and historical setting? Then why did you study Greek?”
I only knew the English at the time and understood it through what I knew at the time. The English wording and grammar. Protestant Pastors tend to bring up the Greek if they know it. That started the seed of a question in my mind. As I began to do some comparative studies of my own, easy to do with the resources that have been available in the last several decades, I noted that the Greek was being interpretively translated in the English translations. To be able to know for sure what I was seeing was actually what I was seeing, I needed to have a better experience of the Greek itself. So I started learning Greek. Formally at first. Later on my own as I discovered that modern Greek grammarians have created a whole science that has little to do with the language itself. The koine Greek language is actually a very precise language. A perfect choice for the NT, if it’s considered a supernaturally derived book. And because it’s so precise, the meaning is clear unless interpretively understood.
“Yeah, taken as a whole, Christianity is not so hot. Even Paul would have agreed with my statement. He wrote some fairly angry epistles. What does all this have to do with interpretation of the Bible?”
“through its practice of Biblical interpretation it has changed the meaning of reality as it’s understood in the Bible.” Thus creating the denominations.
“I think I am getting it now. Denominationalism through its practice of misinterpretation has changed a few things. Did I interpret you correctly? You said "interpretation" but meant "misinterpretation?" ”
I meant interpretation. Interpretation changes the meaning and then it becomes a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding that doesn’t mean the same as the text that was interpreted. It is so with any writing you want to consider. But to understand the Bible, a book considered to have a supernatural source, by way of interpretation, can be disastrous. It certainly has been for Christianity. Due to the practice of Biblical interpretation, Christianity is a man-made religion as seen clearly by its denominationalism.
“The diversity of opinions in Christianity is not so great as you might think.”
Many would agree with you. Many use that thought as an excuse for the denominationalism in Christianity. But it doesn’t seem to stop them from the correlating practice of closed communion based on that diversity of opinion. It doesn’t stop them from continuing to be denominational.
Machen was a writer of his time and a Protestant. What he said about liberals only applied to the most extreme of the liberals. The liberals who were more philosophers than Christian. Most just interpreted the Bible in a way the conservatives couldn’t accept. But then, isn’t that also true between conservatives? Don’t they also interpret the Bible in ways that other conservatives can’t accept?
“Finally I gave up the practice of interpretation for a return to listening to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit. A return to the Spirit.
I think you are talking about mysticism. Certainly there is a mystic part of Christianity, I do not doubt that, but when you give up the bible, that is the foundation. Once you give up the bible, certainly you cannot claim to be a christian. Of course you whole nick is "Former Christian." I think you know that.”
I don’t know why you would think I gave up the Bible. Surely my concern for Biblical interpretation shows otherwise. I gave up on Christianity and am thus not a Christian. I’m one who still considers himself to be in Christ. I didn’t give up the Bible. And that’s the crux of my dilemma.
“Would you like to talk about some specific text?”
I take it you haven’t read much of this thread. Several Bible texts have been brought up. Right from the beginning as Eventide based the thread on his understanding of a passage in Peter.
FC
“I must admit I am having difficulties interpretating what you mean by the word "interpretation.".... if different interpretations happen, sometimes its because people read what they want to read.”
That whole paragraph is a nice play on words. But you're right in the end. A lot of people get a certain notion in their head and they read what they want to read. What they read becomes proof for their notion. One doesn’t need to be Christian for that to happen.
Interpretation, “the action of explaining the meaning of something, an explanation or way of explaining”
(Oxford Dictionary)
Some think that a supernatural influence can influence the interpretation. But I don’t think that’s conducive of understanding the definition properly. The source is the human mind, pure and simple. Whatever is received from the outside, whether natural or supernatural, if it is interpreted, the interpretation changes the nature of that being interpreted so that the interpretation becomes something different from that which was received.
“What GNT do you use?”
I’ve collected several through the years.
Since Greek is a second language to me, I tend to use an interlinear more often than not, to be sure I’m understanding the words correctly. I don’t have to second guess and can concentrate on what I’m reading. When I read a plain Greek text, I use one put out by a publisher in Greece and uses their version of the Byzantine compilation. It’s very close to the Majority text of Maurice Robinson. You will, of course, have to find out as you go along what works best for you. The only thing I would recommend, because of the differences between Greek and English letters, that you use a Greek text wherein the Greek letters are distinct and clear. That is the most obvious help in avoiding misunderstanding of the text.
“The "true church"..... is that that one with all the perfect people in it?”
LOL Hardly. Surely you’ve noticed that the only perfect person to walk on this earth for the last several thousand years was Jesus Christ. Or so the NT says. Otherwise I would have to go by the maxim, “everyone’s crazy but me and thee, and I wonder about thee”.
“........"interpretive idea of the Church"........"Christianity"............."Body of Christ"............"Other denominations"...
Hmmm, I will let others more capable than me work on this one.”
It’s not as difficult as it appears. All the terms are commonly understood. But in a certain way. Christianity, for example, is usually equated with that which the Bible proclaims. I see a difference.
Denomination just refers to the divisions within Christianity.
The interpretive idea of the Church refers to how the Church is generally perceived. It has two aspects: universal and local. The local is considered to be part of the universal. There are several universal Churches in Christianity, corresponding to the denominations.
The idea of the Body of Christ is contained in Paul’s writings chiefly. All Christian denominations consider their community to be an earthly expression of the Body of Christ, or the closest thing to it. A few understand Christianity itself as the earthly expression of the Body of Christ. I see the matter differently from both. Key to my understanding of the issue is the difference between the ekklesia in the NT (generally translated as church in the English translations) and the idea of Church in Christianity. Due to the indoctrination of most in the thinking of Christianity, this seems to be very difficult to understand, let alone believe.
“.......I began to understand the Bible through interpretation under the influence of Christianity...
Your under the influence of what? I was under the influence on a few occasions in my youth. It was not Galatians in action, more like, well, Corinthians.”
I did for a time equate modern Christianity with the Corinthian experience. Until I realized that denominationalism is much worse than the Corinthian experience. The divisions in Corinth were limited to one ekklesia. That isn’t the experience of Christianity at all. But my experience was definitely a beginning in the Spirit and going on in the flesh after attending a Christian community, which was the experience of the Galatians.
“You did not understand the bible by its grammar, syntax, and historical setting? Then why did you study Greek?”
I only knew the English at the time and understood it through what I knew at the time. The English wording and grammar. Protestant Pastors tend to bring up the Greek if they know it. That started the seed of a question in my mind. As I began to do some comparative studies of my own, easy to do with the resources that have been available in the last several decades, I noted that the Greek was being interpretively translated in the English translations. To be able to know for sure what I was seeing was actually what I was seeing, I needed to have a better experience of the Greek itself. So I started learning Greek. Formally at first. Later on my own as I discovered that modern Greek grammarians have created a whole science that has little to do with the language itself. The koine Greek language is actually a very precise language. A perfect choice for the NT, if it’s considered a supernaturally derived book. And because it’s so precise, the meaning is clear unless interpretively understood.
“Yeah, taken as a whole, Christianity is not so hot. Even Paul would have agreed with my statement. He wrote some fairly angry epistles. What does all this have to do with interpretation of the Bible?”
“through its practice of Biblical interpretation it has changed the meaning of reality as it’s understood in the Bible.” Thus creating the denominations.
“I think I am getting it now. Denominationalism through its practice of misinterpretation has changed a few things. Did I interpret you correctly? You said "interpretation" but meant "misinterpretation?" ”
I meant interpretation. Interpretation changes the meaning and then it becomes a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding that doesn’t mean the same as the text that was interpreted. It is so with any writing you want to consider. But to understand the Bible, a book considered to have a supernatural source, by way of interpretation, can be disastrous. It certainly has been for Christianity. Due to the practice of Biblical interpretation, Christianity is a man-made religion as seen clearly by its denominationalism.
“The diversity of opinions in Christianity is not so great as you might think.”
Many would agree with you. Many use that thought as an excuse for the denominationalism in Christianity. But it doesn’t seem to stop them from the correlating practice of closed communion based on that diversity of opinion. It doesn’t stop them from continuing to be denominational.
Machen was a writer of his time and a Protestant. What he said about liberals only applied to the most extreme of the liberals. The liberals who were more philosophers than Christian. Most just interpreted the Bible in a way the conservatives couldn’t accept. But then, isn’t that also true between conservatives? Don’t they also interpret the Bible in ways that other conservatives can’t accept?
“Finally I gave up the practice of interpretation for a return to listening to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit. A return to the Spirit.
I think you are talking about mysticism. Certainly there is a mystic part of Christianity, I do not doubt that, but when you give up the bible, that is the foundation. Once you give up the bible, certainly you cannot claim to be a christian. Of course you whole nick is "Former Christian." I think you know that.”
I don’t know why you would think I gave up the Bible. Surely my concern for Biblical interpretation shows otherwise. I gave up on Christianity and am thus not a Christian. I’m one who still considers himself to be in Christ. I didn’t give up the Bible. And that’s the crux of my dilemma.
“Would you like to talk about some specific text?”
I take it you haven’t read much of this thread. Several Bible texts have been brought up. Right from the beginning as Eventide based the thread on his understanding of a passage in Peter.
FC
Last edited by a moderator:
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
- Thread starter
- #106
For the sake of stating what should be obvious.. Nobody is saying that the holy scriptures (the bible) are an opinion.. it is the the word of God, authored by the Truth Himself.. and not only that, His words are supernatural in that they're living and powerful etc.. they're spiritually discerned.
Now that doesn't mean that we automatically know everything contained therein because we have the Spirit of Christ in us... we start as babes in Christ and we are in need of the sincere milk of the word.. and that's usually things very easily understood.. although as we grow in Christ we find that the holy scriptures are virtually limitless in their abilty to speak to the heart and mind of God's creatures.. and we find some things hard to be understood..
I'm surprised that Peter didn't tell us that some of John's writings are hard to be understood.. for example the Revelation of Jesus Christ... who reads that through once and then has it all settled in their minds..?
And because we know in part and we prophecy in part.. there are going to be some things that we don't have all figured out.. and when you look at our simple example.. the restoration of the nation of Israel in the time of the end versus interpretations which are against that... we find ourselves coming to realize that we hold interpretations which are very capable of being short of the whole truth.. and this is what I mean by an interpretation or an opinion.
If you'd like to beleive that you're somehow above that line so to speak, and that your understanding of certain things cannot be wrong, then you're welcome to that.. and that's where I'd say your commentary actually loses credibility imo.. because if you can't see that you're prone to the same situation as the rest of us... like being wrong, then imo that is one way to sum up being wise in our own conceits.
You might consider contacting Shield of Faith Mission International. I originally found a NT style church in Bend, Oregon where there wasn't a one-man-led assembly of believers. Since then, I've been from Virginia and back again to Oregon and have been able to find a good group of believers in many of the places I've lived. There is no church building, no collection plate (except maybe a can in the back of the room to support missionaries), mainly elders sharing, but any are free to share as the Lord prompts. I pray the Lord leads you to find a place where you don't have to remain silent in order to attend.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
- Thread starter
- #108
Predestination is imo not a thing hard to be understood although from reading various commentary it does often seem to be misunderstood to mean that God preselected certain individuals to be saved.. and the scriptures say nothing to that end, but rather this...
Predestination is to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.
PRE means beforehand... DESTINATION means a place..
Before the foundation of the world (PRE), God chose that all who would trust in His beloved Son for the forgiveness of their sins would be placed into the body of CHRIST.. (DESTINATION)..
IMO it's really that simple.. Christ alone is glorified as it should be.
Predestination is to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.
PRE means beforehand... DESTINATION means a place..
Before the foundation of the world (PRE), God chose that all who would trust in His beloved Son for the forgiveness of their sins would be placed into the body of CHRIST.. (DESTINATION)..
IMO it's really that simple.. Christ alone is glorified as it should be.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
- Thread starter
- #109
JACOB loved, ESAU hated...
Another seemingly problematic portion of scripture for many.. although when we look closely at the rest of scripture we see the reasons clearly..
First order of business though is WHERE is this WRITTEN... ?
It's written in Malachi.. and Malachi lived hundreds of years AFTER Esau lived his life.
Furthermore... if we read the story of Jacob and Esau in the book of Genesis, we see that Isaac (certainly a picture of Christ) loved Esau..
And of course we know that Esau SOLD HIS OWN BIRTHRIGHT to satisfy his flesh...
We haven't even talked about the primary context of Romans 9-11 which is the nation of Israel.. and that Jacob (Israel) was chosen over Esau to bring forth the son of promise before they were even born... which is CHRIST.
This portion of scripture is perhaps the primary mover for men to embrace the false doctrine of unconditional election, and imo that kind of thinking misses the forest for the trees.
Another seemingly problematic portion of scripture for many.. although when we look closely at the rest of scripture we see the reasons clearly..
First order of business though is WHERE is this WRITTEN... ?
It's written in Malachi.. and Malachi lived hundreds of years AFTER Esau lived his life.
Furthermore... if we read the story of Jacob and Esau in the book of Genesis, we see that Isaac (certainly a picture of Christ) loved Esau..
And of course we know that Esau SOLD HIS OWN BIRTHRIGHT to satisfy his flesh...
We haven't even talked about the primary context of Romans 9-11 which is the nation of Israel.. and that Jacob (Israel) was chosen over Esau to bring forth the son of promise before they were even born... which is CHRIST.
This portion of scripture is perhaps the primary mover for men to embrace the false doctrine of unconditional election, and imo that kind of thinking misses the forest for the trees.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Eventide
“For the sake of stating what should be obvious.. Nobody is saying that the holy scriptures (the bible) are an opinion.. it is the the word of God, authored by the Truth Himself.. and not only that, His words are supernatural in that they're living and powerful etc.. they're spiritually discerned.â€
If that’s what you believe, why would you want to treat the Bible as if it’s just another book? Why would you want to interpret it as if it’s just a common book like any other? Why do you want to treat the Bible like the Kabala Jews?
“Now that doesn't mean that we automatically know everything contained therein because we have the Spirit of Christ in us... we start as babes in Christ and we are in need of the sincere milk of the word.. and that's usually things very easily understood.. although as we grow in Christ we find that the holy scriptures are virtually limitless in their abilty to speak to the heart and mind of God's creatures.. and we find some things hard to be understood.â€
You acknowledge that we are in a process of growth. That if we’re in a process of growth, there will be things hard to be understood according to our stage of growth. It should follow that if that’s true, then there are things we aren’t suppose to know until we’ve grown sufficiently to receive them, to understand them.
Why should we force an understanding of things hard to be understood through interpretation? Why should we think that such a forced understanding is a true understanding?
“I'm surprised that Peter didn't tell us that some of John's writings are hard to be understood.. for example the Revelation of Jesus Christ... who reads that through once and then has it all settled in their minds..? â€
LOL Now there I have to agree with you. Especially when I was a new believer. I was still too much into natural thinking to understand a lot of things John said. If I thought that there were actually deep things of God in the Bible, John’s writings would sure be at the top of that list.
I couldn’t make head nor tails of that latter part of John 6. Especially after I learned the very unsatisfactory Protestant interpretation. The interpretation that it referred to faith made no sense to me at all. The Catholic interpretation made more sense, that it refers to the Lord’s Table. But it wasn’t any more satisfactory. A literal eating of the body and blood just didn’t sound right considering the ban on such a thing in the Old Testament. Made God sound like two different people.
I eventually grew to the point that I could understand that John 6:63 was the key. A literal understanding of the text as a physical reality (Catholic) or an understanding of the text that really had nothing to do with the text as it actually read (Protestant). Both were interpretations. I could finally see that it is truly speaking about the Lord’s Table, which some Protestants deny. But that the only physical aspect is the bread and the wine. What we participate in when eating the bread and the wine is Spiritual. We experience all that the Lord’s Table represents in Spirit. What we experience is entirely according to the reality itself, and our walking by the Spirit at the time. Even though Christianity is nothing more than a man-made religion, that doesn’t mean that the Lord’s Table can’t be experienced in a denominations of Christianity. The experience is Spiritual according to whether or not the one experiencing is truly in Christ and in the Body of Christ. The practice of closed communion is ineffectual in relation to such a one. Of course, to you, this is probably just a personal opinion.
At one time, I thought 1 John 3 was teaching sinless perfection. Almost entirely lost my faith because of that personal interpretation. Simply because my experience and that of everyone I knew was far from sinless perfection. Even Adam didn’t come up to that standard. When I finally understood that Jesus was the center of what was being said, and not we ourselves, it made all the difference.
I didn’t read Revelation until I was already heavy into interpretation. And there are a multitude of interpretations relating to Revelation. Left me totally confused. I read Revelation several times. Then I read the various interpretations. Then I didn’t read Revelation again for a long time. Had no idea how to understand it. Now I understand Revelations 1-3 and 20-22. I understand 4-19 to a degree. I don’t understand the book of Revelation as if it’s a book of riddles purposely made difficult for whatever reason. I don’t think the Dispensationalists have a corner on its understanding. That it’s talking about helicopters and a two billion man army from China. I certainly don’t interpret into the coming thousand year reign more than what is said. Nor do I think that reign is just symbolic of the present Church age. I just take it as it reads. And if I need to understand it better than I do, Jesus will tell me what I need to know.
“And because we know in part and we prophecy in part.. there are going to be some things that we don't have all figured out.. and when you look at our simple example.. the restoration of the nation of Israel in the time of the end versus interpretations which are against that... we find ourselves coming to realize that we hold interpretations which are very capable of being short of the whole truth.. and this is what I mean by an interpretation or an opinion.â€
Now that’s remarkable to me. You can say with apparently a straight face that your idea of the restoration of Israel is not an interpretation. It’s plain and simple truth. In spite of the fact that such an idea flies in the face of so many other things the Bible has to say. You then say that any idea that opposes your interpretation is an interpretation. You’ve just done what you claim that I am doing. Yet you acknowledge that it’s possible to realize that we hold interpretations that are capable of being short of the truth. Are you capable of realizing that your own idea of the restoration of Israel may just be an opinion?
“If you'd like to beleive that you're somehow above that line so to speak, and that your understanding of certain things cannot be wrong, then you're welcome to that.. and that's where I'd say your commentary actually loses credibility imo.. because if you can't see that you're prone to the same situation as the rest of us... like being wrong, then imo that is one way to sum up being wise in our own conceits.â€
It’s axiomatic that those who create straw men are hard to convince that their straw man is in fact a straw man. I’ve already mentioned that your straw man isn’t me. But if you’re determined to oppose a straw man, I leave you to it. But I have to ask myself, why are you so determined to fight a straw man? Could there be something unconsciously realized? That perhaps at least some of what you think are my opinions, actually may have some merit after all?
“Predestination is imo not a thing hard to be understood although from reading various commentary it does often seem to be misunderstood to mean that God preselected certain individuals to be saved.. and the scriptures say nothing to that end, but rather this...
Predestination is to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.
PRE means beforehand... DESTINATION means a place..
Before the foundation of the world (PRE), God chose that all who would trust in His beloved Son for the forgiveness of their sins would be placed into the body of CHRIST.. (DESTINATION)..
IMO it's really that simple.. Christ alone is glorified as it should be.â€
How about that. Pretty much how I see it. Does that make it more than an opinion?
“JACOB loved, ESAU hated...
Another seemingly problematic portion of scripture for many.. although when we look closely at the rest of scripture we see the reasons clearly..
First order of business though is WHERE is this WRITTEN... ?
It's written in Malachi.. and Malachi lived hundreds of years AFTER Esau lived his life.
Furthermore... if we read the story of Jacob and Esau in the book of Genesis, we see that Isaac (certainly a picture of Christ) loved Esau..
And of course we know that Esau SOLD HIS OWN BIRTHRIGHT to satisfy his flesh...
We haven't even talked about the primary context of Romans 9-11 which is the nation of Israel.. and that Jacob (Israel) was chosen over Esau to bring forth the son of promise before they were even born... which is CHRIST.
This portion of scripture is perhaps the primary mover for men to embrace the false doctrine of unconditional election, and im that kind of thinking misses the forest for the trees.â€
Wow! I agreed with that too. Maybe because you didn't bring up anything about the restoration of Israel.
FC
“For the sake of stating what should be obvious.. Nobody is saying that the holy scriptures (the bible) are an opinion.. it is the the word of God, authored by the Truth Himself.. and not only that, His words are supernatural in that they're living and powerful etc.. they're spiritually discerned.â€
If that’s what you believe, why would you want to treat the Bible as if it’s just another book? Why would you want to interpret it as if it’s just a common book like any other? Why do you want to treat the Bible like the Kabala Jews?
“Now that doesn't mean that we automatically know everything contained therein because we have the Spirit of Christ in us... we start as babes in Christ and we are in need of the sincere milk of the word.. and that's usually things very easily understood.. although as we grow in Christ we find that the holy scriptures are virtually limitless in their abilty to speak to the heart and mind of God's creatures.. and we find some things hard to be understood.â€
You acknowledge that we are in a process of growth. That if we’re in a process of growth, there will be things hard to be understood according to our stage of growth. It should follow that if that’s true, then there are things we aren’t suppose to know until we’ve grown sufficiently to receive them, to understand them.
Why should we force an understanding of things hard to be understood through interpretation? Why should we think that such a forced understanding is a true understanding?
“I'm surprised that Peter didn't tell us that some of John's writings are hard to be understood.. for example the Revelation of Jesus Christ... who reads that through once and then has it all settled in their minds..? â€
LOL Now there I have to agree with you. Especially when I was a new believer. I was still too much into natural thinking to understand a lot of things John said. If I thought that there were actually deep things of God in the Bible, John’s writings would sure be at the top of that list.
I couldn’t make head nor tails of that latter part of John 6. Especially after I learned the very unsatisfactory Protestant interpretation. The interpretation that it referred to faith made no sense to me at all. The Catholic interpretation made more sense, that it refers to the Lord’s Table. But it wasn’t any more satisfactory. A literal eating of the body and blood just didn’t sound right considering the ban on such a thing in the Old Testament. Made God sound like two different people.
I eventually grew to the point that I could understand that John 6:63 was the key. A literal understanding of the text as a physical reality (Catholic) or an understanding of the text that really had nothing to do with the text as it actually read (Protestant). Both were interpretations. I could finally see that it is truly speaking about the Lord’s Table, which some Protestants deny. But that the only physical aspect is the bread and the wine. What we participate in when eating the bread and the wine is Spiritual. We experience all that the Lord’s Table represents in Spirit. What we experience is entirely according to the reality itself, and our walking by the Spirit at the time. Even though Christianity is nothing more than a man-made religion, that doesn’t mean that the Lord’s Table can’t be experienced in a denominations of Christianity. The experience is Spiritual according to whether or not the one experiencing is truly in Christ and in the Body of Christ. The practice of closed communion is ineffectual in relation to such a one. Of course, to you, this is probably just a personal opinion.
At one time, I thought 1 John 3 was teaching sinless perfection. Almost entirely lost my faith because of that personal interpretation. Simply because my experience and that of everyone I knew was far from sinless perfection. Even Adam didn’t come up to that standard. When I finally understood that Jesus was the center of what was being said, and not we ourselves, it made all the difference.
I didn’t read Revelation until I was already heavy into interpretation. And there are a multitude of interpretations relating to Revelation. Left me totally confused. I read Revelation several times. Then I read the various interpretations. Then I didn’t read Revelation again for a long time. Had no idea how to understand it. Now I understand Revelations 1-3 and 20-22. I understand 4-19 to a degree. I don’t understand the book of Revelation as if it’s a book of riddles purposely made difficult for whatever reason. I don’t think the Dispensationalists have a corner on its understanding. That it’s talking about helicopters and a two billion man army from China. I certainly don’t interpret into the coming thousand year reign more than what is said. Nor do I think that reign is just symbolic of the present Church age. I just take it as it reads. And if I need to understand it better than I do, Jesus will tell me what I need to know.
“And because we know in part and we prophecy in part.. there are going to be some things that we don't have all figured out.. and when you look at our simple example.. the restoration of the nation of Israel in the time of the end versus interpretations which are against that... we find ourselves coming to realize that we hold interpretations which are very capable of being short of the whole truth.. and this is what I mean by an interpretation or an opinion.â€
Now that’s remarkable to me. You can say with apparently a straight face that your idea of the restoration of Israel is not an interpretation. It’s plain and simple truth. In spite of the fact that such an idea flies in the face of so many other things the Bible has to say. You then say that any idea that opposes your interpretation is an interpretation. You’ve just done what you claim that I am doing. Yet you acknowledge that it’s possible to realize that we hold interpretations that are capable of being short of the truth. Are you capable of realizing that your own idea of the restoration of Israel may just be an opinion?
“If you'd like to beleive that you're somehow above that line so to speak, and that your understanding of certain things cannot be wrong, then you're welcome to that.. and that's where I'd say your commentary actually loses credibility imo.. because if you can't see that you're prone to the same situation as the rest of us... like being wrong, then imo that is one way to sum up being wise in our own conceits.â€
It’s axiomatic that those who create straw men are hard to convince that their straw man is in fact a straw man. I’ve already mentioned that your straw man isn’t me. But if you’re determined to oppose a straw man, I leave you to it. But I have to ask myself, why are you so determined to fight a straw man? Could there be something unconsciously realized? That perhaps at least some of what you think are my opinions, actually may have some merit after all?
“Predestination is imo not a thing hard to be understood although from reading various commentary it does often seem to be misunderstood to mean that God preselected certain individuals to be saved.. and the scriptures say nothing to that end, but rather this...
Predestination is to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.
PRE means beforehand... DESTINATION means a place..
Before the foundation of the world (PRE), God chose that all who would trust in His beloved Son for the forgiveness of their sins would be placed into the body of CHRIST.. (DESTINATION)..
IMO it's really that simple.. Christ alone is glorified as it should be.â€
How about that. Pretty much how I see it. Does that make it more than an opinion?
“JACOB loved, ESAU hated...
Another seemingly problematic portion of scripture for many.. although when we look closely at the rest of scripture we see the reasons clearly..
First order of business though is WHERE is this WRITTEN... ?
It's written in Malachi.. and Malachi lived hundreds of years AFTER Esau lived his life.
Furthermore... if we read the story of Jacob and Esau in the book of Genesis, we see that Isaac (certainly a picture of Christ) loved Esau..
And of course we know that Esau SOLD HIS OWN BIRTHRIGHT to satisfy his flesh...
We haven't even talked about the primary context of Romans 9-11 which is the nation of Israel.. and that Jacob (Israel) was chosen over Esau to bring forth the son of promise before they were even born... which is CHRIST.
This portion of scripture is perhaps the primary mover for men to embrace the false doctrine of unconditional election, and im that kind of thinking misses the forest for the trees.â€
Wow! I agreed with that too. Maybe because you didn't bring up anything about the restoration of Israel.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Glorydaz
“Shield of Faith Mission Internationalâ€
So far as I know, this Evangelical Protestant missionary society, started and currently led by Dick York (if he’s still alive, he would be in his eighties by this time), is not represented as a church in my area. But I have heard of them through my attendance in a Baptist Church. They were one of the missionary groups monetarily supported by that Baptist Church at the time. I was unaware they started having meetings associated with the mission itself. But it is a natural development seeing as the whole purpose of missionary activity is to start new Christian communities, or as it is referred to in the Christian vernacular, planting new churches.
FC
“Shield of Faith Mission Internationalâ€
So far as I know, this Evangelical Protestant missionary society, started and currently led by Dick York (if he’s still alive, he would be in his eighties by this time), is not represented as a church in my area. But I have heard of them through my attendance in a Baptist Church. They were one of the missionary groups monetarily supported by that Baptist Church at the time. I was unaware they started having meetings associated with the mission itself. But it is a natural development seeing as the whole purpose of missionary activity is to start new Christian communities, or as it is referred to in the Christian vernacular, planting new churches.
FC
Yes, Dick York is still alive (and in his 80's). I was in fellowship with him in Bend back in the early 70's and I emailed him not too long ago to get a friend's address. They don't list any "churches" because we, as individuals, are the church. Their focus is on disciple training and fellowship around the Word while sending out missionaries around the world. I just thought if you contacted them, they might have a group meeting in your area. If you'd like, I can get you their number in Bend or you can contact them on the internet. It just seems like, after reading your posts, you'd do very well and be blessed by what you find. I'd be more than happy to ask around since I still have many friends who would probably know more than I do about where you might go. If you go to their web site, there are some articles and newsletter you could read to see what you think.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Glorydaz
Thanks. I'll check them out on the internet. But I think I'd still have to hide what I believe, not being an Evangelical Protestant.
FC
Thanks. I'll check them out on the internet. But I think I'd still have to hide what I believe, not being an Evangelical Protestant.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Eventide
"Yes, there are many in Christendom who ignore the mystery pertaining to Israel and who embrace doctrines such as Amillennialism and Replacement Theology... or who teach that the church of God is 'spiritual Israel'."
And believe it or not, there are many who agree with your idea of a restoration of physical Israel during the thousand year reign of Christ. The first Christian Church I attended believed that.
FC
"Yes, there are many in Christendom who ignore the mystery pertaining to Israel and who embrace doctrines such as Amillennialism and Replacement Theology... or who teach that the church of God is 'spiritual Israel'."
And believe it or not, there are many who agree with your idea of a restoration of physical Israel during the thousand year reign of Christ. The first Christian Church I attended believed that.
FC
LOL From what I've read you're not such an odd duck. I think you just have a problem with terminology. Protestant is non-Catholic, right? What is Evangelical except one who believes in spreading the Gospel message? So what's the problem? It sure sounds to me like you're a believer, so you don't need to call yourself or affiliate yourself with any group.
Amillennialsim has some really good points. Many end time theories sound good. I could argue many sides of that coin...and have, but what would be the point? How we live our lives today is what matters.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
- Thread starter
- #118
I would agree that eschatology is perhaps one of the 'things hard to be understood' and doesn't make or break a Christian so to speak.. although it's very interesting to consider some of things which shall be hereafter..
Amillennialism denies the literal and future thousand year reign of Christ on earth and is based primarily upon the 20th chapter of the Revelation being spiritualized into this present time..
I can't think of any good points which Amillennialism makes, but of course opinions differ greatly on these things.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
- Thread starter
- #119
The Day of the Lord... The Day of Jesus Christ...
Perhaps a thing hard to be understood.. and that could be largely in part because it most directly involves the nation of Israel... many OT prophecies speak of the Day of the Lord within the context of Israel.. and I believe Paul does as well.
The church of God in Thess struggled with the notion that THAT DAY had already come, and Paul speaks of it in his letters to that church. He says that it shall come as a thief in the night, as travail upon a woman with child...
Where else might we see a woman with child with respect to the Day of the Lord.. or with respect to things which shall be hereafter..?
Can we see that Day approaching...?
Peter admonishes us to be not ignorant of this one thing.. that a DAY with the LORD is as a thousand years.. and so where might we find supporting scripture which speaks to a thousand years with the LORD.. ?
Perhaps a thing hard to be understood.. and that could be largely in part because it most directly involves the nation of Israel... many OT prophecies speak of the Day of the Lord within the context of Israel.. and I believe Paul does as well.
The church of God in Thess struggled with the notion that THAT DAY had already come, and Paul speaks of it in his letters to that church. He says that it shall come as a thief in the night, as travail upon a woman with child...
Where else might we see a woman with child with respect to the Day of the Lord.. or with respect to things which shall be hereafter..?
Can we see that Day approaching...?
Peter admonishes us to be not ignorant of this one thing.. that a DAY with the LORD is as a thousand years.. and so where might we find supporting scripture which speaks to a thousand years with the LORD.. ?
I would agree that eschatology is perhaps one of the 'things hard to be understood' and doesn't make or break a Christian so to speak.. although it's very interesting to consider some of things which shall be hereafter..
Amillennialism denies the literal and future thousand year reign of Christ on earth and is based primarily upon the 20th chapter of the Revelation being spiritualized into this present time..
I can't think of any good points which Amillennialism makes, but of course opinions differ greatly on these things.
LOL I could give you a few, and it, indeed, is very interesting. In fact, there's an old thread on here somewhere where I argued for it. I'll admit I just don't know for sure, and it's fun to look at.... but not essential in any way to one's salvation.