Tasted Death for every Man !

[rogerg]

Abraham obeyed the word from God to offer his Issac on the altar. By this work of obedience, the obedience of faith he was justified by God

We are all called to obey the Gospel command, repent.

Of course - everyone is called, but the question is who will repent and why? No one of themselves will because they have been blinded by Satan.
Man, in his natural spiritual state is unable to- their eyes have been blinded and their hearts have been hardened. God must first intervene and they then become converted. Then comes repentance but as a byproduct of God's intervention, not its cause
[Jhn 12:40 KJV] 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Abraham obeyed the word from God, by which he received faith.

Nope - he was given faith first, then believed God. Faith was reckoned to Abraham
[Rom 4:9 KJV] 9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Do you understand that is how we are saved by faith

We are saved by the faith of Christ, not ours, Ours is received as a gift: we can have faith only "by the faith of Jesus Christ"

[Gal 2:16 KJV]
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We obey the Gospel.

If we obey the Gospel, it is only because we first became born again, Obeying the Gospel is the byproduct of becoming born-again - but not its cause
Christ is the Savior, not ourselves.

 

[JLB]

God must first intervene and they then become converted

So your back to saying people are first saved, then they believe.

I thought we were past this?

The order of salvation is believe and be saved, not be saved then believe.


Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Luke 8:12

• lest they should believe and be saved.

JLB

 

[JLB]

If we obey the Gospel, it is only because we first became born again, Obeying the Gospel is the byproduct of becoming born-again - but not its cause

Could you please explain how a person is born again, if not by believing and therefore obeying the Gospel.

Please use scripture.





JLB

 

[Butch5]

Cherry picking is not a logical fallacy. One can 'cherry pick' and draw a conclusion that is true or false.

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name.

Logical Fallacy Example
The argument from free will, also called the paradox of free will or theological fatalism, contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inconceivable.

Yes, Cherry Picking is a fallacy. It's also known as the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence

 

[rogerg]

Could you please explain how a person is born again, if not by believing and therefore obeying the Gospel.

Please use scripture.

Sure - they become in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I believe the salvation process proceeds this way:
1) God wrote the name of all those He chose(elected) unto salvation into the Lamb's book of life. Also called election.
2) At a time of God choosing, an elect becomes save - their name is placed under the auspices of the law of the spirit of life in Christ (law of Christ) and taken out from under the law of sin and death (Satan's law) . that is, they become saved
3) At approximately the same time as becoming saved, the Holy Spirit indwells the one saved. By this, they are given a renewed mind. that is, God gives them spiritual sight from the blindness imposed by Satan upon them (in addition to other traits), and they begin to exhibit those traits ( some of which you mentioned previously). All of this is due to Christ's offering and God's will. None of it came from ourselves: all of the glory goes to God alone

[Eph 4:22-27 KJV]
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 Neither give place to the devil.

 

[Butch5]

This is a typical non-reformed misinterpretation of the bible. You assign meaning to the words ALL that is fit your theology. It is obvious from other verses that the word ALL does not mean everyone without exception. Examples:
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (according to your interpretation of ALL, everyone without exception has been justified)
Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?; That he doth not give all things to all people is self-evident
That it is nowhere affirmed in the Scripture that Christ died for all men, or gave himself a ransom for all men, much less for all and every man, we have before declared. That he "gave himself a ransom for all" is expressly affirmed, 1 Timothy 2:6. But now, who this “all” should be:

1. whether all people, or
2. all the elect, or
3. some of all sorts, or
4. all of every sort (without distinction), is in debate

If Christ died for all without exception, He died in vain for most people.
Faith saves, faith cometh by hearing, Christ knew many would never hear the gospel .... therefore, to die for all (everyone without exception) would be God's purpose thwarted

This is the typical Reformed argument. All doesn't mean all. Just like death doesn't mean death. It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology. All always mean all. It never means less than all. If all didn't mean all then it would would mean some. However, we have a word for some, It's some. If Paul wanted to say Christ died for some, then he could have said Christ died for some. He didn't. He said Christ died for all. That means all. All always means all. Webster defines all as, "the whole amount, quality, or extent of". It doesn't say some mount, it says the whole amount.

Regarding Romans 5:18, perhaps it could understood differently than you are understanding it.
Regarding Romans 8:32, consider the context.

How many and who are included in that all, is determined by the context. All of the people in the room means everyone in the room. It doesn't mean some of the people in the room. All of the left handed redheads in the building means all of the left handed redheads in the room, not some of the left handed redheads in the room.

 

[Butch5]

Sure - they become in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I believe the salvation process proceeds this way:
1) God wrote the name of all those He chose(elected) unto salvation into the Lamb's book of life. Also called election.
2) At a time of God choosing, an elect becomes save - their name is placed under the auspices of the law of the spirit of life in Christ (law of Christ) and taken out from under the law of sin and death (Satan's law) . that is, they become saved
3) At approximately the same time as becoming saved, the Holy Spirit indwells the one saved. By this, they are given a renewed mind. that is, God gives them spiritual sight from the blindness imposed by Satan upon them (in addition to other traits), and they begin to exhibit those traits ( some of which you mentioned previously). All of this is due to Christ's offering and God's will. None of it came from ourselves: all of the glory goes to God alone

[Eph 4:22-27 KJV]
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 Neither give place to the devil.

Actually, the phrase "born again" is a metaphor used only of the Jews. Look through your Bible and see if you can find any Scripture that speaks of Gentiles being born again. You won't find any. The reason is because it applies to the Jews. The Jews as a people were considered the children of God, thus born of God. They believed this would gain them entrance into the Kingdom of God. However, Jesus told Nicodemus that his physical birth as the seed of Abraham was not sufficient to gain him entrance. That's what Jesus meant when He said that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Just being the physical seed of Abraham isn't the key Nicodemus. You must be born again. We see this in the Scriptures.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (Exod. 4:22 KJV)

God said that Israel is His son. They were the seed of Abraham. Jesus said he needed more, he had to be born again. This happened through Christ as we see from Peter. Peter said,

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Pet. 1:22-23 KJV)

Look who he was talking to.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! (1 Pet. 1:1-2 YLT)

The dispersion is a name given to the Jews who were scattered among the nations. He's writing to Jews.

The term "born again" is used three times in Scripture twice by Jesus to Nicodemus and once by Peter above. Each time the audience is Jewish.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5

Have to disagree with you on this. The Bible does give us directions for its interpretation, directly and indirectly. Otherwise , everyone could, (even) inadvertently, be influenced by their own suppositions and spiritual prejudices, which might be supportive of, and lead to (in some way) what they have already come to believe, instead of what the Bible teaches. It could also preclude having a common standard of measurement and assessment. The Bible, being completely self-contained, among other things, is its own dictionary, glossary of terms, cross reference, and user manual. Any attempt to impose our own methodologies, no matter how reasonable they may seem on the surface, should be avoided. Instead, we should seek every opportunity to turn the Bible back upon itself. To do otherwise, even to the slightest degree, would be to leaven the pure bread of the Gospel. Obviously, no one can do it perfectly, and it definitely isn't easy, nevertheless, we should always keep it in mind, and to the degree we can, try to follow it.
Please observe:
[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

please look closely at the "thoroughly furnished". That means to furnish perfectly. The Bible alone is able to
furnish perfectly its reader (but probably only those born again - but that's for a different discussion)

I see a problem here. Firstly, you didn't mention any of the methods of interpretation that you say the Bible gives us. Secondly, the Bible can't speak, therefore it can't tell us what it means. Everything you, I, or anyone else, reads in Scripture is filtered through a human mind. That mind affects how the information is understood. One's presuppositions play a major role in how one interprets the Scriptures. I would submit that you haven't properly grasped whatever methods you believe are in the Scriptures. I say this because you've come to conclusions that a flatly refuted in Scripture. So, if these methods are there how can you have come to a conclusion that contradicts Scripture?

I don't think you could name a single scholar that doesn't use some method hermeneutics. We all have methods, even you, even if you don't want to admit it. When you read Scripture it is filtered through your thought process. It is interpreted the way your brain interprets it. That's just way it is for everyone.

One problem I find is that people will say the Bible say xyz. And then they will argue that point. But I don't think many stop to think, "the Bible only says xyz if I'm understanding it correct". Often they're not. If they're not understanding it correctly then the Bible doesn't say what they are claiming it says.

The bottom line is, if we don't have a hermeneutic, we don't have a set of rules to guide us through interpretation. This is why you see people making illogical arguments, taking passages out of context, ignoring passages, and so on.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence

Hmmm, I see your point. I didn't see it on the list I googled.
But then "Cherry Picking" (incomplete Evidence) could be assigned to most(all?) of the arguments/post on this thread. So, I don't think using the pejorative on a post limited to 1000ish words it fair, though technically accurate.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology.

Agreed, though that does not address an argument.

All always mean all. It never means less than all.

All means all is a circular argument.
Anyways, I will show the ALL is ambiguous by example:
Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.
"It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology". Now, I on the other hand don't use an ambiguous word like ALL to define my theology. I use other verses to clarify the meaning of ALL.

If all didn't mean all then it would would mean some. However, we have a word for some, It's some. If Paul wanted to say Christ died for some, then he could have said Christ died for some.

Your conflation of ALL and SOME is irrelevant.
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. There you go, Matthew used MANY instead of ALL; therefore Jesus did not die for everyone without exception using your logic that the author is mandated to use SOME or MANY if he does mean ALL. (Where I have already show ALL to be ambiguous).

Regarding Romans 5:18, perhaps it could understood differently than you are understanding it.
Regarding Romans 8:32, consider the context.

Again, I've shown the word ALL to be ambiguous. As you said "It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology". I don't use ambiguous words for my theology, you do.
Aside: Notice how ROmans 8:32 says "graciously give us all things". It is obvious that Christ does NOT gives us ALL "everything without exception" for we do not get omnipotence for example. Thus ALL means 'everything without distinction' and not 'everything without exception' or ... perhaps the author meant to say ROmans 8:32 says "graciously give us all SOME things"
Aside: I won't accuse you of Cherry Picking

Premise 1: Faith is required for salvation
Premise 2: Faith cometh by hearing the gospel
Premise 3: Billions of people have died that have not heard the gospel
Conclusion: Christ did not taste death for every man (ALL)... thus ALL does not mean everyone without exception; rather, everyone with distinction.
So, you must use explicit scripture to interpret implicit scripture. All's implicitly means 'everyone without exception' but can mean 'everyone without distinction'.

Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias. "It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology".

 

[rogerg]

I see a problem here. Firstly, you didn't mention any of the methods of interpretation that you say the Bible gives us. Secondly, the Bible can't speak, therefore it can't tell us what it means. Everything you, I, or anyone else, reads in Scripture is filtered through a human mind. That mind affects how the information is understood. One's presuppositions play a major role in how one interprets the Scriptures. I would submit that you haven't properly grasped whatever methods you believe are in the Scriptures. I say this because you've come to conclusions that a flatly refuted in Scripture. So, if these methods are there how can you have come to a conclusion that contradicts Scripture?

I don't think you could name a single scholar that doesn't use some method hermeneutics. We all have methods, even you, even if you don't want to admit it. When you read Scripture it is filtered through your thought process. It is interpreted the way your brain interprets it. That's just way it is for everyone.

One problem I find is that people will say the Bible say xyz. And then they will argue that point. But I don't think many stop to think, "the Bible only says xyz if I'm understanding it correct". Often they're not. If they're not understanding it correctly then the Bible doesn't say what they are claiming it says.

The bottom line is, if we don't have a hermeneutic, we don't have a set of rules to guide us through interpretation. This is why you see people making illogical arguments, taking passages out of context, ignoring passages, and so on.

Figured that question would come up. Here's a few. There are more if you're interested, maybe you should do some research - some of them are explicit, some implicit
[2Pe 1:19-21 KJV]
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
[1Co 2:13 KJV] 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Actually, the phrase "born again" is a metaphor used only of the Jews. Look through your Bible and see if you can find any Scripture that speaks of Gentiles being born again. You won't find any.

Hmmm look below at John 3:5, pretty clear, wouldn't you say? I also said indwelt . Explaining concepts, not making legal brief. Do you hold yourself to that kind of a standard?

Anyway here's a verse with "born again" that you said didn't exist (except that where it pertained to the Jews) - not that that should matter).
[Jhn 3:3 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I don't think you could name a single scholar that doesn't use some method hermeneutics. We all have methods, even you, even if you don't want to admit it

Not interested in that. The Bible is sole and ultimate authority - people aren't. I'd be very careful of the "hermeneutics" that supposed "teachers" and "scholar(s)" espouse as they don't have very good track records and which aren't necessary. If you think about it, in a sense "hermeneutics" can almost be perceived as a bible on top of THE Bible. One of them isn't necessary. Here's some of what the Bible tells us about "teachers":
[Jhn 3:9-10 KJV]
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[Mat 24:24 KJV]
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
[2Pe 2:1 KJV]
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[Mar 13:22-23 KJV]
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
[Pro 14:12 KJV]
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

We all have methods, even you, even if you don't want to admit it.

Do I have a method? Yes, I read the Bible alone and use a concordance - that's it. Is anything else needed?.

And then they will argue that point. But I don't think many stop to think, "the Bible only says xyz if I'm understanding it correct". Often they're not. If they're not understanding it correctly then the Bible doesn't say what they are claiming it says.

Actually no,. If someone is using the Bible and investigating or trying to understand something, such as a biblical doctrine for instance, If one can find multiple verses that address and confirm it, one can feel confident they're found the truth. Not always perfect but pretty accurate. Like a ship at sea plotting its position. With only one bearing, exact position is dubious, with two, pretty precise, with three, little doubt. The ultimate test of a doctrine is if can stand the scrutiny of the Bible, not a methodology derived by what someone happens to think is correct

The bottom line is, if we don't have a hermeneutic, we don't have a set of rules to guide us through interpretation. This is why you see people making illogical arguments, taking passages out of context, ignoring passages, and so on.

How do you know the hermeneutic of choice is the correct one? Answer me this: how did you verify the one you're using is correct? You did verify it first, didn't you?

The term "born again" is used three times in Scripture twice by Jesus to Nicodemus and once by Peter above. Each time the audience is Jewish.

So it is in the Bible after all?
What difference does it make who the audience was? Jesus is explaining a very significant spiritual concept to us all- that's the important point

 

[JLB]

Sure - they become in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I believe the salvation process proceeds this way:
1) God wrote the name of all those He chose(elected) unto salvation into the Lamb's book of life. Also called election.
2) At a time of God choosing, an elect becomes save - their name is placed under the auspices of the law of the spirit of life in Christ (law of Christ) and taken out from under the law of sin and death (Satan's law) . that is, they become saved
3) At approximately the same time as becoming saved, the Holy Spirit indwells the one saved. By this, they are given a renewed mind. that is, God gives them spiritual sight from the blindness imposed by Satan upon them (in addition to other traits), and they begin to exhibit those traits ( some of which you mentioned previously). All of this is due to Christ's offering and God's will. None of it came from ourselves: all of the glory goes to God alone

[Eph 4:22-27 KJV]
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 Neither give place to the devil.

The scripture you posted does not indicate how a person comes to be saved.

It says that we must put our former life of the old man...


I see nothing in scripture, certainly nothong you posted that says .... "At a time of God choosing, an elect becomes save - their name is placed under the auspices of the law of the spirit of life in Christ (law of Christ) and taken out from under the law of sin and death (Satan's law) . that is, they become saved"


Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Luke 8:12


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16


A person must believe in order to be saved.



JLB

 

[Butch5]

Hmmm, I see your point. I didn't see it on the list I googled.
But then "Cherry Picking" (incomplete Evidence) could be assigned to most(all?) of the arguments/post on this thread. So, I don't think using the pejorative on a post limited to 1000ish words it fair, though technically accurate.

I agree that each side presents evidence for their side. My point is what we do with the evidence presented from the other side. Do we engage it, ignore it, or simply write it off? Of we engage it great. If we ignore or write it off I think we're cherry picking

 

[brightfame52]

Why do you continue to omit verse 16, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

It's obvious that you're trying to be selective to prove a point, but you're not succeeding. Never mind "conjecture"; how about truth?

Answer me please and dont evade, now does Jesus stating specifically who He died for in Jn 10:11,15 sound like conjecture to you ? Yes or No ?

 

[brightfame52]

I refuse to speak to you....
You're a one trick pony,,,,
and that type of pony knows only one way and can not even THINK of another.

I will, however, note when you are incorrect since this is an open forum.

Okay nobody forcing you to post with me.

 

[brightfame52]

You should believe Jesus' words instead of those of John Calvin.

Thats a low blow, so who is speaking in Jn 10:11,15 ? Is it calvin or Jesus Christ ?

 

[Butch5]

rogerg

Figured that question would come up. Here's a few. There are more if you're interested, maybe you should do some research - some of them are explicit, some implicit
[2Pe 1:19-21 KJV]
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
[1Co 2:13 KJV] 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Hi Roger,

Firstly, I would turn to the context and ask, do you know what Peter was addressing with this passage. He was addressing an issue that was prevalent in his day. So, when understood in context is this something that applies universally, or was he speaking of certain people? Secondly, Peter is talking about prophecy. We're talking about Scripture.

Regarding the other passage, it's talking about how the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. It doesn't say this is how we interpret. I would ask how exactly does one compare spiritual things with spiritual. Remember, Spiritual means, qualities of the breath. What does, comparing qualities of the breath with qualities of the breath, mean?

Hmmm look below at John 3:5, pretty clear, wouldn't you say? I also said indwelt . Explaining concepts, not making legal brief. Do you hold yourself to that kind of a standard?

Anyway here's a verse with "born again" that you said didn't exist (except that where it pertained to the Jews) - not that that should matter).
[Jhn 3:3 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Actually, I did mention it. I said Jesus used it twice with Nicodemus and Peter used it once. It is pretty clear, I agree. However, again, context. Jesus said that He had only come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Again, this phrase is only used of Jews. The Gentiles are said to be born of God, but not, born again of God.

Not interested in that. The Bible is sole and ultimate authority - people aren't. I'd be very careful of the "hermeneutics" that supposed "teachers" and "scholar(s)" espouse as they don't have very good track records and which aren't necessary. If you think about it, in a sense "hermeneutics" can almost be perceived as a bible on top of THE Bible. One of them isn't necessary. Here's some of what the Bible tells us about "teachers":

[Jhn 3:9-10 KJV]
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[Mat 24:24 KJV]
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
[2Pe 2:1 KJV]
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[Mar 13:22-23 KJV]
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
[Pro 14:12 KJV]
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

I'm not much interested in what scholars says either. My point is that everyone, including you, uses some method of interpretation. Even if it's not formalized, people still have some method of interpretation. Everything you read in Scripture is filtered through your brain. It is influenced by all the things you've experienced in life. It's filtered through everything you've learned, everything you believe, and how you perceive the world. All of these things affect how your brain interprets what you read in the Bible. If we have no rules, it's like trying to drive a train without a track. The train goes wherever it goes because it has no track to guide it.

Sure, the Bible warns of false teachers. However, Jesus also told His apostles to go and teach the nations. So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to show with these passages.

 

[Butch5]

rogerg

Do I have a method? Yes, I read the Bible alone and use a concordance - that's it. Is anything else needed?.

I've touched on this above and how our world view affects our understanding of the Bible. However, it seems you've undermined your own argument here. Above you dismissed scholars and posted a few passages about false teachers and here you're telling me you use a concordance, which was likely written by a scholar. Why would you use a concordance when you've associated them with false teachers?

I would also argue that you don't use the Bible and a concordance alone. You're here on this forum. You hear things others have said. I'm sure some of those things have made their way into your theology. Likewise, I assume you attend church. The pastor gives messages each week. Those too, I'm sure, have influenced what you believe. Then there is Sunday School, Bible studies on Wednesday night, etc. All of these influence what we believe to some degree. However, if you only attend Reformed get-togethers then you're just reaffirming the theology you already believe. If on the other hand you meet with Christians of different beliefs you will see that many passages can be understood differently based on one's worldview, and the presuppositions they bring to the table. I've said all of this to say that most if not virtually all Christians learn things about the Bible long before they actually read the Bible. And, often those things are incorrect. Thus many, if not most, new Christians first approach the Bible with a false or partially false set of presuppositions. In other words they come to the Bible with colored glasses. Some never learn that they're wearing colored glasses and as such, never get to a proper understanding of Scriptures.

You asked if anything else is needed. In order to be saved, no, one can read the Bible and be saved. Is anything else needed to properly understand the entirety of the Bible, well that would depend on the presuppositions one brings to the text. If we start off with incorrect presuppositions how can we possible understand the text? For instance, you believe that God chose who would be saved prior to their birth. That's a presupposition you bring to the text. If you're correct, then that leads you toward a correct understand of the Bible. However, if you're incorrect, it's going to lead you to an incorrect understanding of the Bible. It's going to cause problems for you when you see passages like, 'whosoever will, let he come and drink freely of the water of life. Based on your presupposition you can't accept that face value. It's contradictory to your presupposition. Since you believe your presupposition is correct, (most people do) you're forced to try to find another meaning for the passage. I've heard things like, 'only the elect can be the "whosoever will"'. But you see, that's adding an unwarranted imposition on the text. The passage says nothing about the elect. When we have situations like this we shouldn't be questioning the text, we should be questioning our presuppositions. Maybe God didn't choose the elect before they were born.

Actually no,. If someone is using the Bible and investigating or trying to understand something, such as a biblical doctrine for instance, If one can find multiple verses that address and confirm it, one can feel confident they're found the truth. Not always perfect but pretty accurate. Like a ship at sea plotting its position. With only one bearing, exact position is dubious, with two, pretty precise, with three, little doubt. The ultimate test of a doctrine is if can stand the scrutiny of the Bible, not a methodology derived by what someone happens to think is correct

I might have agreed with you here if you'd have said, two or three passages understood correctly and in context. When you say one can confirm a doctrine with two or three passages, that's only true if one understands them correctly. If one misunderstands the text, they are not confirming a doctrine, they are simply in error. Let's look at an example. How many passages do you have that support the idea that the Christ came only for the elect, 2, 5, 10? The exact number doesn't matter. I would submit that all of those passages that you would put forward, you're misunderstanding. As I've pointed out. John 1:9 shows irrefutably that all people can believe. As I've said there's no way around that. What that shows us is that the presupposition you bring to the text, that only certain people can believe, is wrong. Thus that presupposition is leading you to misinterpret passages of Scripture this then leads to other doctrinal error as doctrines are built one upon the other.

Again, using the Bible to understand the Bible is great, as long as you start with the right presuppositions. If you start with incorrect presuppositions you're likely going to be off base.

How do you know the hermeneutic of choice is the correct one? Answer me this: how did you verify the one you're using is correct? You did verify it first, didn't you?

How do I know it's correct? The simple answer is harmony. It brings harmony to the Scriptures. When you look at a lot of threads on Christian forums you find each side tossing passages of Scripture back and forth. One side has this set of Scriptures and the other side has another set of Scriptures. I can accept the Scripture passages from both sides, they harmonize. For instance. One side argues that God chose who would be saved and they quote John 6 where Jesus said, 'no one can come to me unless the Father draws him'. The other side quotes Jesus' words in John 12, 'If I am lifted up I will draw all men to me'. Both of those statements are from Jesus, thus they are true. If our theology can't harmonize both passages without changing them, then there is a problem with our theology, not the words of Scripture. We don't need to change what Jesus said, we need to change our theology.

Another point is that it is just common sense. If I tell my kids they can have ice cream, would I expect the neighbor kid to come and say you said I could have ice cream. No, I didn't tell the neighbor kid he could have ice cream, I told my kids. The neighbor kid would be using my words out of context. It's just common sense that I would expect my words to apply to the ones to which they were said.

Another point is context. Does the understanding fit the context of what is going on?

So it is in the Bible after all?
What difference does it make who the audience was? Jesus is explaining a very significant spiritual concept to us all- that's the important point

What difference does it make who the audience was? Roger, it makes an immense difference. This is one of the big problems I find among Christians, they don't pay attention to who is being addressed. If we have any hope of correctly understanding of the Bible we had better pay attention to who is the audience is. One of the big problems in Christianity today is people taking passages of Scripture and either using them out of context or applying them universally.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians and said that they weren't spiritual, that they were carnal. Since they were Christians should we say that all Christians aren't spiritual, they're carnal? After all, what difference does it make who the audience is? Jesus said to the Jews that they were of their father the devil. Would that apply to the Apostles, Nicodemus, Paul? They were all Jews. After all what difference does it make who the audience is?

Roger, I say all of this to show that it's not the Scriptures. We can post Scripture all day long. The real issue is the presuppositions we bring to the Scriptures. Unless we have the correct ones we're not going to correctly understand the Bible. Any time we run into passages of Scripture that we can't fit into our theology we shouldn't question the Scriptures. We should question our understanding. We have something wrong. Either it's our presuppositions, the amount of information we have, or we're simply not understanding something correctly.

 

[rogerg]

I've touched on this above and how our world view affects our understanding of the Bible. However, it seems you've undermined your own argument here. Above you dismissed scholars and posted a few passages about false teachers and here you're telling me you use a concordance, which was likely written by a scholar. Why would you use a concordance when you've associated them with false teachers?

Guess I must have missed how a "world view" affects our understanding? Depending on what you specifically mean, I can't see how a "world view" enters into the issue at all? The Bible is concerned exclusively with the spiritual, not the earthly

Don't understand your comment about a concordance? A concordance isn't "written" per se. It simply provides cross-referencing capability- the one I use in online. Please see the following:

"A Bible concordance can be a helpful tool for studying the Bible. A concordance contains an alphabetical index of words used in the Bible and the main Bible references where the word occurs. A Bible concordance is useful in locating passages in the Bible. If you can remember just one word in a verse, you can often find what you’re looking for."

I would also argue that you don't use the Bible and a concordance alone. You're here on this forum. You hear things others have said. I'm sure some of those things have made their way into your theology. Likewise, I assume you attend church. The pastor gives messages each week. Those too, I'm sure, have influenced what you believe. Then there is Sunday School, Bible studies on Wednesday night, etc. All of these influence what we believe to some degree. However, if you only attend Reformed get-togethers then you're just reaffirming the theology you already believe. If on the other hand you meet with Christians of different beliefs you will see that many passages can be understood differently based on one's worldview, and the presuppositions they bring to the table. I've said all of this to say that most if not virtually all Christians learn things about the Bible long before they actually read the Bible. And, often those things are incorrect. Thus many, if not most, new Christians first approach the Bible with a false or partially false set of presuppositions. In other words they come to the Bible with colored glasses. Some never learn that they're wearing colored glasses and as such, never get to a proper understanding of Scriptures.

I don't do any of the above.

You asked if anything else is needed. In order to be saved,

Don't think that's correct. I was speaking about was in reference to biblical interpretation. In that regard, all that's really useful is a Bible and a concordance (concordance optional). What else can there be?

I might have agreed with you here if you'd have said, two or three passages understood correctly and in context. When you say one can confirm a doctrine with two or three passages, that's only true if one understands them correctly. If one misunderstands the text, they are not confirming a doctrine, they are simply in error.

That's the whole point in having two or three. While not perfect, three different verses that corroborates an interpretation provides a high level of confidence.

I might have agreed with you here if you'd have said, two or three passages understood correctly and in context. When you say one can confirm a doctrine with two or three passages, that's only true if one understands them correctly. If one misunderstands the text, they are not confirming a doctrine, they are simply in error. Let's look at an example. How many passages do you have that support the idea that the Christ came only for the elect, 2, 5, 10? The exact number doesn't matter. I would submit that all of those passages that you would put forward, you're misunderstanding. As I've pointed out. John 1:9 shows irrefutably that all people can believe. As I've said there's no way around that. What that shows us is that the presupposition you bring to the text, that only certain people can believe, is wrong. Thus that presupposition is leading you to misinterpret passages of Scripture this then leads to other doctrinal error as doctrines are built one upon the other.

A reply to this could be a thread in itself. Finding multiple passages is the technique for confirming. If found, the odds of that misinterpretation are small. Generally speaking, if it's in error, then confirmation won't be found - that's the point.
Regarding your example about election, I absolutely disagree. There are many verses that support election because election is the correct doctrine. To the contrary, John 1:9 does not provide any verification whatsoever. By your reference to John 1:9,you've fallen into the exact trap I warned about: one verse shouldn't be used for confirmation. Other verses are needed in addition to it to acquire full understanding. Here's another of those directions the Bible provides for (its own )interpretation: that the Bible was written with parables and they must be considered when trying to interpret any of its verses. It appears (at least) by your reference to John 1:9 the way you used it, that you didn't do that.
If someone looks for a context over and above that which the Bible provides for the doctrine in question, then an inappropriate level has been added to the analysis

[Mar 12:1 KJV] 1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A [certain] man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about [it], and digged [a place for] the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
[Luk 8:10 KJV] 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

And what about women?
[Jhn 1:9 KJV] 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

How do I know it's correct? The simple answer is harmony

Using it also puts its user in violation of 2 Tim 3:16 & 17. Another one of those directions the Bible provides us for its interpretation. If someone uses something outside of the Bible itself to understand the Bible, does that then make them more furnisheder? We are told by the "throughly furnished" part to depend upon the Bible and the Bible alone. Nothing else is required. If we choose to ignore that admonition, we could be placing ourselves into jeopardy

[2Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[2Ti 3:17 KJV] 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Well for the time being I'll stop but will definitely resume a little later to continue

 

[rogerg]

The scripture you posted does not indicate how a person comes to be saved.

Do you mean what someone must do TO BE SAVED? If so, the answer is there is nothing one can do to acquire salvation, it is solely a gift from God. That's why Christ has the title and role of Savior.
Those that become so, become so, solely because God has chosen them for such. The short answer is that God must save them
Now, in my opinion, if that brings true concern to someone regarding their spiritual state and they desire to explore it more deeply, then I think that could be evidence they are of the elect and God is working within them, drawing them:

[Phl 2:13 KJV] 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.