Are you ready to rightly divide the word of truth?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by John Zain, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. You know what......I agree with you 100%.

    I have followed that advice for some time now and I wish I had kept it.

    It was wrong thinking on my part to think the communication would have improved.
     
  2. I think you two could be able to be more civil. I actually don't quite understand why there is such a huge disconnect. You both believe certain things very passionately, and there is nothing to be ashamed of there, but on issues where you disagree...I'm not sure what I can tell you beyond the normal advise. Be mature, perfect Christians. Respond to each other as you would a mature Christian brother...not a combative sibling. I can think of very few other things to say beyond that.
     
  3. I repeatedly go through the entire Bible to allow the Lord to increase my understanding of it. But you make a good point and so I went over Joel again. It is a hard book to understand because the prophecies tend to be "broad" rather than narrowly detailed. It warns of the coming final showdown at Armageddon but does not mention the place by name but by the nations being gathered against Jerusalem and Israel and the Lord's defeat of the gathered forces. But it also mentions things that are to happen BEFORE that time but does not specify a specific timeline, just some of the things that will happen BEFORE that terrible day of the Lord. If we widen the quote of Joel we see that this outpouring of the Spirit is one of the things that occurs before the Day of the Lord not on or after it:-

    But because Joel speaks only in broad terms of things that are to happen before the Day of the Lord but does not give any specific timeline for them we must look to the declaration of Peter that Pentacost was that which Joel spoke of regarding the outpouring of the Spirit.

    Not making any definitive claim about the next bit but it is fascinating to read the eyewitness accounts of the destructive eruption of Mount Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii. It was this eruption that introduced this part of the world to the NEW experience of volcanic eruptions where an apt description is - "blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood".

    Vesuvius erupted 24 August 79AD a mere 9 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

    Just something for people to ponder
     
  4. Actually, I was just thinking about Abram. When his herdsmen started arguing with Lot's herdsmen, he handled it in an exceptionally mature way. He had the right to simply tell Lot to bug off. He could have taken whatever he wanted because 1) God promised it to him and 2) he was the head of the clan and had the right to simply do whatever he wanted without regard for Lot at all. However, like us on this site, Abram realized that the eyes of the pagans and believers alike were on them. He chose to display impeccable moral character and actually offered Lot a great deal. This was unheard of in their time and culture.

    It gets further interesting because of the nature of the arguments. They actually had TOO much. They were so blessed in their abundance, that they were actually struggling with each other because there wasn't enough room too hold it all. I see you two, and I feel the same situation. You have both been blessed with knowledge and understanding to such an extent that you can quibble over areas that most non-beleivers wouldn't even be able to fathom, and many believers view as auxiliary.

    I believe that it was Paul that stated "Be slow to speak". Perhaps, that will help in some way.
     
  5. Good advice. I accept it and I pray that it will do just that.
     
  6. Rest assured Banarenth I, for my part, bear no animosity to Major but where my comments are challenged directly by Major it is necessary for me to explain and clarify for the sake of those viewing the conversation. Where Major does not directly challenge my observations I try and keep my comments addressed to others on the thread to try and avoid these instances.

    My last comment to Major was to counter the (to my mind) totally uncalled for inference to ANOTHER member that my silence was and admission of being "guilty" of being a Preterist rather than just me simply ignoring yet another attempt to label me as a Preterist. Although I must admit there was a certain degree of annoyance and frustration behind it as Major knows full well that I have already corrected him a number of times over his continuing attempts to label me as a Preterist. Now it seems he is trying to convince OTHERS here that I am. As my continued silence is being misused by Major BEFORE OTHERS as an inferred admission of something I am not I was forced to respond.
     
  7. Major I mean "arguing" in the sense of putting forth an argument / case / position.

    I was going to make some observations about the things you have said but in the light of recent posts have decided to leave what has been said between us already to others to judge for themselves what Joel and Peter have actually said. My response to Ginger has additional observations that are relevant to the matter.

    I too had hoped we might have had a more objective discussion but despite my every effort to keep it objective it seems destined not to be. Perhaps we can try again another time.
     
  8. Thank you Major, apology humbly accepted. If we can bury it now hopefully it will be a block we will no longer stumble over :).

    Please be assured I have no wish to fight you Major, only to talk and objectively express thoughts and observations. My comments are intended to provoke thoughts and alternative ways of seeing things, not debate. If I make an observation about something you have said it is not an attack on you or your beliefs but rather an INVITATION to reconsider things in the light of different observations. What you decide is entirely up to you as it is for everybody. In like fashion I too will decide in my own counsel with the Holy Spirit what I will and will not believe or accept.

    Because of the many pitfalls I try and keep my on-line discussions fairly objective and impersonal with the personal stuff served on the side as it were. Hopefully you will not take it as arrogance or "coldness". I find when you try and mix analytical arguments with feelings and personal observations the resulting mixture tends to be a bit disastrous.

    Hopefully we are working through this all.
     
  9. Ginger, I read the Book of Joel a long time ago. I re-read it again. There are passages there that talk about the Great Tribulation and the things that are described in the Book of Revelation. There are also passages that are not clear or not simple for me to grasp if I'm just going to read it on its own. I remain silent (simply means I'm not going to teach) about those things as I know inside of me that I first have to devote a much careful reading into them.
     
  10. Ok. It was a short remark to get your attention, LOL, as I'd been seeing the -isms lately.

    Thank you and I pray the same for you as well.:)
     
  11. Ok. Sorry I misunderstood the statement from your other post. I thought it was a bit directed at me.:oops:
     
  12. Maybe it's just me but whenever I encounter mistmann's posts, he sounds calm. When I read Major's posts when teaching, they sound fast or in a hurry. It's just my opinion though, nothing personal.:cool:
     
  13. I was not trying to say anyone was wrong about the various opinions being shared, just pointing out that it is good to re-read a book or chapter again while discussing it so the passages in question are fresh in your mind. I have found in my own experience, it helps us come to some agreement - in part or in full. But, I have no intention of weighing in on this one. :) I'll just keep my opinions to myself...... altho, that's a difficult task for me! :p
     
  14. LOL It is so unexpected of you to say that!:D

    PS> Honestly, I was relieved when you said that and also that great sense of humor!
     
  15. lol Well, this is one of those situations where I think I can learn more from quietly reading then what I can offer by writing. ;)
     
  16. YOU GOT ME!

    I have always had the problem of moving ahead of what I am thinking.
     
  17. I think Ginger said it best: Read posts from others in a non-confrontational voice. Read your own the same way. Then we all know that we are not being controversial. It is understood. I remember when I was younger and a little more aggressive in style getting so frustrated with a gentleman that questioned the tone and the conclusions of everyone of my posts, not excluding sentence structure. Finally I decided to indicate mood and tone of voice initially, and then to footnote every word, identifying the part of speech and the meaning of each, going back to Greek or Hebrew or Latin or whichever source the word came from. That was my intent. I quickly realized that my effort was making no difference to him and it was incredibly laborious for me. Prayerfully relaxing is the key.
     
  18. [quote="Banarenth, post: Rumely, churches cannot agree on doctrine because we have all set our doctrines differently. Some churches cannot even agree on dogma, and THAT is where the real issue begins. (Dogma being what is required for Salvation, and rejection of dogma means Apostasy).
    Is salvation based on the truth or dogma?
     
    Ginger likes this.
  19. Hi Jeremiah, Welcome (I see from the ID panel you are a new member).

    A good observation. I also like the question Pilate asked of Jesus (but sadly did not seem to wait for a reply). It is a very interesting question and even moreso because with all that was going on the Lord felt it important to include this question even though there is no record that Jesus gave Pilate an answer to his question.

    What makes the question interesting is that Pilate did not ask Jesus what is THE truth but the more fundamental question "What IS truth?"

    I am sure most here would answer your question by declaring salvation is based on the truth not dogma. But I wonder how we would then answer the question, what IS "TRUTH"? (Not what is the truth but how is truth itself defined).
     
  20. By definition, they are the same. Dogma is the set of beliefs that Christians hold as truth. Some groups have added or taken away from that dogma, and as such we do not recognize that they believe the truth.
     

Share This Page