Perfection

First of all -- I like that idea that the Bible has "66 books" and they are all inspired by God and as Paul says in 2Tim 3:15-17 to be used "for doctrine" KJV21.

But your statement that we need someone else to tell us what to think - is disproven in scripture in two key areas.

1. Acts 17:11 "The studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" - instead of waiting 2 or 3 hundred years for an ECF to come along - they took the OT text itself and TESTED Paul. (And oh by the way - these guys were not even Christians and STILL they had the ability with SCRIPTURE - to TEST PAUL!).


2. In 1John 2 - John says "you have NO NEED for anyone to teach you.. His ANNOINTING teaches you" - thus the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth was working EVEN then with NT Christians - such that they did not need someone to "tell them what to think" when they read scripture.

3. In Gal 1:6-11 Paul says "Even though WE or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" should come along and teach something OTHER than what you have from us at this point - let them be ACCURSED. NO ECF - NO POPE, No Bishop, NO Cardinal has EVER risen to the level of the Apostle Paul or an Angel from Heaven or the 12 other Apostles of the NT age - and yet Paul says that EVEN THEY are to be judged and ACCURSED - based on each of us - taking what we have in scripture and judging THEM - if in fact they did not measure up.

HOW much MORE shall we judge popes, and bishops, and ECFs (many of whom even the RCC itself condemns for their later actions in life)!

I say that instead of just blindly taking whatever they say - the Bible instruction is to TEST them ALL!

in Christ,

Bob

 

In Heb 5 Paul condemns the Christian readers for being so dull - and not advancing on to maturity in spiritual matters.

Paul argues that Christ's role as our High Priest (which he is going to get into - in detail in chapters 7,8,9,10 ) is where He is now serving and where He is "the source of eternal salvation" -- specifically "to those who OBEY him".

Reminds us of John 15 where Christ said "you are my friends IF you do what I command you".

But in Heb 5 - Paul argues the point that going on to the subject of Christ's role as our High Priest - - and the way in which that role provides salvation - is difficult to present to those who have "done something" such that they are stalled at the infant stage in their spiritual growth.

Paul is clear as to what the problem is - he accuses his readers of not "practicing" what they have learned about "good vs evil". They do not engage in the Christian disciplines and put into practice those truths that they have learned.

Here we have a blatant condemnation by Paul that applies even to Christians today - who are stuck at the "Law condemns the sinner - sinner must Accept Christ to be saved" state - and have not gone on to the "Saved Saints walks by faith - putting to death the deeds of the Flesh" Rom 8 and 1Cor 7:19 -- stage.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[/quote] Heb 6
4 For in the case of [b]those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit[/b],
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have [b]fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance[/b], since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
[/quote]


Here then is a clear case of salvation lost. The lost who have entered into salvation - HAVE experienced "the heavenly gift AND have been make PARTAKERS of the Holy Spirit AND have tasted the good Word of God AND the Powers of the age to come". Thus Paul identifies a state that is NOT the condition of the "totally depraved lost" for they are not daily walking in the Word, partaking of the Holy Spirit and they are NOT among those who have tased of the good things of the age to come (eternal life - reconciliation with God).

This state is one from which the saved saint does not want to FALL. But Paul argues that some indeed have fallen from this state.

YET for those who do fall under these conditions - it is implossible to "RENEW them again" to their former saved condition.



7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if [b]it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless[/b] and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

Thus it is pointless when reading these texts in Hebrews to argue that "there is no such thing" or "this is why Paul should not have said that" -- the point is that He DID say it and warns all of the danger.

He does the same thing to the saved saints in Romans 11 "you should FEAR for you stand only by your faith and if God did not spare them - neither will he spare you".


in Christ,

Bob

 

The "life" does not "come to life" -- that would be nonsense.

It is the DEAD that come to life.

Your question implies that God cannot bring the DEAD to life - even though HE says "The DEAD shall hear the voice... shall live". Turns out - God can raise the DEAD.

Jesus argues that the ONLY SOLUTION that allows God to say to Moses in the book of Exodus "I am the God of Abraham" - is that the Resurrection is a solid fact. And the text of Matt 22 - states that all the Jews saw that this iron-clad air-tight proof of the RESURRECTION - was innescapable and the Sadducees had been "put to silence" by it.

The reason that Jesus says "you err not knowing the scripture" is simply that they had not put these two facts together.

1. God is NOT the God of the dead.
2. God says to Moses that He is the God of Abraham long after Abraham died.

Conclusion: There MUSt be a resurrection coming.

For as Romans 4 says "God calls that which does not exist into being".

This is facinating. In your own altnerate solution - you argue that the resurrection is NOT the way to solve the problem - rather "the living dead" is the solution.

And we grant you that the living dead - is another way to solve the problem - in fact it would completely defeat Christ's argument that a resurrection is thus required to solve the puzzle.

However - neither Christ nor the Sadducees believed in the "living dead". In this story Christ is AGREEING with the Sadducees on a key point - that while dead - God is NOT the God of the dead. (so many text of scripture that they already had saying "the dead know not anything" and "the dead do not PRAISE God".).

IF the Sadducees believed in the living dead idea to start with - but not the resurrection - they would be stuck at the end of Christ's story with "SO! - you still have not proven anything about needing to have a resurrection of the dead".

Sooo many people completely skim right past that little detail. But it changes everything in that Matt 22 story!


In Christ,

Bob

 

What you are missing is the fact that Judgment does not always condemn.

In Dan 7 - we see the point that sants on earth suffer persecution "UNTIL Judgment is passed IN FAVOR OF the saints". Daniel 7 describes the Great judgment scene in heaven where this takes place - and once it is complete (according to Dan 7) you get the end of persecution of the saints - you get the 2nd coming.

In 2Cor 5:10 "WE MUST ALL stand before the JUDGMENT seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in the body - whether they be GOOD or EVIL".

Hint - the reward for evil is not "less toys in heaven" - Paul argues in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death".

In Romans 2 - Paul spends a great deal of time spelling out how that Judgment determines LIFE vs death.

Obviously - those in that judgment who receive LIFE are not "condemned".

Paul states clearly in Romans 2 "according to my gospel... God WILL judge the secrets of ALL makind through the man Christ Jesus".

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's not my statement - it’s yours. I never said: “…we need someone else to tell us what to think”. However, if you actually believe that others have not influenced you along your spiritual journey, (and in profound ways) I can only surmise that you are not being honest with yourself.

Take ten people who have never read or heard the gospel, isolate each one from another and from the outside world, let each read the entire bible, and you will probably get ten different interpretations of the book.

Acts 8:29-31 (New International Version)

29 The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

1) The eunuch had no way of "TESTING" if what Philip told him about scripture was true as he knew nothing about scripture.

2) How do you know that the interpretation by which you are "TESTING" others is itself completely correct? This sounds to me like the scenario of - if you don't hold to my interpretation of scripture, then you are wrong and I am right. In my opinion, this is why there exists so much fractured theology in the world.

Peace!

 

True. So look what happens. The book of Matthew is written by Matthew decades AFTER Christ was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven. So when Matthew complies with the Matt 28 instruction of Christ - he "writes the book of Matthew" which contains the teachings of Christ.

It contains the "all things whatsover I have commanded you" during the ministry of Christ.

Shockingly then - It contains the pre-cross teaching of Christ on the correct view of the Law and the Gospel - and given even to Jewish followers of Christ. THIS is the message that was being proclaimed to the NT saints!

Amazing!

Yes! most certainly!

However consider this - in John 16 Christ said to his own disciples in John 16 "I have many more things to teach you but YOU cannot bear them now". Their problem is not that they don't "want" to follow Christ - their problem is that they are so tied to man-made tradition (cast in their minds as if it were the word of God Himself) that they could not see that the real role of the Messiah was to die for the sins of the world!

If even they were blinded by tradition, culture and circumstances while ministering in the very visible presence of Christ Himself - might we see that same thing among Christians - still today?

If almost the entire Christian church leaps into darkness in the dark ages - to the point of torturing fellow saints and then supposing "they do God service" by doing so -- how then do we think WE are going to escape such blinders-on bias?

I say it is by listening closely to the Holy Spirit and applying sound principles of Exegesis. And those principles require that they look at context, at the same concepts taught by the same author in his other books, at the same concepts taught by other authors in their books - and combining all that to get "the big picture" not just a tiny "snippet".

It was the "Bible teachers" the leaders in Israel that rejected Christ.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Your argument results in the conclusion:"They did it wrong in Acts 17:11 - they cannot test the apostle Paul! They are not even Christians! How can they possibly know if their understanding of the Bible is right! Someone has to tell them what the Bible says first".

Your argument results in the conclusion "Paul is wrong in Gal 1:6-11 to say that church members are to reject the teaching of Paul, of Apostles, even of angels from heaven - if that teaching does not match up with the scriptures already given at that point in time. How can any church member TEST an Apostle. They should just believe whatever the Apostle or the Angel tells them. Not testing is even POSSIBLE". Your solution would result in each one of us -- going to our own church leaders and saying "tell me what to think". Our own church leaders would say "the Catholics are wrong" and "every other group teaching doctrine different from the way we see scripture is wrong". So - how in the world does that "solve" something for us?



NOTE - Paul does not say "reject anything further that an Apostle or an Angel might say". The point he makes is not to reject further light, further teaching and thus not be helped by any explanation or teaching that might come. Rather his position is to TEST ALL - yes even what a supposed "Apostle" might say!


We see clearly then that - the Bible model "allows" for Philip to explain scripture to someone - and for that somone to compare the scripture to what Philip "claims" that it means to SEE IF Philip's explanation (of scripture - of the OT which as always - is STILL valid scripture) is making light clearer - or in fact is flatly contradicted by scripture.



in Christ,

Bob

 

WE can "discuss" doctrine - but how to see points of error? That is the question.

Given 5 Bible students from 5 diffferent denominations - and the study of a complex book like Hebrews - we would expect "at least" 4 of them will be confronted with evidence that some part of their denominational bias is challenged - is in fact dead wrong. And "at worst" they ALL are being confronted by the fact that their denominational bias - doctrines are at some point being shown to be in error.

That is the obvious fact of what is happening - and we all know it.

The question is - how to address it! How to position ourselves in such an objective "sola-scriptura-testing" basis where ALL 66 books of scripture actually have doctrinal weight (as 2Tim 3:16-17 tells us).

The "blinders-on" methods used to defend a given denominational bias - will predictably prevent the Catholic from seeing their errors, or the Lutheran from seeing theirs ... etc. Thus the most likely outcome is that NONE of them admit to a problem of any kind. And sure enough - that is what we see.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree. I do not mean to say that it is never done - just the the flawed human condition requires that everyone in that 5-person scenario I gave - realize their inner tendancy and put the matter before God to stop them from letting their bias simply eisegete into the text whatever their traditions "need" rather than being willing to admit to a problem when they find one.

Agreed. My point is that the complexity in the book of Hebrews means that we are virtually "guaranteed" to get 5 different answers from the 5 different voices in that scenario and "at best" 1 of them is right.

Agreed. Everyone is stuck with the problem. It is the inertia to be overcome - but to do it - we must first admit that it exists in each person participating in the exercise.

True and Paul complains about that fact in Hebrews 5.

And because it is "simpler" to simply believe what you are told and enjoy all the friends and club-membership benies that come along with that --

True - it will take convicting by the "Holy Spirit of Truth" (John 16) for either one of us to budge in areas where we differ.

However in the case where I am in error and you have a valid Bible position by contrast - I will be most benefitted by your making your case in as clear and compelling terms as possible. Ranting and name calling means slightly less than nothing to me as a form of argument or persuasion (just ask DHK ) - I simply skip past it looking for a Bible based argument that might have some substance to it.

Thus I try not to hesitate from responding in kind with a compelling Bible based argument.

Agreed. So name-calling gets dumped at the outset.

Will do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If we go back to the OP - we notice that you quote Matt 5 - and then go over to Hebrews.

My response was to look at the context for the Matt 5 statement that you used as the introduction in the OP.

=====================================

Jesus said, "Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." Is this a command Jesus gave to God the Father about humans?

Is it a command Jesus gave to God the Holy Spirit about what to do with the saints?

Or is it a command Jesus gave to the people of God?

The Matt 5 Context is helpful in answering the question.

These commands are from Christ to the listener. Not from Christ to the Holy Spirit - or from Christ to Himself regarding what He should do with sinners that come to Him for salvation.

I think we can all agree there.

Paul affirms this teaching in Romans 2 ?


Quote:
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the [b]righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: [/b]

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be [b]tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil[/b], of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

In 2Cor 5:10 Paul says that we are all to stand before the Judgment seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done IN THE BODY whether they be good or evil.

In Heb 6 we see Paul bringing in the subject of future judgment of the saints.

In Romans 2:13-16 - He does the same thing calling it a part of the Gospel.

In Rev 14:6-7 John does the same thing. Points us to the future judgment as "part of the everlasting Gospel".

In Dan 7 - the judgment "passed in favor of the saints" is what actually determines the limit - the end of the persecution of saints on earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No - that would be your resultant conclusion. Besides, you never offered the constraint that only Christians need/can test what someone else says until now. Further, both the Thesolonians and the Bereans tested what the apostle Paul said - the former rejected him and the latter found him correct.

No - that would be your resultant conclusion. I honestly can't see where you are going with this...

Well, the Bereans and the Thesolonians were church members and they tested Paul.

See the above....

Nope - I never proposed that either.

And how do you know that you are interpreting what you see in scripture correctly?

And I will ask you again... how do you know that the interpretation, by which you "TEST" something, is itself correct?

1) To which "bible model" are you refering?
2) Where did I state that the OT was NOT scripture?
3) What is clearly contradicted in scripture -- testing Philip or the fact that the OT is scripture?

Peace!

 

On the contrary - my position is that Acts 17:11 demonstrates that the sola-scriptural model is so reliable that EVEN non-Christians can use it to test PAUL himself!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Correction -- there is no Bible principle contradicted in testing Philip according to the scriptures or in using the OT as scripture.

Rather what we see is that the Bible model is fully supported by both of those facts. The Ethiopian was reading the Bible AND is testing what Philip tells him as he reads it - just as the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 are reading the Bible AND testing what Paul is telling them - by checking it against the scripture.

Perfect harmony on those points.

in Christ,

Bob