The "plain words of Scripture"

[FreeGrace]

Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".

If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".

However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't.

First, some examples to demonstrate how Scripture isn't really being paid attention to.

Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. Yet there are no verses that state this plainly. Their prime defense is the use of verses about Christ dying for "many". They take the English word to mean "less than all". Yet, the Bible very plainly says that Christ died for all in these verses: 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. But, the Greek word is "polloi", from which we get "hoi polloi", which means "the masses". iow, Christ died for the masses, not "less than everyone" or "less than all".

On the Arminian side, the argument for loss of salvation rests primarily on verses that use figures of speech or metaphors, and these are claimed to be the "plain words of Scripture". such as John 15:1-6. So, let's see what the Bible says about clear and plain speech.

This isn't really difficult at all. The Bible even tells us how to know the difference.

Consider John 11:3-6 -
3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days,

Then this:
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural (or literal) sleep.
14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead

iow, Jesus used a figure of speech and His disciples misunderstood what He was saying to them. Only when He spoke plainly did they finally understand.

John 10:6 - Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

John 16:25 - "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. "

John 16:29-32
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered.

So, what have we learned from Scripture? When "figures of speech" or metaphors are used, there is a failure to understand what Jesus is saying. But when He spoke plainly, there was understanding.

So, hopefully, this will help people to error by claiming Scripture with figures of speech or metaphors are "the plain words of Scripture".

Only when Scripture uses actual "clear and plain" words, meaning WITHOUT figures of speech, can one claim to be quoting the "plain words of Scripture".

With this in mind, one can readily see whether any side of any debate on what the Bible teaches has the truth which is understandable.

Jesus spoke truth in figures of speech, but the message wasn't understood. But when He spoke truth in literal and clear words, without figures of speech, there was understanding.

Let the debater beware. ;)

 

[Free]

Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".

If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".

However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't.

First, some examples to demonstrate how Scripture isn't really being paid attention to.

Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. Yet there are no verses that state this plainly. Their prime defense is the use of verses about Christ dying for "many". They take the English word to mean "less than all". Yet, the Bible very plainly says that Christ died for all in these verses: 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. But, the Greek word is "polloi", from which we get "hoi polloi", which means "the masses". iow, Christ died for the masses, not "less than everyone" or "less than all".

On the Arminian side, the argument for loss of salvation rests primarily on verses that use figures of speech or metaphors, and these are claimed to be the "plain words of Scripture". such as John 15:1-6. So, let's see what the Bible says about clear and plain speech.

This isn't really difficult at all. The Bible even tells us how to know the difference.

Consider John 11:3-6 -
3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days,

Then this:
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural (or literal) sleep.
14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead

iow, Jesus used a figure of speech and His disciples misunderstood what He was saying to them. Only when He spoke plainly did they finally understand.

John 10:6 - Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

John 16:25 - "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. "

John 16:29-32
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered.

So, what have we learned from Scripture? When "figures of speech" or metaphors are used, there is a failure to understand what Jesus is saying. But when He spoke plainly, there was understanding.

So, hopefully, this will help people to error by claiming Scripture with figures of speech or metaphors are "the plain words of Scripture".

Only when Scripture uses actual "clear and plain" words, meaning WITHOUT figures of speech, can one claim to be quoting the "plain words of Scripture".

With this in mind, one can readily see whether any side of any debate on what the Bible teaches has the truth which is understandable.

Jesus spoke truth in figures of speech, but the message wasn't understood. But when He spoke truth in literal and clear words, without figures of speech, there was understanding.

Let the debater beware. ;)

But the gospels are only four books and a minority of what the NT teaches. I find that most debate occurs outside of what is stated in the gospels and not regarding passages which use metaphor. What about those which use "the plain words of Scripture"? What then?

 

[FreeGrace]

But the gospels are only four books and a minority of what the NT teaches.

And are full of figures of speech and metaphors.

I find that most debate occurs outside of what is stated in the gospels and not regarding passages which use metaphor.

I have found the opposite when debating whether salvation can be lost, for example. Those who so believe generally use John 15:1-6 to claim that those believers (branches) who produce no fruit are cast into the fire (of hell). Thus, to them, salvation can be lost. But, as I've shown from Scripture, using figures of speech to defend one's view of any doctrine is quite a slippery slope, since the Bible does tells us that figures of speech aren't understood, even by those who spent 3 years with Jesus. He had to use plain language in order for them to understand.

What about those which use "the plain words of Scripture"? What then?

Then I believe what it says. But where does the Bible warn of loss of salvation in plain words?

I'll give another example, which I should have given in the OP. Paul specifically described 3 things from God as gifts:
1. spiritual gifts in Rom 1:11
2. justification, in Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life, in Rom 6:23.

Then, in Rom 11:29, Paul stated in plain words that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable. Yet, those who believe that salvation can be lost will argue that 11:29 only refers to Israel, as if there are some as yet undefined gifts of God that are only to Israel, which are irrevocable. And they usually argue that the "gift" is really just the offer of a gift, which is no gift at all. So the argument isn't even logical or reasonable.

And they cannot point out any of these so-called gifts to Israel from either the context, or anywhere else in the Bible.

Further, they deny that Paul meant to include the specific gift of eternal life in 11:29, which is ridiculous. It is a gift of God, which Paul said plainly. So there is no reason to exclude that gift from 11:29. They also use the metaphor/figures of speech in Rom 11:15-24, which is about wild olive shoots and natural branches and being "broken off/cut off" the root as teaching loss of salvation.

If the claim that salvation can be lost were plainly stated in Scripture, they'd be correct. But there are such plain words of Scripture that say such a thing. There are a number of figures of speech/metaphors that are used to defend loss of salvation, but the Bible made clear how misunderstood they are.

Even Jesus' own disciples couldn't understand them.

 

[WIP]

Maybe there is none qualified to declare that they use "the plain words of Scripture" because if the words were so plain, I suspect there no longer would be a debate.

 

[Nathan]

Every side of every debate on God's Word claims to use "the plain words of Scripture".

If this were true, then every opposing position on debate would be correct, and the Bible would be rendered meaningless, and therefore, useless. It would be akin to Paul's view that if the resurrection didn't happen, then our faith is vain and "we of all men are to be most pitied".

However, we know that the Bible is God's inerrant Word to mankind. It is perfect and not contradicted in any way. So, how do we really know how to understand what are the "plain words of Scripture" and what isn't.

First, some examples to demonstrate how Scripture isn't really being paid attention to.

Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. Yet there are no verses that state this plainly. Their prime defense is the use of verses about Christ dying for "many". They take the English word to mean "less than all". Yet, the Bible very plainly says that Christ died for all in these verses: 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. But, the Greek word is "polloi", from which we get "hoi polloi", which means "the masses". iow, Christ died for the masses, not "less than everyone" or "less than all".

On the Arminian side, the argument for loss of salvation rests primarily on verses that use figures of speech or metaphors, and these are claimed to be the "plain words of Scripture". such as John 15:1-6. So, let's see what the Bible says about clear and plain speech.

This isn't really difficult at all. The Bible even tells us how to know the difference.

Consider John 11:3-6 -
3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days,

Then this:
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural (or literal) sleep.
14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead

iow, Jesus used a figure of speech and His disciples misunderstood what He was saying to them. Only when He spoke plainly did they finally understand.

John 10:6 - Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

John 16:25 - "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. "

John 16:29-32
29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered.

So, what have we learned from Scripture? When "figures of speech" or metaphors are used, there is a failure to understand what Jesus is saying. But when He spoke plainly, there was understanding.

So, hopefully, this will help people to error by claiming Scripture with figures of speech or metaphors are "the plain words of Scripture".

Only when Scripture uses actual "clear and plain" words, meaning WITHOUT figures of speech, can one claim to be quoting the "plain words of Scripture".

With this in mind, one can readily see whether any side of any debate on what the Bible teaches has the truth which is understandable.

Jesus spoke truth in figures of speech, but the message wasn't understood. But when He spoke truth in literal and clear words, without figures of speech, there was understanding.

Let the debater beware. ;)

You do realize that the last bit of your post is way off on interpretation? You listed John 16:29-32, but only posted through 31. And, verse 31 is in the form of a question - which is to indicate that Jesus was saying they actually do not believe.......even though they thought He was speaking plainly. Which is to say, they seriously did not understand. I think this is where Bible translations can lead people to think one thing above another.

 

[Willie T]

Maybe there is none qualified to declare that they use "the plain words of Scripture" because if the words were so plain, I suspect there no longer would be a debate.

Quite true.

 

[reba]

Maybe there is none qualified to declare that they use "the plain words of Scripture" because if the words were so plain, I suspect there no longer would be a debate.

 

[Free]

And are full of figures of speech and metaphors.


I have found the opposite when debating whether salvation can be lost, for example. Those who so believe generally use John 15:1-6 to claim that those believers (branches) who produce no fruit are cast into the fire (of hell). Thus, to them, salvation can be lost. But, as I've shown from Scripture, using figures of speech to defend one's view of any doctrine is quite a slippery slope, since the Bible does tells us that figures of speech aren't understood, even by those who spent 3 years with Jesus. He had to use plain language in order for them to understand.


Then I believe what it says. But where does the Bible warn of loss of salvation in plain words?

I'll give another example, which I should have given in the OP. Paul specifically described 3 things from God as gifts:
1. spiritual gifts in Rom 1:11
2. justification, in Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life, in Rom 6:23.

Then, in Rom 11:29, Paul stated in plain words that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable. Yet, those who believe that salvation can be lost will argue that 11:29 only refers to Israel, as if there are some as yet undefined gifts of God that are only to Israel, which are irrevocable. And they usually argue that the "gift" is really just the offer of a gift, which is no gift at all. So the argument isn't even logical or reasonable.

And they cannot point out any of these so-called gifts to Israel from either the context, or anywhere else in the Bible.

Further, they deny that Paul meant to include the specific gift of eternal life in 11:29, which is ridiculous. It is a gift of God, which Paul said plainly. So there is no reason to exclude that gift from 11:29. They also use the metaphor/figures of speech in Rom 11:15-24, which is about wild olive shoots and natural branches and being "broken off/cut off" the root as teaching loss of salvation.

If the claim that salvation can be lost were plainly stated in Scripture, they'd be correct. But there are such plain words of Scripture that say such a thing. There are a number of figures of speech/metaphors that are used to defend loss of salvation, but the Bible made clear how misunderstood they are.

Even Jesus' own disciples couldn't understand them.

My point is, what about those "plain words of Scripture" over which people disagree, most of which does not contain metaphor or figures of speech?

Maybe there is none qualified to declare that they use "the plain words of Scripture" because if the words were so plain, I suspect there no longer would be a debate.

That is mostly true. I think there are some things in Scripture which are clear and which there is little or no disagreement about--Jesus' death and literal, physical resurrection, for example--but given the significant amount of disagreement over most of Scripture, the words are not so "plain".

 

[Nathan]

My point is, what about those "plain words of Scripture" over which people disagree, most of which does not contain metaphor or figures of speech?



That is mostly true. I think there are some things in Scripture which are clear and which there is little or no disagreement about--Jesus' death and literal, physical resurrection, for example--but given the significant amount of disagreement over most of Scripture, the words are not so "plain".

I think that there are more plain words than people think. Some turn them into figures of speech. Problem is, all words are plain if you leave them as you read them. Its the meanings of the words that seem to be not plain.

However, if you look at the Bible as a whole - then all the pieces fit together. I think that's what happens. People find a "piece" of the Bible and it looks odd and complicated. However, you can find another "piece" that it fits with. Do that over and over, and eventually you see the whole thing come together as one big plan.

We try to take one piece of what God gives us and make a life from it. Why would God make everything around us so complex - yet as a whole - and not do the same with everything else? We do not look at a tree, take a leaf from it, bring it home, and then pretend that its the whole tree do we?

 

[th1b.taylor]

I have oft remarked that when the Church gets to Heaven Jesus will grab everyone of our tails and jerk the knots out of them and straighten us out on our theology. And I do mean everyone and maybe, especially me!

 

[LovethroughDove]

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

God purposely veils his words because people have the wrong intentions with his Word. This is why the debates. Wrong intentions, and wrong understanding comes from it because God will not reveal the truth to those who don't come to him with the right heart.

 

[Free]

I think that there are more plain words than people think. Some turn them into figures of speech. Problem is, all words are plain if you leave them as you read them. Its the meanings of the words that seem to be not plain.

However, if you look at the Bible as a whole - then all the pieces fit together. I think that's what happens. People find a "piece" of the Bible and it looks odd and complicated. However, you can find another "piece" that it fits with. Do that over and over, and eventually you see the whole thing come together as one big plan.

We try to take one piece of what God gives us and make a life from it. Why would God make everything around us so complex - yet as a whole - and not do the same with everything else? We do not look at a tree, take a leaf from it, bring it home, and then pretend that its the whole tree do we?

I do no think the problem is that "all the words are plain if you leave them as you read them". There are a few big problems:

1. While the words of Scripture may appear to be plain, we bring all sorts of bias into our reading of them, which may bring us to a different understanding than someone else.
2. We are far removed from the cultural context which may, although not necessarily, give us an incorrect or skewed understanding.
3. There are translation difficulties in the Greek and Hebrew about which translators have differing opinions; it starts before we even get into the English.
4. Even in the English, certain verses can be read at least two different ways, based on the relationship of the words, quite apart from any bias. For example: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

There are at least two different ways of understanding "For God so loved the world". Is Jesus saying that "For God so loved the world [in this way]," or "For God so loved the world [this much]"? Those are both legitimate options that make the verse say something different.

5. Some of the "plain words" are still just difficult to understand:

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16, ESV)

And that is coming from someone who fully knew the original language and the cultural context.

The main point which I have been leading to is this: the idea that there are "plain words of Scripture" which are easy to understand and should just be read as-is, is highly subjective. When one says that there are plain words that are easy to understand presumes that one is right in understanding what is said. To them, the words plainly say one thing but to another person they plainly say something else.

 

[Nathan]

I do no think the problem is that "all the words are plain if you leave them as you read them". There are a few big problems:

1. While the words of Scripture may appear to be plain, we bring all sorts of bias into our reading of them, which may bring us to a different understanding than someone else.
2. We are far removed from the cultural context which may, although not necessarily, give us an incorrect or skewed understanding.
3. There are translation difficulties in the Greek and Hebrew about which translators have differing opinions; it starts before we even get into the English.
4. Even in the English, certain verses can be read at least two different ways, based on the relationship of the words, quite apart from any bias. For example: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

There are at least two different ways of understanding "For God so loved the world". Is Jesus saying that "For God so loved the world [in this way]," or "For God so loved the world [this much]"? Those are both legitimate options that make the verse say something different.

5. Some of the "plain words" are still just difficult to understand:

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16, ESV)

And that is coming from someone who fully knew the original language and the cultural context.

The main point which I have been leading to is this: the idea that there are "plain words of Scripture" which are easy to understand and should just be read as-is, is highly subjective. When one says that there are plain words that are easy to understand presumes that one is right in understanding what is said. To them, the words plainly say one thing but to another person they plainly say something else.

I agree really. I just think that the reason they mean different things to different people is because the whole is not considered.

God is not going to contradict Himself. So you cannot read anything, I mean nothing, as is, without taking all of it into consideration. That can be difficult but not only for the "elite". God gave us His Word so that we could read it all, not just bits and pieces. He also gave it to everyone, not just for certain people to study.

Think about it. Lets say you just had some children and were going to be away for the next 15 years. Would you write a letter to your children telling them about who you are, and how you love them, and what your desire is for them - and write it in code? Would you only want one of them to read it and then relay it to the rest? Would you want them to only read a paragraph here and there, drawing conclusions based on it?

Why do we think God is different? What did Jesus say?

Luk 11:5-13
And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks fora fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

The reason why we don't see them plainly is because we don't want to see them plainly. If we wanted to, we would ask, and God would show us. If your kids did not understand your letter, would you not explain it to them if they sought you out for an explanation?

Is this not plain enough? Jesus contrasts what God will do for us with what we do for our children.

 

[Free]

I agree really. I just think that the reason they mean different things to different people is because the whole is not considered.

God is not going to contradict Himself. So you cannot read anything, I mean nothing, as is, without taking all of it into consideration. That can be difficult but not only for the "elite". God gave us His Word so that we could read it all, not just bits and pieces. He also gave it to everyone, not just for certain people to study.

Think about it. Lets say you just had some children and were going to be away for the next 15 years. Would you write a letter to your children telling them about who you are, and how you love them, and what your desire is for them - and write it in code? Would you only want one of them to read it and then relay it to the rest? Would you want them to only read a paragraph here and there, drawing conclusions based on it?

Why do we think God is different? What did Jesus say?

Luk 11:5-13
And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks fora fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

The reason why we don't see them plainly is because we don't want to see them plainly. If we wanted to, we would ask, and God would show us. If your kids did not understand your letter, would you not explain it to them if they sought you out for an explanation?

Is this not plain enough? Jesus contrasts what God will do for us with what we do for our children.

While context is often an issue among the general reader, I do not think this is much of an issue when it comes to pastors, scholars, and theologians. They understand context, both the textual and the historical, better than most and yet they still may disagree.

Nor do I think that simply not wanting to know is really the issue. While some may not really care, I would think that most do want to truly know. And many often do pray and yet come to different understandings.

 

[Nathan]

While context is often an issue among the general reader, I do not think this is much of an issue when it comes to pastors, scholars, and theologians. They understand context, both the textual and the historical, better than most and yet they still may disagree.

Nor do I think that simply not wanting to know is really the issue. While some may not really care, I would think that most do want to truly know. And many often do pray and yet come to different understandings.

I can't agree. (Big surprise huh )

I believe that God gives wisdom and understanding to those who ask. It's throughout the Bible - front to back. I also believe God is not the author of confusion. So I cannot see where He would give conflicting understanding.

That only leaves a few options. One, they are not earnestly seeking. I'm not talking about casual seeking, but the kind that Jesus talks about in Luke 11.

Two, they are asking in order to use it for their advantage.

James 4:3 (ESV) You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

What we gloss over is the fact that wisdom and understanding are a spiritual matter. They are not humanely aquired. So human ways of obtaining it will not work. We are shy of this fact simply because it gets taken to the extreme most of the time.

We know what Godly wisdom and understanding is. It is preceded by the fear of God. Proverbs 2 gives us details on it. When a man receives it, it will be manifest in his decisions.

 

[FreeGrace]

Maybe there is none qualified to declare that they use "the plain words of Scripture" because if the words were so plain, I suspect there no longer would be a debate.

Wasn't the OP clear about plain (clear) words vs figures of speech?

 

[FreeGrace]

You do realize that the last bit of your post is way off on interpretation? You listed John 16:29-32, but only posted through 31. And, verse 31 is in the form of a question - which is to indicate that Jesus was saying they actually do not believe.......even though they thought He was speaking plainly. Which is to say, they seriously did not understand. I think this is where Bible translations can lead people to think one thing above another.

Thanks for emphasizing my point. They only did believe when Jesus finally did speak plainly.
John 16:29
Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.

 

[FreeGrace]

My point is, what about those "plain words of Scripture" over which people disagree, most of which does not contain metaphor or figures of speech?

With respect, I haven't seen any "plain words of Scripture" that say that one can lose salvation. As the OP pointed out, that side of the debate only uses passages of figures of speech, as I showed.

If there ever were any verses that plainly did say that salvation can be lost, they haven't been posted.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think that there are more plain words than people think. Some turn them into figures of speech.

The figures of speech I'm speaking of are directly from Scripture, used to defend a belief.

[QUOT3E] Problem is, all words are plain if you leave them as you read them. Its the meanings of the words that seem to be not plain.[/QUOTE]
So, you disagree with the problem I pointed out from Scripture about understanding Jesus' "figures of speech"?

 

[FreeGrace]

I have oft remarked that when the Church gets to Heaven Jesus will grab everyone of our tails and jerk the knots out of them and straighten us out on our theology. And I do mean everyone and maybe, especially me!

Meaning, Jesus will speak plain words, without figures of speech!!