Featured The Source of False Doctrine

If you were to preach this to all the seeker friendly churches out there you would be thrown out.

 

People need to realise that ONLY the Bible is THE source dor all doctrines and practices, and IF our church traditions/beliefs contridict the Bible, they are wrong and it is right!

Also, NO more revelations from God since John passed, canon now closed, God is silent, already said all that he plans to for now, in His Son and the bible!

So if someone is claiming to have special insight from the Lord that NONE has seen in past 1900 years in the Bible, be VERY suspect of that claim!

 

Interesting

Agreed--and this includes any institution or individual who introduces a novel interpretation of the Scriptures not believed on by the consensus of the early Church who received the Scriptures from the Apostles and who recognized the limits of the Canon.

And by it's wider context as well.

 

Hey Biblicist. I agree with you to a degree.

Concerning your first point, that's not necessarily true, though the Bible is the sole spot for sound doctrine, and all other literature comes second to its authority. What I find when I read extrabiblical literature is, that sometimes at least, there are things that are right and match with the Bible, while there are other things that disagree with the Bible.

Paul quotes an extrabiblical source in Acts 17. He says that this portion of this poet (aratus), is true: "as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (V. 28, KJV).

Also, Paul does a similar thing in Titus 1:12-13.

And Moses had his source from a book "of the wars of the LORD" that he referenced to (Numbers 21:14).

This wikipedia link is a list of extrabiblical works referenced in the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

As well, words mean something. This is especially important when we have to translate, say, a Greek word that makes its appearance in only one place in the Bible. The correct way to interpret such a word is to see how that word was used in the era of time in which it was written. This can be found out by reading extra-biblical literature of the time era that uses that same word, and then seeing how that word is used in that extrabiblical literature.

Concerning your second point,

The New Testament makes reference to the Old Testament scriptures in a rather scattered manner. It takes things "out of context". The Jeremiah quote in Matthew 2:16-18 is a perfect example of this.

Isaiah says that the OT scriptures were lacking organization (Isa. 28:10), but the Apostle's instruction to Timothy is the first place that we find the command to organize the scriptures: "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15, KJV). This command demands that the OT scriptures at least (maybe not so much the NT scriptures, excluding the apocalypse), are to be organized, and are to be "taken out of context" to do such organization. Matthew's quotation of Jeremiah is not the only example. The 69th psalm is another example. Peter's quotation of Joel 2:28-32 is another. Isaiah 25:8 and its quotation in 1Corinthians 15:54 is another.

 

ATTENTION ALL FORUM MEMBERS!

To be absolutely certain your views and interpretations of scripture are correct, submit them to the Biblicist for his evaluation. You cannot be certain that your views are correct because you are fallible, and you do not always interpret in context. However, the Biblicist is infallible and thus ALWAYS without exception interprets scripture in context. In fact, he is the only human to have that ability since Christ.

So, to make sure that your interpretations are in context and that you are not getting your views and doctrines from demons, run those views past the Biblicist. He will either affirm your views or set you straight regarding the correct view, being that he has the gift of infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture in its immediate and thus correct context.

Just think, if I had known the Biblicist all those many years ago, I would not have had to go through all that I have gone through, including my education. I could have saved much time and money and gone straight to the infallible source of Biblical interpretation - the Biblicist himself!

How fortunate we are indeed to have been graced with such illumination, spiritual ability, and giftedness on this forum! We are truly blessed above all other forums, and indeed all of Christianity.

[edited]

 

I agree (to a degree). I say that both ways (mine and yours) are plausible methods of interpretation.

Where we run into trouble with your "context" method is, with OT scripture.

The OT scriptures are scattered in their composition. The rule of "context" isn't as applicable to the OT scriptures as it is to the new. A lot of the NT scriptures are epistles. These epistles are not scattered (if we call the apocalypse an "epistle", then I guess there is the exception of the apocalypse).

The OT prophets wrote what they did from movement of the Holy Ghost, as you have quoted (2Pet. 1:20-21). It wasn't their own interpretation. The Mystery of Christ, as well, wasn't revealed to them. It is now revealed, "and by the scriptures of [those] prophets [who wrote what they did from movement of the Holy Ghost, in a scattered manner, not their own interpretation]" (Rom. 16:25, KJV). Their scriptures were lacking organization (Isa. 28:10). Paul's command to Timothy through that same Holy Ghost, was to "rightly divide" the scriptures. Timothy, as well as we, in distinction to the OT prophets, have the revelation of the mystery.

Well, we do know that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. A lot of truth was lost through the dark ages. Before this, all the Church Fathers were dispensational. There was probably a lot less ambiguities in their time than there is now. I think that dispensationalism elucidates a lot of ambiguities in scripture.

We can do the same thing as the apostles did with the OT scriptures and "rightly divide" it. Division requires separation of pieces to go to their proper group. Deductive reasoning is our aid. I think that people like J. Dwight Pentecost and Arnold Fruchtenbaum and John Darby have done excellent work on division/organization of the Word.

 

Why the caps?

 

Ever heard of Justin Martyr?

 

Biblicist, if I may, I am going to give you some criticism.

I read a lot in your posts of how quick you are to anger.

People don't like conversing with a man like that: "Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away wrath" (Pr. 29:8, KJV), "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous" (Pr. 27:4, KJV).

The wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God.

Tone it down a notch and speak like a gentleman.

There's nothing wrong with obeying Proverbs 26:4-5:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (KJV).​

This shouldn't violate James 1:20 though.

 

To prove my point, how both our methods are plausible, let's go to Ephesians 5:4. In it we find a word that makes its only appearance in the Bible: "εὐτραπελία".

How do you interpret such a word? Of course, immediate context says that whatever this word is, it's "not convenient" (Eph. 5:4, KJV). But is that all? surely there is a meaning to this word, otherwise Paul would've left this word out in his epistle.

It turns out, that in extrabiblical literature, we read, as well, of one religious poet Pindar (c. 522–443 BC) using this word in a negative sense. The usage of the word in his work (Nemean Ode 4. 101) is evidence that this word can denote language as well as deed.

So we know that this word, denoting "vain lightness", as Arnold's article which is referenced below, will put it, can denote such vanity in deed and word.

I think that, if we consult other scriptures like Proverbs 10:23 and Proverbs 26:18-19, that Paul is condemning the kind of mischievous sporting, as is all mischievous sporting, that is done in the spirit of disorder.

Arnold, M. (1916). Eutrapelia, retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/209/1189.html​

 

I think you misread me.

I did say "as well":

This would denote that I am stating another different point.

 

And I'm sure they would probably return the favor and say the same thing about you.