When Bible Study Isn't

[Major]

Firstly, let me put on my Mod's hat and remind you of the second clause of this Forum's Statement of Faith:
2) There is only one God who reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the statement to which all members agree when signing up.

Now, removing Mod's hat and speaking as a member, let me say I stand by my previous post, and am not going to labour the points. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God - they all have the "God DNA", if you like. However, there are distinctions within the Godhead between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Over my 36 years as a Christian, I have frequently found myself doing one of two things: pointing out the Scriptures that emphasize the unity of the Godhead to those who deny Christ's divinity; and pointing out the Scriptures that emphasize the distinctions between Father and Son to those who say that Jesus is the same person as the Father. It seems incredible to me that so many people seem unable to put these two sets of Scriptures together and understand that the Bible says BOTH that there is One God (YHWH or Jehovah), in Whom are included Father Son and Spirit, AND that within that one Godhead there are distinctions between the three Persons.

Let me say it again: YHWH is the Name of God, and it belongs equally to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is as much YHWH as the Father is. However, Jesus is not the same Person as the Father - there is distinction of personalities within the Godhead.

I look at a rose bush out my window. Every cell in that rose bush has the same DNA. Yet it has leaves, flowers and stems, none of which are the same as each other, yet all of which are equally rose - and, more specifically, that particular rose. To me, that is an obvious and very simple picture of the Trinity.

blessings,

Lynn

I understand you, but you know, when I look out my window at my rose bushes I see something different.
I see the stems, the leaves and the flowers AND then I see the dadgummed bugs eating them!!!!

 

[Rumely]

That should have read "from E-Sword." Why won't this thing let me edit???

That's odd, I was able to edit it. I changed it for you.

 

[mistmann]

I can see where this is going!!

Well your one up on me. (Oh I'm so glad they changed the smiley face. The last one looked positively evil )

All I am doing is using this point to illustrate the importance of understanding what the Bible says so we can correctly test what others say against it. My advice to anybody is always not to believe what I say but to go and check for themselves what the Bible actually says. But the important thing is to clear our mind of preconceived notions of what the Bible says, created by long and widely held "beliefs" / "traditions" / "interpretations" of what it says.

I'd rather be considered an "heretic" / "fundamentalist" / "weirdo" etc. for believing what the Bible actually says than be considered a "good Christian" (or substitute any denomination) for believing what the Bible does NOT say. If the world is going to condemn me let it be for speaking the truth and upholding the actual word of the Lord. I would have it no other way.

But that is just MY decision. Everybody must make their own decision as to who and what they will believe. Who and what they will stand for. Who and what they will not lie down and be quiet for.

All I am doing here is giving people cause to think carefully about what they decide and who they will believe.

But again that is what MY intention is. I cannot speak for others and never try to.

 

[revlynn]

Misty, I am sure you think you are believing the Bible. My contention is that you actually believe your interpretation of the Bible.

For myself, I see a different interpretation, one that takes all the verses relating to Father, Son and Holy Spirit and their relationship within the Godhead. If I did not believe this to be the true understanding of the Bible, I would not hold to it.

Looking at all these verses together, I reach the same conclusion that the early Church fathers reached: that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "of the same substance" (in modern terms, have the same spiritual DNA) but are distinct in their personalities and functions.

You are wrong in saying that Jesus is not called YHWH (Jehovah). In Jn 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharissees, "Before Abraham was, I AM." If he had simply been claiming to have existed before Abraham, He would have said "I was." By saying "I AM" he both claimed to be eternal (and therefore to be God, as only God is eternal) and claimed the Divine Name ("I AM THAT I AM", YHWH.)

Isaiah 6:5 says that the One Isaiah saw "high and lifted up" was YHWH, and John 12:37-41 identifies the One Isaiah saw as Jesus.

In Isaiah 44:6, YHWH says "I am the first and I am the last." Revelation 1:11, 1:17 and 22:13 have Jesus saying "I am the first and the last." (There can only be one first, and there can only be one last!)

In Zechariah 12:10, YHWH says "They will look upon ME whom they have pierced." John 19:37 says this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.

I'm sure that if I had time I could find a lot more examples.

I believe the problems arises because we fail to grasp the two natures of Jesus: He was both fully divine and fully human. What's more, He had laid aside the attributes of His divinity - literally, "emptied Himself" - in order to live a fully human life. As man, He was subject to the Father. As God, He was, and is eternally, equal with the Father and the Spirit.

blessings,

Lynn

 

[revlynn]

I understand you, but you know, when I look out my window at my rose bushes I see something different.
I see the stems, the leaves and the flowers AND then I see the dadgummed bugs eating them!!!!

Hehe ... does that mean that you're a "glass half empty" kinda guy, Maj?

blessings,

Lynn

 

[Dok]

Where it is going? Nowhere! God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Blessed Three in One, One in Three. I pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus the Son as led to do so by the Holy Spirit. All Three IS a Trio, happy to hear from me! I mean, y'all, ya cain't buy a better combo anywhere ! ! Why bother ? ?

 

[Major]

Hehe ... does that mean that you're a "glass half empty" kinda guy, Maj?

blessings,

Lynn

No, it means I am jealouse of your roses! I tried and tried and finally just gave up on them. Central Florida is the middle of a jungle and if it lives we have it and it seems they all like to eat MY ROSES.

 

[mistmann]

Misty, I am sure you think you are believing the Bible. My contention is that you actually believe your interpretation of the Bible.

For myself, I see a different interpretation, one that takes all the verses relating to Father, Son and Holy Spirit and their relationship within the Godhead. If I did not believe this to be the true understanding of the Bible, I would not hold to it.

Looking at all these verses together, I reach the same conclusion that the early Church fathers reached: that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "of the same substance" (in modern terms, have the same spiritual DNA) but are distinct in their personalities and functions.

You are wrong in saying that Jesus is not called YHWH (Jehovah). In Jn 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharissees, "Before Abraham was, I AM." If he had simply been claiming to have existed before Abraham, He would have said "I was." By saying "I AM" he both claimed to be eternal (and therefore to be God, as only God is eternal) and claimed the Divine Name ("I AM THAT I AM", YHWH.)

Isaiah 6:5 says that the One Isaiah saw "high and lifted up" was YHWH, and John 12:37-41 identifies the One Isaiah saw as Jesus.

In Isaiah 44:6, YHWH says "I am the first and I am the last." Revelation 1:11, 1:17 and 22:13 have Jesus saying "I am the first and the last." (There can only be one first, and there can only be one last!)

In Zechariah 12:10, YHWH says "They will look upon ME whom they have pierced." John 19:37 says this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.

I'm sure that if I had time I could find a lot more examples.

I believe the problems arises because we fail to grasp the two natures of Jesus: He was both fully divine and fully human. What's more, He had laid aside the attributes of His divinity - literally, "emptied Himself" - in order to live a fully human life. As man, He was subject to the Father. As God, He was, and is eternally, equal with the Father and the Spirit.

blessings,

Lynn

Not really wanting to turn this into a debate, but rather using it as a good example of how we must be careful about understanding what the Bible is actually saying.

But before I go on it is clear that Jesus is elohiym as the Father is elohiym, as well as being born of flesh and blood. That is why He refers to Himself both as "Son of Man" (flesh and blood human) and as "Son of God" (elohiym, who are, as we say in English "Spirit" and not flesh and blood). Being elohiym also Jesus is of the nature and "substance" of Jehovah Himself. That is not an issue.

But regarding those passages you refer to there are some things you have not taken into account.

Zechariah 12:10 first says "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" but then goes on to say, "and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.".
This sudden change from "me" to "him" can probably be explained as a quirk of translation for I note that in translating the JEWISH Scriptures the Jewish Publication Society translate it slightly different but perhaps more clearly:-

Zec 12:10 (JPS) "10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Isaiah 44:6 is somewhat ambigous because although it is Jehovah who speaks He is speaking of TWO people, not one. He speaks of the King of Israel AND his redeemer the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts.

Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God."
Plus we must also be careful for several places in the OT Jesus (preincarnate) as "The Angel of the Lord" speaks in the first person FOR Jehovah. For instance it is not Jehovah speaking from the burning bush but the Angel of the Lord. (Ex 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush).

Isaiah 53:1 is not speaking of the LORD (Jehovah) but the ARM of the LORD, a reference to Jesus also used elsewhere in the OT.

Isa 53:1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Ps 98:1 A Psalm. O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

It is made clear it is not speaking of Jehovah in later passages:-

Isa 53:6 "...the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Isa 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him"

But it is clear it is not an "interpretation" when we hear from the very lips of Jesus Himself the unambiguous declaration that HE is not the (one and) only TRUE God when HE says (Joh 17:3) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

This is what Jesus Himself SAID. He declares His FATHER (Jehovah) to be the ONLY true God, not Himself. ANY correct understanding of the Bible must keep THESE words of Jesus Himself to be TRUE.

The same rule applies to this passage also where we see that Jesus does not claim equality with Jehovah but subordination to Him as one who aknowledges and serves another with greater authority than His own:-

1 Cor 15:27 "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

There is no room for interpretation in these passages, their meaning is abundantly and unequivically clear and can only be true if Jesus and Jehovah are two seperate persons who do not claim equality of power and authority or of both being the ONLY true God.
We must all choose what and who we will believe, all I am doing is pointing out what the words on the page SAY. We must all choose whether to believe what the Lord has SAID, or choose to believe something else. BUT this we do know - when the LORD speaks He says what HE means and He means what HE says, not what somebody else interprets.

Sincere regards, Misty.

 

[mistmann]

PS: Regarding Isa 6:1-5 "high and lifted up" is not a reference to Jesus on the cross but is an OT Hebrew phrase for being exhalted (raised up, carried, etc.) as a King or ruler or deity. Note He is sitting on a throne, not hanging on a cross:-

Isa 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."

 

[fil3232003]

There seems to be an almost universal problem with Bible Studies I have found, and it is this - they don't study the Bible.
Instead they study commentry on the Bible, traditional teachings, interpretations, theology, church doctrine and teachings, the word of popular evangelists preachers, etc. Bible study SHOULD be about what the Lord has declared. Instead it seems to be about what everybody but the Lord has declared.
The underlying problem is that people are taught that we are not capable of reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves but must be TOLD by our churches, by preachers, theologians and other "experts" what the Bible says and what it means and what we should believe. This is actually quite contrary to Biblical teaching. The ways and words of the world are not the ways and words of The Lord.
The following questions are not intended to invoke debate but careful thought and discussion. They are not questions we should ask each other, they are questions we should ask OURSELVES and I encourage all who read this to prayerfully do so:-

So lets begin with this question. If understanding of the Scriptures comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Bible clearly declares, and we are instructed by Christ to test EVERY spirit to see if it comes from God why is it most churches and denominations stress that it is only possible to properly understand the Bible if you allow THEM, and not the Holy Spirit dwelling in YOU, to interpret it for you?
After all does not EVERY spirit include the spirit of the very churches who want to teach us that the way THEY interpret the Bible is the correct way and the way WE also should interpret it? But how can WE test the spirit of the churches and the Church leaders if WE do not properly understand the scriptures FIRST??
Who then should I listen to and who should I test?? The spirit that dwells within, or the spirit that speaks from without, be it a preacher, a church, or anybody else who claims to be a "Christian".??
But the Lord instructs me to test EVERY spirit to see if it from the Lord and that includes the spirit within as well as the multitude of spirits without. But how can I test them against an INTERPRETATION of the word. for whose interpretation is correct and whose is not? Even interpretations must be tested to see which comes from God and which do not.
The reality is there is ONE and ONLY one thing I can test EVERY Spirit against and that is the word of God AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as it is "interpreted" by anybody, myself included. In short what is it the Bible ACTUALLY says there on the page. Not how somebody has read it but how the Lord Himself WROTE it.
The only measure and authority for the TRUTH that we have is what the Lord Himself has WRITTEN, not how somebody has "interpreted" or "understood" it. We can only test against what is written, not what is "interpreted".
Why is it that not even the mainstream churches and denomonations will teach THIS word and promise from the Lord Himself??

In the end it really boils down to one single question - WHERE does our faith and trust really lay? In the word and promises of the Lord Himself (the Bible) as HE has written them, or in the words and promises of other people WHOEVER they may be?
Will we look to and trust the Lord to direct our paths or will we look to, and allow ourselves to be directed by, somebody else? Will we seek true understanding from the Lord and His Holy Spirit or merely be satisfied with a mere human "interpretation" without testing to see if it is actually true or not (for how can we test it if we do not FIRST have true understanding of the word from the Lord?

Regards Misty.

Great observation! Does not God tell us the following?

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
James 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Who is the "sole Teacher" anyway?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Is not the reason of the following for the foregoing?

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

As Jesus Christ confirmed!

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

How many people truly believe the Sacred Scripures?
"Many" or
Only a "few" ? ? ?

 

[Dok]

How many people truly believe the Sacred Scripures?

Those of us who are authentically born again believe all the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 thru Revelation 22:21. However, ALL of those referenced scriptures are not applicable to us today. That is, we do not apply them as they were once applied. The Hebrew Bible and the 3 gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are full of references to the promised Messiah and His arrival in (actual years) around 26-27 a.d. These scriptures clearly indicate that the Jews, who were looking for Messiah, rejected Him as soon as He arrived on the scene. We Christians simply cannot apply Genesis through Luke to ourselves in terms of obligations or indicators of our status before God. Those revelations, those insights, are found in the Pauline Epistles, years after the Jewish Messiah was rejected. It isn't until Acts 9 and after that we Christians receive insights into who we are and our relationship to God by grace through faith, not law. Even Peter was expecting the return of Jesus at any moment, AND did not comprehend the message to we Gentiles until Acts 10. The failure of Christendom to comprehend and apply this Truth is the cause of division upon division of those who claim to know the Savior, witness the thousands of denominations, and worst of all, the cults.

 

[Kevin]

Mistmann, I encourage you to go and study the rules of hermeneutics - the rules for scriptural interpretation. There are many sound rules which need to be applied when interpreting scripture and the more one does the better one becomes at it.

The seminary where I am a student - teaches a Christocentric approach which implies that all scripture must be interpreted based on what Jesus actually taught on it - since Jesus is the author and creator of our faith. If we interpret a passage of scripture and our conclusions conflict with what Jesus taught then we need to go back and start again. For example many churches preach that a literal hell does not exist but this flies in the face of what Jesus taught, who most definitely taught about a literal hell. False teachers replace the truth with their own understanding and literally replace God as the author of the bible. Instead of humbly accepting they cannot understand the concept of eternal punishment they change interpretation of scripture.

Also scripture cannot always be interpreted literally because some passages of scripture use figures of speech to get the message across - problem lies in identifying those figures of speech especially in the Hebrew scripts. We need to know the different figures of speech, some are easy because they are the same in english eg. metaphors but some are not so easy and a sound understanding of the actual original language is needed.

We also need to do intensive word studies to see what words are used, what verbs are used, the tenses etc etc etc. Then we need to see how those words are structured in paragraphs - where do they begin and end, what was said before and after?

One simple rule is that scripture cannot mean anything it did not mean for it's original readers. Scripture has one meaning but can have different applications.
To change the original meaning implies that the interpretor becomes the author and replaces God. This is called eisogesis - which is very common in churches today. The correct method is to apply exogesis - find out what the original text actually means and what it's intention was and how do we apply it today without changing it's meaning. Exogesis is a much more 'boring' approach but takes time and dedication but reveals the truth. Eisogesis is a quick "what scripture means to me is truth to me" method which requires no training or dedication and usually results in false teaching. Eisogesis also tends to over spiritualise the word of God, taking sometimes practical teachings and making them super spiritual. If we replace the author of scripture (God) with ourselves then we have a pseudo-religion no better than all the other worldy religions designed by man.

Lets take a commonly misused piece of scripture today: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Phil: 4:13.

In context Paul was relating to all his sufferings he has endured for the sake of the gospel. The passage talks about endurance in Christ - we find our strength in Christ to preach the gospel in very difficult and life threatening circumstances.

This text does not mean that we can literally do anything in Christs strength - we cannot walk through walls - otherwise Paul would have walked out of prison.
I have heard many false teachings on this verse but what it really speaks about is endurance in Christ - not some magical spell to get us out of all tough times. It was never written to be some kind of all encompassing motivational teaching instead it was written by a man who was in prison for Christ who faced possible death but through the blessings of the church (vs.14) was able to endure in Christ for Christ.

Over the years there has been much debate over the meaning of some doctrines especially between the Calvanist's and Arminian's. Take for example the doctrine of perserverance - both sides have brilliant scriptural backup for their beliefs and nobody has yet to reconcile the difference between them. A good understanding of both is needed together in prayer but here's the important thing - if one is saved and serving God then it does not matter which one is preferred, the differences only become relevant when a saved person backslides and even then only that individual actually knows if they still serve God or have walked away forever - theology then is irrelevant and their faith is everything.

The interpretation of scriptures is a complex process and one which I encourage all Christians to learn - commentaries should only be relied upon at the very last stage just to see what other theologians believe - this is how one cuts out the garbage from the Godly.

God bless

 

[mistmann]

Hi Kevin

Mistmann, I encourage you to go and study the rules of hermeneutics - the rules for scriptural interpretation. There are many sound rules which need to be applied when interpreting scripture and the more one does the better one becomes at it.

Who made up the rules that tell you what you can and can't understand? Why should we believe them and not the word of the Lord? Why are you looking to the rules of men and not the Spirit of the Lord to tell you what you can and cannot do? can and cannot understand?

By whose word and authority are these "sound rules"? Against what will you test these rules to see if they are from the Lord or not?

2,000 years ago the Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious experts and keepers of the "rules" for interpreting the Scriptures. Jesus said of them:-

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

And He instructed his followers to ignore them as blind leaders of the blind.

Tell me was it right for Jesus to teach people to ignore what the religious establishment of the day taught and return to what "is written" in the scriptures? Was it right for Jesus to rely on the authority of what "is written" and not what "is taught" by the religious experts of His day? For in calling on the authority of the Lord Jesus always declared what was written in the scriptures, not what was taught in the synagogues.

The seminary where I am a student - teaches a Christocentric approach which implies that all scripture must be interpreted based on what Jesus actually taught on it - since Jesus is the author and creator of our faith. If we interpret a passage of scripture and our conclusions conflict with what Jesus taught then we need to go back and start again. For example many churches preach that a literal hell does not exist but this flies in the face of what Jesus taught, who most definitely taught about a literal hell. False teachers replace the truth with their own understanding and literally replace God as the author of the bible. Instead of humbly accepting they cannot understand the concept of eternal punishment they change interpretation of scripture.

Apart from the first obvious question "How do you know if what your seminary is teaching you is the truth or not?" I rather thought this is what I was doing in pointing out what Jesus and the Bible actually says and that no correct interpretation can contyradict any part of what Jesus and the Bible actually says or otherwise render it as untrue.

Also scripture cannot always be interpreted literally because some passages of scripture use figures of speech to get the message across - problem lies in identifying those figures of speech especially in the Hebrew scripts. We need to know the different figures of speech, some are easy because they are the same in english eg. metaphors but some are not so easy and a sound understanding of the actual original language is needed.

I have before pointed out that we cannot take everything in the Bible literally BUT we can understand what is ACTUALLY being said and meant. You may have noted my pointing out that "high and lifted up" is not a reference to Jesus on the cross but is a figure of speech to indicate reverence and exultation.

We also need to do intensive word studies to see what words are used, what verbs are used, the tenses etc etc etc. Then we need to see how those words are structured in paragraphs - where do they begin and end, what was said before and after?

I always point out understanding must be in context. But as I have mentioned frequently we must pay careful attention to what the Bible actually says. Much of what you speak of here is the work of translators in translating the Bible to other languages but even there I always recommend referencing multiple translations and the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages (eg via Strong's) to minimise any risk of errors or losses in translation.

One simple rule is that scripture cannot mean anything it did not mean for it's original readers. Scripture has one meaning but can have different applications.
To change the original meaning implies that the interpretor becomes the author and replaces God. This is called eisogesis - which is very common in churches today. The correct method is to apply exogesis - find out what the original text actually means and what it's intention was and how do we apply it today without changing it's meaning. Exogesis is a much more 'boring' approach but takes time and dedication but reveals the truth. Eisogesis is a quick "what scripture means to me is truth to me" method which requires no training or dedication and usually results in false teaching. Eisogesis also tends to over spiritualise the word of God, taking sometimes practical teachings and making them super spiritual. If we replace the author of scripture (God) with ourselves then we have a pseudo-religion no better than all the other worldy religions designed by man.

This is why I reject the notion scripture is open to interpretation (the meaning the reader gives it). But I will go one better in defining what I mean by UNDERSTANDING what is written. It is not what the original READER might have understood. It is what the original WRITER intended it to mean. That can only happen when we do NOT depart from or ignore what is actually WRITTEN and do not add or assume what is NOT written.

Lets take a commonly misused piece of scripture today: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Phil: 4:13.

In context Paul was relating to all his sufferings he has endured for the sake of the gospel. The passage talks about endurance in Christ - we find our strength in Christ to preach the gospel in very difficult and life threatening circumstances.

This text does not mean that we can literally do anything in Christs strength - we cannot walk through walls - otherwise Paul would have walked out of prison.
I have heard many false teachings on this verse but what it really speaks about is endurance in Christ - not some magical spell to get us out of all tough times. It was never written to be some kind of all encompassing motivational teaching instead it was written by a man who was in prison for Christ who faced possible death but through the blessings of the church (vs.14) was able to endure in Christ for Christ.

I note Darby's Literal Translation renders it as "I have strength for all things in him that gives me power." which aligns closer to what you are saying. BUT we cannot assume Paul is LIMITING the things he can do in the power of the Lord. He does NOT say "I can do some things" or even I can only endure all things. He says "I can do ALL things" (or in Darby's case "I have strength for ALL things). Remember Jesus said if we had faith as small as a grain of mustard we could move mountains. Remember before Peter doubted he COULD walk on water. Remember also Paul's ministry was one of many miracles and signs of POWER even to the raising of the dead. (1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. We cannot declare that Paul was ONLY saying he had the strength to endure all things because it is clear He full well knew and understood he DID have the power to do anything through Christ - but clearly according to the WILL of Christ, not his own.

Over the years there has been much debate over the meaning of some doctrines especially between the Calvanist's and Arminian's. Take for example the doctrine of perserverance - both sides have brilliant scriptural backup for their beliefs and nobody has yet to reconcile the difference between them. A good understanding of both is needed together in prayer but here's the important thing - if one is saved and serving God then it does not matter which one is preferred, the differences only become relevant when a saved person backslides and even then only that individual actually knows if they still serve God or have walked away forever - theology then is irrelevant and their faith is everything.

The solution is to be neither a follower of Calvanism nor a follower of Arminianism but a follower of CHRIST alone. What Calvanism says is nothing. What Arminianism says is nothing. What Christ and the Bible says is EVERYTHING. That is the point I am making. I have no interest in reconciling the differences between the two for I follow neither. I follow Christ alone and HIS word.

The interpretation of scriptures is a complex process and one which I encourage all Christians to learn - commentaries should only be relied upon at the very last stage just to see what other theologians believe - this is how one cuts out the garbage from the Godly.

Understanding the Scriptures is not a complex process it is a spiritual phenomenon. A gift of the Father through the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 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. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

But here is a question you might want to answer.

If you believe it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to impart understanding of the Scripture directly into the mind of a man by what authority do you contradict the scriptures? And if you believe it IS possible for the Holy Spirit to impart understanding directly into the mind of a person by what test will you discern whether or not it has happened to any particular person? That they speak in accordance with what is WRITTEN in the scriptures, or in accordance with this or that interpretation or school of thought? If the latter how will you test to see if THAT interpretation or school of thought has the truth of Christ in it?

I was listening to Michael Youseff the other day and he made a profound observation that I feel is very relevant and it is this. "Natural reasoning is no substitute for the revelation of divine knowledge". In short it is about what the Lord has SAID, not what we think He should have said.
May the Lord bless you also.

 

[Dok]

If the literal sense makes sense seek no other sense. In fact ..... it just may be the Holy Spirit sorting it all out for you. Why get in the way? How do we stay out of the way? Prayer. Bible study. Humbling ourselves. Confessing that we KNOW NOTHING when it comes to "interpreting" scripture! It is only when we yield to the "mind" (better, the spiritual knowledge, wisdom, comprehension, understanding) of Jesus Christ Himself that the spiritual nature is activated, placed in control, shields out the sinful nature (mind, will, emotions, preconceived notions, ideas, SUperior insight, "much 'lernin'"......). How do we yield? Get out of the way. How do we get out of the way? Prayer, Bible study. Humbling ourselves. Confessing that we KNOW NOTHING when it comes to interpreting scripture! And so it goes, and goes, and goe, and go, and g, and (read this post again, from the top). How many times will you repeat reading all of it? Until you get out of the way.

 

[Dok]

Remember Jesus said if we had faith as small as a grain of mustard we could move mountains. Remember before Peter doubted he COULD walk on water.

1. WHO was Jesus addressing?

2. HOW did Peter construe scripture during the earthly ministry of Jesus?

1. Obviously, Jesus was addressing the Apostles et al in that day,NOT today.

2. Obviously, Peter anticipated the return of Jesus in his lifetime as Messiah, with the establishment of the Kingdom of God, the promised 1,000 year Messianic reign of Christ on the Throne of David.

Just as obvious, faith is faith today; it doesn't come in "sizes." Jesus was speaking to the faith of the 12 plus the 70, not to us today. And, I am not going to walk on water today, forget about trying it and doubting, even though I HAVE immediate and effectual access to the spiritual knowledge, wisdom, comprehension and understanding, of Jesus.

 

[mistmann]

1. WHO was Jesus addressing?

2. HOW did Peter construe scripture during the earthly ministry of Jesus?

1. Obviously, Jesus was addressing the Apostles et al in that day,NOT today.

2. Obviously, Peter anticipated the return of Jesus in his lifetime as Messiah, with the establishment of the Kingdom of God, the promised 1,000 year Messianic reign of Christ on the Throne of David.

Just as obvious, faith is faith today; it doesn't come in "sizes." Jesus was speaking to the faith of the 12 plus the 70, not to us today. And, I am not going to walk on water today, forget about trying it and doubting, even though I HAVE immediate and effectual access to the spiritual knowledge, wisdom, comprehension and understanding, of Jesus.

Did you note that the "mustard seed" reference by Christ was actually a rebuke of their UNBELIEF. They could not cast out the demon because they were unable but because they didn't believe they could. Have you ever wondered how many things you are actually able to do in Christ but, like those disciples, defeat yourself because you do not believe you can?

But why do you think Jesus limits the working of miracles to just the 12 (actually 13 if you include Paul) and the 70? Note what lies among the gifts of the Spirit spread liberally among the body of Christ with no time limit:-

1 Cor 12:7 " But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

Is Christ now unable to work miracles in today's world? Is Christ now unable to use "modern man" to fulfill His purposes? What exactly is it you think prevents Christ from doing now what He could do then?

Here is something worth meditating on:-

We have within us the Holy Spirit of the Lord and we have in our hands the word of the Lord. But have we so soon forgotten that every prophet of the Lord had no more than what we have today - the spirit and word of the Lord. BUT what they had that we lack - is FAITH in them both.
Regards Misty.

 

[Dok]

Obviously, it is self-evident, that it was a rebuke of their UNbelief. The 12 plus the 70 were granted multiple gifts as demonstrations that the Kingdom of God was "at hand."

Paul was not the 13th Apostle. He inherited nothing from them insofar as salvation by grace thru faith is concerned. The 12+70 knew nothing of the mystery, the secret hid in Christ and not revealed until after Acts 9, the Damascus Road experience of Paul. See Romans 16:25-27. Now move beyond 1 Corinthians 12:7, to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. What does Paul write? During the transition from law to grace those gifts heralded the Messianic Kingdom of God. There were no Christian scriptures at that point. Once the promised Messianic Kingdom was placed on hold, the "gifts" faded away and were gone completely by the destruction of Jerusalem.

After Jesus' ascension miracles were evident. Acts 6 thru 8 record some of those. It didn't last. You can read 2 Corinthians 12:5-10, 1 Timothy 5:23, 2 Timothy 4:20, and Collisians 4:14 for examples.

Undoubtedly, God can do anything He wants to do. He is not now engaged in promises of an earthly Kingdom such as the Messianic Kingdom of God on earth, with Jesus on the Throne of David. Nothing even resembling that. He is now issuing his final warnings for all the nations that have gone astray. The Rapture looms large, not miracles and signs and wonders and healing.

Millions of people around the world have been misled by the heretical "ministries" of Benny Hinn, Kenneth & Gloria Copeland, Charles Capps, Mike Murdock, and a score of others on national TV and in their huge arenas. Today we need to minister the Truth of John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 3:3, Romans 10:8-13, Ephesians 2:8-9, and a score of other spiritually comprehended scriptures which point to far more than faith healings, God sending money, homes, cars, prophets and prophetesses, and other gurus and their prattle; rather, to God's Amazing Grace: Life eternal.

 

[revlynn]

PS: Regarding Isa 6:1-5 "high and lifted up" is not a reference to Jesus on the cross but is an OT Hebrew phrase for being exhalted (raised up, carried, etc.) as a King or ruler or deity. Note He is sitting on a throne, not hanging on a cross:-

Isa 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."

Misty, I never at any point suggested that "high and lifted up" was a reference to the Cross. What I said was,

Isaiah 6:5 says that the One Isaiah saw "high and lifted up" was YHWH, and John 12:37-41 identifies the One Isaiah saw as Jesus.

In fact, Jn 12:41 says, speaking of Jesus and referring to the Isaiah passage, "Isaiah said this because he saw his [in context, Jesus'] glory and spoke of Him." (RSV)

I am now leaving this conversation. I have made my points, I believe clearly, and I don't see any gain in going round and round the same mountain.

blessings,

Lynn

 

[Kevin]

Hi Kevin

Who made up the rules that tell you what you can and can't understand? Why should we believe them and not the word of the Lord? Why are you looking to the rules of men and not the Spirit of the Lord to tell you what you can and cannot do? can and cannot understand?

By whose word and authority are these "sound rules"? Against what will you test these rules to see if they are from the Lord or not?

2,000 years ago the Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious experts and keepers of the "rules" for interpreting the Scriptures. Jesus said of them:-

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

And He instructed his followers to ignore them as blind leaders of the blind.

Tell me was it right for Jesus to teach people to ignore what the religious establishment of the day taught and return to what "is written" in the scriptures? Was it right for Jesus to rely on the authority of what "is written" and not what "is taught" by the religious experts of His day? For in calling on the authority of the Lord Jesus always declared what was written in the scriptures, not what was taught in the synagogues.

Apart from the first obvious question "How do you know if what your seminary is teaching you is the truth or not?" I rather thought this is what I was doing in pointing out what Jesus and the Bible actually says and that no correct interpretation can contyradict any part of what Jesus and the Bible actually says or otherwise render it as untrue.

I have before pointed out that we cannot take everything in the Bible literally BUT we can understand what is ACTUALLY being said and meant. You may have noted my pointing out that "high and lifted up" is not a reference to Jesus on the cross but is a figure of speech to indicate reverence and exultation.

I always point out understanding must be in context. But as I have mentioned frequently we must pay careful attention to what the Bible actually says. Much of what you speak of here is the work of translators in translating the Bible to other languages but even there I always recommend referencing multiple translations and the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages (eg via Strong's) to minimise any risk of errors or losses in translation.

This is why I reject the notion scripture is open to interpretation (the meaning the reader gives it). But I will go one better in defining what I mean by UNDERSTANDING what is written. It is not what the original READER might have understood. It is what the original WRITER intended it to mean. That can only happen when we do NOT depart from or ignore what is actually WRITTEN and do not add or assume what is NOT written.

I note Darby's Literal Translation renders it as "I have strength for all things in him that gives me power." which aligns closer to what you are saying. BUT we cannot assume Paul is LIMITING the things he can do in the power of the Lord. He does NOT say "I can do some things" or even I can only endure all things. He says "I can do ALL things" (or in Darby's case "I have strength for ALL things). Remember Jesus said if we had faith as small as a grain of mustard we could move mountains. Remember before Peter doubted he COULD walk on water. Remember also Paul's ministry was one of many miracles and signs of POWER even to the raising of the dead. (1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. We cannot declare that Paul was ONLY saying he had the strength to endure all things because it is clear He full well knew and understood he DID have the power to do anything through Christ - but clearly according to the WILL of Christ, not his own.

The solution is to be neither a follower of Calvanism nor a follower of Arminianism but a follower of CHRIST alone. What Calvanism says is nothing. What Arminianism says is nothing. What Christ and the Bible says is EVERYTHING. That is the point I am making. I have no interest in reconciling the differences between the two for I follow neither. I follow Christ alone and HIS word.

Understanding the Scriptures is not a complex process it is a spiritual phenomenon. A gift of the Father through the Holy Spirit.

But here is a question you might want to answer.

If you believe it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to impart understanding of the Scripture directly into the mind of a man by what authority do you contradict the scriptures? And if you believe it IS possible for the Holy Spirit to impart understanding directly into the mind of a person by what test will you discern whether or not it has happened to any particular person? That they speak in accordance with what is WRITTEN in the scriptures, or in accordance with this or that interpretation or school of thought? If the latter how will you test to see if THAT interpretation or school of thought has the truth of Christ in it?

I was listening to Michael Youseff the other day and he made a profound observation that I feel is very relevant and it is this. "Natural reasoning is no substitute for the revelation of divine knowledge". In short it is about what the Lord has SAID, not what we think He should have said.
May the Lord bless you also.

The Holy Spirit can indeed impart understanding of scriptures into our minds - I never said anything to dismiss this. How I discern if this is from the Holy Spirit is through studying the passage correctly. There are many rules on how to do this. Some of the most important ones are:

1) What did Jesus teach on the subject?
2) How does the interpretation of the passage fit in to the overall understanding of scripture - unclear texts must always be clarified using clear ones never the other way arround.
3) What was the context in which it was written - historical, cultural, etc.
4) How often does this particular message or theme get repeated in the bible? Does your interpretation conflict with the others if it does it is probably wrong.

In short the rules of hermenuetics will guide you into determining as close as possible to what the Holy Spirit had in mind when that particular piece of scripture was written.

Again I urge you to research how bible interpretation is done - even if you reject it, get a better understanding on how it is done. All you need to do is learn the methods which acknowledge that the bible is Spirit breathed and authorised by God - applying liberal methods (man is the author) will fail.

The example I used on Calvanism and Armenianism was to illustrate that two major theologies seemingly disagree but yet are both completely scripturally accurate - this does not mean that the bible contains error but more that man has yet to grasp the depths of God and understand Him fully. I am referring in particular to the doctrine on perserverance - Calvanism - once saved always saved; Armenianism - man can lose his salvation. I can give you many scriptures which support both views it all depends on which scriptures one holds in a higher authority.

"Understanding the Scriptures is not a complex process it is a spiritual phenomenon. A gift of the Father through the Holy Spirit." If this where completely true then we would have no need for earthly teachers of the word and there would be no conflicting theologies in regards to doctrine. It is essential to be dependant on the Holy Spirit but we are still required to study scripture -

2Ti 2:15

Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

 

[mistmann]

Misty, I never at any point suggested that "high and lifted up" was a reference to the Cross. What I said was,

In fact, Jn 12:41 says, speaking of Jesus and referring to the Isaiah passage, "Isaiah said this because he saw his [in context, Jesus'] glory and spoke of Him." (RSV)

I am now leaving this conversation. I have made my points, I believe clearly, and I don't see any gain in going round and round the same mountain.

blessings,

Lynn

I appreciate that you are leaving the conversation but I must make the observation that John 12:37-41 is speaking of Isa 53 while the one who is high and lifted up is referred to in Isa 6, almost opposite ends of Isaiah.

The account of the suffering of the ARM of the Lord begins in Isa 52 with these words:-

(Isa 52:13 - 53:1) "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? "

Clearly it is the LORD speaking but it is also clear He is not speaking of Himself but of the ARM of the Lord - His SERVANT.

It is clear from what is said that Isaiah is speaking the words of Jehovah and beholding the Glory of Jehovah but they are words that speak ABOUT the ARM of the Lord, the SERVANT of the Lord, Christ Jesus. It is important to distinguish between who Isaiah is speaking TO and who they are speaking ABOUT. The Lord is speaking not of Himself but of His servant, His ARM.

But happy to leave it there.

Regards Misty.