Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Aug 15, 2012.
Whose teaching gets the final say to how you understood the bible?
Why do you ask? You get messages from the Holy Spirit and think we all should? How do you know the messages you get are not from Satan?
If two people who are filled with the Holy Spirit come to two different interpretations how do you determine which is correct? To what authority do you appeal? I'm certain Seve believes he's filled with the Holy Spirit when he interprets scripture but he has a totally different view of God than either you or I. What makes his answer less correct than either you or I. I am filled with the Holy Spirit and you hold that you are filled with the Holy Spirit but we have different views who decides between us? You may disagree with Biblicist on an item of scripture who decides between you two?.
In regard to intepretation of the scriptures, if two persons are equally Spirit filled, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit in their approach to the same scripture they will come to the same conclusion as God the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion and no single passage of scripture teaches contrary things. So much for TS's analogy!
The scripture remains the same irregardless of time or the type of person that attempts to interpret it. The problem is not in the scriptures but in the interpreter if two interpreters arrive at two contrary conclusions to the same text. That is precisely why we are commanded to "prove all things" and to "try the spirits" and to "righly divide the word of scripture."
The individual being led by the Spirit will correctly intepret the scripture and that interpretation can be tested, tried, and proved whether it is rightly divided by its immediate context as the Scripture is a self-defining book - comparing spiritual things to spiritual things and the Word of God is spiritual. Proper thoughts are impossible to put into writing apart from proper words in thier proper grammatical relationships - syntax!
Every false intepretation will fail the test of "rightly dividing" the scriptures as it will ALWAYS violate syntax, immediate context - always!
If that is the case then those who come to a different interpretation than yourself, by necessity:
1) must not be filled with the Holy Spirit
2) must be wrong
Hmmm.... How arrogant.
According to whom? You? Just look around at the actuality of things you believe that only people who agree with your are "Spirit filled, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit" But to what authority to you go to to verify this belief of yours. You can be sincere about what you believe but you can also be sincerely wrong. Harold Camping believes the same thing about himself but you don't agree with him. So the reality is Biblicist is that apart from your own personal opinion which is no more authoritative than anyone elses there is no authority to which you appeal. If Yeshua disagrees with you your contention is that he either is not spirit filled or not following the Holy Spirit. But thats only based on your own thinking authority. Which makes you in essense your own God. You have taken the role of the Holy Spirit and submitted him to you own ability to understand rather than rely on God or any authority other than yourself. So my Analogy which really isn't an anology but reasonable question one must ask doesn't fail at all as you have just pointed out.
You have changed the equation from "Spirit filled" to "yourself"! You have also ripped what I said out of its carefully defined context. I also said that if there is disagreement in interpretation, it proves that ONE or BOTH are not acting under the leadership of the Holy Spirit irregardless who they are (Pope, you, me, etc.). I also laid down the TESTS to "PROVE" who is and who is not "RIGHTLY" dividing the Word of Truth. Of course, you could care less about the context of my words or the context of Biblical words and that is the very problem isn't it?
Exactly! Who to decide if one or both are wrong between the two? To what authority do you appeal? Accordingly to you there is no greater authority than what you happen to think about the scripture therefore in the end you are your own authority! So lets look at your "Test" which btw you impose on the scripture therefore your tests are your method of interpretation which is based once again on you being the sole authority for interpretation which replaces the Holy Spirit with you once again.
This is a problematic statement for you. Certainly the words of Scripture do not change. However, what does change is the cultural context of the world view the scripture text and without knowing the culture with which the text is written you can misinterpret it. For instance lets take an english phrase "That takes the cake!" Those words will never change, however, in the future when english is no longer spoken and a new culture is in place a historian reading that text literally may misunderstand me to say that something is taking a desert called cake! Rather than the intentional meaning with in our current context of which can mean several things such as
Since we are 2,00 years removed this error is likely to occure with scripture especially if every verse is taken literally. Look at Seve for example.
This is true its not the scripture at fault but the interpreters. But then the question remains how do you determine between which interpreter? How can you determine which one is "proved" by "trying the spirts" which one is " rightly dividing scripture"? How can one know? I know how you know because you stand it against what you think but then once again that makes you the soul authority and thus you become God.
We have already agreed scriptures aren't a dictionary. Scriptures aren't written in English therefore meanings to words must already be understood and ascribed to those words. And as can be seen by the many discussion on this board what is Spiritual to you is not spiritual to another and scripture Doesn't comment on the definition of spiritual. What spiritual means depends on who is interpreting it. And since most hold an etherial view of Spiritual the definition once again becomes reliant on a persons personal opinion. There is no inspired table of contents thus the scripture doesn't attest to all of the books that are considered scripture and again there is no authority for which you can appeal save what you personally think.
What does that mean Every False interpretation will fail the test of "rightly dividing" who determinese what is rightly divided? You? You can't even agree with each other what the immediate context is! Look at Seve as referrence once again.
You are stuck once again making yourself the sole authority for the interpretation of scripture. Which makes you above the Holy Spirit.
Again - you are relying on YOUR ability to "rightly divide" scripture, so my statements stand. If you actually believe that you have the correct interpretation of scripture and you are spirit filled then, when others have a differing interpretation, they must by necessity be wrong and NOT filled with the Holy Spirit. I mean since the Holy Spirit cannot be in error and all....
I swear The Biblicist... you so funny sometimes.:laugh:
Actually I contextualized the logic of your position very well and have shown it demonstrably false.
To the command of Scripture to "prove all things" and "test" the spirits leading the two persons by principles necessary for "rightly dividing the word of truth" as did the Bereans with Paul's explanations!
False! First, scritpures are not for the unregnerate as they cannot be led by the Spirit because they do not have the Spirit and therefore they have no ability to discern the scriptures (1 Cor. 2:14).
Second, YOUR interpretations are ALWAYS subject to the test of contextual accuracy and the scriptures are ALWAYS the final authority for that test. Therefore YOUR interpretation is NEVER the final authority for truth as it is ALWAYS subject to scriptural validation by anyone who challenges it. If your interpetation is true, the scriptures, the scriptural context, the scriptural principles will always validate it. Hence, scripture is ALWAYS final and sole authority. However, if you interpetation is flawed it will force you to flee to some other authority (tradition, personal opinion, worldly authorities, etc.) to defend your interpretation.
False! The scriptures themselves offer the tests (Isa. 8:20; 1 Tim. 2:15; 1 Thes. 5:17; I Jn. 4:5-6; 1 Cor. 2:13; Acts 17; etc.).
1. Comparing spiritual with spiritual
2. Prove all things
3. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth
4. If they speak not ACCORDING TO this Word
5. Try the Spirits
6. If they hear not us
7. The Scriptures cannot be broken
8. Singular not plural seed (example from Paul)
9. Common sense principle that communction is impossible without applying
10. etc., etc.
False! The design of infallible originals was to provide a contextual self-defining pattern which "cannot be broken." That is precisely why scripture must be compared with scripture and scripture must interpret scripture as the World cultural context always is in flux but the Biblical context is not in flux. That is why the worldly mind can be TRANSFORMED to the Biblical preserved context rather than CONFORMED to the world culture.
The problem with you analogy is that it is not CONFINED to an immediate and overall context but individual scriptures are CONFINED to an immediate and overall context that is passed down from generation to generation irregardless of the World cultural context. Again, this allows for the worldly mind to be TRANSFORMED rather than CONFORMED to the worldly culture.
I think I have answered all the following arguments already by the above principles which are Scriptural.
The very definition of Spirit filled means you are not relying on YOUR ability but upon the ability of the Spirit of God. However, one must first have the Spirit of God or they have no ability at all to discern truth from error (which is the manifest case on this forum with many).
Second, it is not YOUR principles of interpretation that are being used but the Biblical supplied principles:
1. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual
2. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth
3. If they speak not ACCORDING TO this Word
4. Prove all things
5. Test the Spirits..if they hear not us
6. Singular seed not plural (example of Paul's method)
7. Scriptures cannot be broken
8. Common sense principles necessary to communicate
Exactly! The proof is not YOU or YOUR interpretation but the PROOF is FITTING all the Biblical provided TESTS of truth (some of which I have listed above). The Truth will stand and force those who do not have the truth to flee to some other authority (as tradition, defiant but unsubstantiated personal opinon; worldly authorities, etc.) to defend their errors.
Thus, you are correct and everyone who comes to a different understanding of scripture is wrong. And you wonder why few here take you seriously... unless of course they believe as you and are therefore just as infallible. :laugh:
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I never said any such thing! What I said is plain and explicit. No interpretation is final authority as every interpretation is ALWAYS subject to scriptural validations by the scriptural tests. The false intepretation will ALWAYS fail one or more of these Biblical tests and it will be made manifest because they will have to FLEE to some other authority to validate their intepretation. The true interpretation will STAND up to all Biblical tests and that is what makes it right - the confirmation to Biblical tests and that is what Sola scriptura is all about.
That is precisely why Catholis always end up fleeing the Bible to TRADITION because their interpretations NEVER stand up to the Scriptures as FINAL AUTHORITY!
Lets look at that passage.
They verified that what Paul said was actually in scripture. What they weren't doing was interpreting scripture. They were accepting Pauls interpretation and verifying to see if those things were actually in there. You've taken that passage out of context. It doesn't say in that text that the Boreans were "rightly dividing the word" rather that they were verifying Pauls' comments. If you tell me that a virgin would concieve and tell me the prophet Isaiah said it then I would verify what you said by checking out that text myself. That is what the Boreans were doing.
So now you change your argument. Scripture cannot be understood in its context alone but only by those people whom you consider to be regenerated which is suspect because the people you consider to be regenerate are only those who agree with you. That seems self serving and once again you are apealing to yourself as the authority to make the determination not God.
Ah... you misapply scripture once again what does that text actually say?
Note Paul isn't saying that people without the spirit don't descern what the scriptures mean but can't accept them as it goes against everything they believe. And they can't believe something that goes against their believe because they are totally submitted to their world view and the scriptures contradict what they think they know. What they don't understand is how you can accept those things in scripture because they see it as foolish. Not that the don't have a modecum of understanding what it means but what they understand it to mean seems foolish to them.
I agree and you always seem to get the context wrong! And many times that is because you view scripture from our modern american context rather than the 2nd temple period Jewish context under Roman rule.
I've just shown if you don't understand the cultural context how can you understand the textual context? Like with "that takes the cake"
No because you have just demonstrated that you interpret the scriptures based on your modern understanding than what was believed at the time. Two entirely different contexts.
Lets look at each reference.
This is no test for understanding scripture it is a test to whom you should listen to. A person who has their own things or those who Witness and speak to "THIS WORD" which is the testimony of his disciples that is a "spoken" testimoney of his disciples as can be seen in vs. 16
So that is no test of "rightly dividing" a writen text of scripture. I have no idea how 1 Tim 2:15 becomes a test. Look at the passage
The passage is a context of the responsibility of women in the Church ie
This isn't at test of the meaning of a passage. 1 thes 5:17
Uh this is a passage that is telling us to pray without ceasing. Not how to determine whether scripture means something. 1 john 4:5-6
Note this doesn't reference the written word either but what was orally spoken by the Apostles. The idea and context of this passage is that those who already know God will know that the Apostles are from God and will listen to them. Again this has nothing to do with dividing the word of truth as the person they are commenting on will listen to what the apostles teach. This also is no test save that it may be a test to know if someone already knows God because they will automatically listen to what the Apostles orally teach. 1 Cor 2:13
This is not a test of "dividing the word of truth either" What this passage shows is that noone knows what another person is thinking save that person we can't determine their thoughts however, those people who hold to the world value system aren't thinking like those who have the spirit from God who btw will understand the oral teaching of the apostles which wasn't made up by their own reason. thus this two is not a test for rightly dividing. Acts 17 has already been dealt with.
Again what is spiritual isn't "defined" in the scripture. What scripture does say is that a person with God's spirit will believe what the apostles proclaimed. Because they are spiritual. which btw is different from the spirit of the world which is another spirituality however ungodly.
And what do you think prove means in this context? How about verify the truth? Which isn't the same as interpreting the truth.
scriptures say this about "rightly dividing the word of truth"
remind them of what?
Oh.. remind them of Pauls oral teaching
where by reminding them of what Paul oral taught them based on his oral teaching rather than arguing about what the teachings are. And for Timothy to guard what Paul orally gave him called the deposit of faith and by using that teaching Paul gave they can rightly divide the word of Truth therefore its clear from the passage that Paul tells Timothy that he can rightly divide the word of truth based on what Paul orally taught him not by reliance on that word alone.
Thus your principles fail. And your test turn out not to be test at all.
Total illogical man-made hog wash!
I've not seen anyone "flee" here. What I have seen is your inability to defend Sola Scriptura directly from scripture without doing what you accuse Catholics of doing - and that is going outside of scripture in an attempt to establish that scripture is the SOLE authority - something that scripture never says about itself.
ridicule is the weapon of the illiterate, ignorant and uneducated. Ridicule without appropriate response is admission to error.
You think by ridicule and then ignoring the evidence placed before you that sufficiently disproves what I said. I think not. Try again!
This text does not say Paul was merely QUOTING scripture. That is you unsubstantiated interpretation. If we look at Paul's consistent practice, he preached the word and not merely QUOTED the Word. He did exactly what Nehemiah did and what the Preists had been commanded to do:
Ne 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
They looked at the scriptures and confirmed what he was teaching them to be in keeping with what the scriptures said. YOU CANOT UNDERSTAND what you read without INTERPRETING what you are reading!
Really? That all depends on how you understand the Hebrew term for "virgin" doesn't it? Why all the ruckus over the Hebrew term translated "virgin" today if one merely has to read the text without interpreting what he reads??????
1 Corinthians 2:14 is in the CONTEXT of one of the principles of interpretation I quoted! Remember, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13) and that is only for those who have the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). This is a perfect example why you cannot accept or understand the truth because you fail to interpret scripture by scripture and overall this is precisely why Romanism is a flawed system.
That is what scripture states not what I state. Those without the Spirit cannot discern spiritual things.
Did I quote myself or did I quote the inspired word? I referred to 1 Cor. 2:14 rather than tradition for men's interpetations. It says what it says.
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.
You are illustrating exactly what I have been saying. Your interpetation is false because it ignores what the text actually says and this can be easily demonstrated by asking a series of questions:
1. Can the natural man received the things of the Spirit? Yes or No? "but the natural man RECEIVETH NOT the things of the Spirit of God."
2. Is the Scriptures the things of the Spirit of God? Are they a product of the Spirit of God? Are they God's Word and is God's Word spiritual?
3. Why can't the natural man receive the things of the Spirit? Simply because they are foolishness to him OR in addition because "HE CANNOT KNOW THEM" and in addition because THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED?
4. Can SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT occur without and apart from the Spirit of God?
5. If they can SPIRITUAL DISCERN the scriptures why does Paul say explicity THEY CANNOT KNOW THEM?
Your interpretation is wrong and irrational and thus foolish.
I have demonstrate that every interpetation you have offered thus far is simply false and the context proves it is false. Will that change your mind? Undoubtedly not!
Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or you simply are choosing to distort what I said. You showed no such thing by your illustration of "that takes the cake."
You presented a line of words without any contextual framework. If you had provided the contextual cultural framework than the meaning would be preserved into all future generations WITHIN THAT PRESERVED CONTEXT.
The Bible provides a continuing contextual framework for its individual words and so one merely has to study the contextual framework or compare spiritual things with spiritual or grammar as in the case with Paul when he pointed out the singular "seed" and not a plural.
The Biblical context of principles and precepts does not always match the SECULAR CURRENT CONTEXT for use of the same terms or practices but more often CONTRADICTS IT. What are you going to do then? You are restricted to the preserved Biblical context alone as the cultural context does not support the Biblical context. The principle and precepts of God's Word are never conditioned upon cultural confirmation at any time in history. Furthermore, suggested meanings of terms found in Scripture are not always correct as the Biblical context can redefine them or at least selectively define them. Hence, even cultural definitions are subject to the Biblical context.