1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Source of False Doctrine

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think that the scriptures tell us that it's ok to read extrabiblical literature, as I have shown in my wikipedia link. But I think that the scriptures are the full measure of where we are to find sound doctrine and principles and etc. that judge every other literature out there. Like you say, scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation. If Plato says something that aligns with the scriptures, but then says something somewhere else that doesn't align with the scriptures, then I believe that the scriptures have authority over Plato. He just happens to be right in whatever regard it is, but not about everything.

    ...No I'm not. I think you need to read my posts again. I am not going to repeat. We're both men and we both have eyes capable of reading. I shouldn't have to repeat anything.
     
  2. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah. Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children...there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity with the Old Testament event...The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons they will never see again and so the Old Testament passage is applied to the New Testament event".

    Fruchtenbaum, A (2001). Israelology. San Antonio, TX, USA: Ariel Ministries. (Original work published 1989). p. 844.​

    Matthew only quoted that portion of the Jeremiah passage that has similarity to what is being fulfilled during the time he writes about. The rest of Jeremiah's passage bears no resemblance to Matthew's account. "Rightly dividing" scripture, we come to such a conclusion. In order to divide, one must put some of the whole into one group, and the other of the whole into another group, that's what division is. If we are to say that the whole context of Jeremiah is fulfilled the same time that Matthew indicates the section of Jeremiah, we are wrongly dividing the scriptures. The "context" rule must be discarded.

    Concerning Psalm 69,

    ESV
    Save me, O God!
    For the waters have come up to my neck.
    2 I sink in deep mire,
    where there is no foothold;
    I have come into deep waters,
    and the flood sweeps over me.
    3 I am weary with my crying out;
    my throat is parched.
    My eyes grow dim
    with waiting for my God.​

    This is speaking of Christ in Sheol. There are other threads on here where I have proved that Christ was in Sheol.

    What I haven't wrote much on in those threads is the fact that Sheol is beyond the water.

    Matthew 12:39-40 seems to indicate this, but there are other scriptural indications. Romans 10:6-7 and its quotation of Deuteronomy 30:12-13 shows this. Romans 10:7 says that the place Christ went to, which was Hades/Sheol (Acts 2:25, 27), is "the deep" (KJV), and says that this place is where Christ descended to when He died. Deuteronomy 30:13 tells us that the place is "beyond the sea" (KJV).

    Therefore, Christ was in the heart of the earth (Mt. 12:40), descended to Hades (Rom. 10:7; Acts 2:27), which was "beyond the sea" (Dt. 30:13, KJV).

    These first verses of Psalm 69 are describing Christ's experience in Hades, which was "beyond the sea" (Dt. 30:13, KJV), as we can see: "I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me" (Ps. 69:2, ESV) (remember how He said that there was content in the Psalms that concerned Him? - Lk. 24:44).

    4 More in number than the hairs of my head
    are those who hate me without cause;
    mighty are those who would destroy me,
    those who attack me with lies.
    What I did not steal
    must I now restore?
    5 O God, you know my folly;
    the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

    - Bold emphasis mine.​

    John 15:25 says that this was speaking of Christ: "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (KJV).

    However, verse 5 says that this entity sinned. This therefore cannot be referring to Christ before the Church was built. Verse 5 is to be taken "out of context". It is to be "rightly divided" into its proper dispensation. It is speaking of the sins of the Church, which is His body, that Christ prays/intercedes for.

    6 Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
    O Lord God of hosts;
    let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
    O God of Israel.​

    This (v. 6) is still speaking of the Church, Christ's body.

    7 For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
    that dishonor has covered my face.
    8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
    an alien to my mother's sons.​

    The apostle, tells us that Christ's brethren didn't believe in Him (John 7:5).

    9 For zeal for your house has consumed me,
    and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.​

    The apostles remembered this verse, when Christ went to the temple at passover and overthrew the tables (John 2:14-17). Paul also tells us that this is speaking of Christ (Rom. 15:3).

    Now, if we take a step back for a moment, we will see that this whole psalm is quite unchronological in nature, is it not?

    At first, it is speaking of Christ being in Sheol. This happened after Christ's ministry, where the latter verses, like verses 8-9 were fulfilled. We are forced to "rightly divide" this psalm into its proper divisions, without paying attention to chronology and context.

    10 When I wept and humbled my soul with fasting,
    it became my reproach.
    11 When I made sackcloth my clothing,
    I became a byword to them.
    12 I am the talk of those who sit in the gate,
    and the drunkards make songs about me.

    13 But as for me, my prayer is to you, O Lord.
    At an acceptable time, O God,
    in the abundance of your steadfast love answer me in your saving faithfulness.
    14 Deliver me
    from sinking in the mire;
    let me be delivered from my enemies
    and from the deep waters.
    15 Let not the flood sweep over me,
    or the deep swallow me up,
    or the pit close its mouth over me.


    Now, it goes back to Christ being in Sheol.

    16 Answer me, O Lord, for your steadfast love is good;
    according to your abundant mercy, turn to me.
    17 Hide not your face from your servant;
    for I am in distress; make haste to answer me.
    18 Draw near to my soul, redeem me;
    ransom me because of my enemies!

    19 You know my reproach,
    and my shame and my dishonor;
    my foes are all known to you.
    20 Reproaches have broken my heart,
    so that I am in despair.
    I looked for pity, but there was none,
    and for comforters, but I found none.
    21 They gave me poison for food,
    and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.​

    Now it is speaking of Christ on the cross (John 19:29-30).

    And now, we get into Judas/Israel:

    22 Let their own table before them become a snare;
    and when they are at peace, let it become a trap.
    23 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see,
    and make their loins tremble continually.
    24 Pour out your indignation upon them,
    and let your burning anger overtake them.​

    In Romans 11:9-10, the Apostle tells us this is speaking of Israel. But the next verse is speaking of Judas:

    25 May their camp be a desolation;
    let no one dwell in their tents.​

    The Apostle tells us (Acts 1:20), that this is speaking of Judas. This is "out of context".

    I think that the Apostles had the "right division" principle in mind in such OT passages as Psalm 69.

    26 For they persecute him whom you have struck down,
    and they recount the pain of those you have wounded.
    27 Add to them punishment upon punishment;
    may they have no acquittal from you.
    28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living;
    let them not be enrolled among the righteous.

    29 But I am afflicted and in pain;
    let your salvation, O God, set me on high!

    30 I will praise the name of God with a song;
    I will magnify him with thanksgiving.
    31 This will please the Lord more than an ox
    or a bull with horns and hoofs.
    32 When the humble see it they will be glad;
    you who seek God, let your hearts revive.
    33 For the Lord hears the needy
    and does not despise his own people who are prisoners.

    34 Let heaven and earth praise him,
    the seas and everything that moves in them.
    35 For God will save Zion
    and build up the cities of Judah,
    and people shall dwell there and possess it;
    36 the offspring of his servants shall inherit it,
    and those who love his name shall dwell in it.​

    And now we get into the millennium. Way off topic, way out of context.
     
    #42 Jope, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2013
  3. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm basically saying that it's possible for God to reveal a mystery by the [right division of] scriptures (Rom. 16:26; 2Tim. 2:15) that are unchronological and scattered (see my previous post), and still deny authorship of confusion.
     
    #43 Jope, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2013
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Are you familiar with the telescopic principle of prophecy? It is used quite commonly by Old and New Testament prophets. It is taking a near event and describing it predictively with much more details than actually occur in that near event but which look at a far event for the ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy. Hence, when New Testament writers apply a former prophet's predictions that have already come to pass incompletely in a former event to a yet future event, this is not jerking a text out of context but a perfect legitimate contextual based use of scripture as the original prophecy was designed to intentionally find ultimate fulfillment in the more distant event rather than in the nearer event to the prophet.

    For example, Daniel predicts the abomination of desolation by Antiochus Epiphany and the nearer event to his time, yet Christ applies it to A.D. 70 the near event of his time but with ultimate fulfillment in the Anti-Christ at the end of the age. It was designed by God in the mouth of Daniel to be applied to all three events with only its full application at the end of the age.

    However, Jesus did not jerk a text out of context but used the text in perfect keeping with the original intent of the prophecy by Daniel. This is the same principle in Jeremiah's prophecy. It was designed by God for multiple applications with its final fulfillment recognized by Matthew. Hence, Matthew is not jerking a text out of context but recognizing the original intent of God's prophecy given to Jeremiah that included this ultimate application.

    This is simply not true! You are making this conclusion as an uninspired man who simply manufactures out of your own mind and wisdom that the rest of Jeremiah's prophecy "bears no resemblance to Matthew's" as far as YOU CAN TELL but you are not God, nor inspired by God. I would suggest that the original intent of Jeremiah's prophecy was designed by God IN CONTEXT to be applied just as Matthew is led by the Spirit of God. It does not contradict the context of Jeremiah.

    For example, the coming of Christ into the world is near in prophetic time to the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome just as the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon was to Jeremiah. Thus the same kind of historical context in regard to the same kind of destruction of the same city. Hence, the overall context of Jeremiah does have similarites to that of Matthew and the coming of Christ in regard to Jerusalem. So rightly dividing the word of God does have application to Jeremiah and Matthew. The rest of the context in Jeremiah does have application to the context of Matthew and the coming of Christ before the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, the very same kind of destruction facing Jeremiah in his near future. So you are failing to recognize the overall context similarity that Jeremiah's prophecy has with Matthew's application. You are also failing to recognize a general principle of prophetic interpretation or the common telescopic principle of a near event to the prophet as an incomplete type of a yet future event(s). So you are seriously in error when you claim the context principle must be thrown out. Nothing in the Jeremiah context is contradictory to the use by Matthew. The overall historical context of Jeremiah to the coming destruction of Jerusalem is similar to the historical context of Matthew and the near coming destruction of Jerusalem.
     
    #44 The Biblicist, Jun 21, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2013
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Again you fail to understand another simple rule of heremeneutics. David is a Messanic type of Christ but not everything stated concerning David fits Christ. Hence, verse 5 is not jerked out of its context but you are failing to understand that Messanic contexts are not designed by God for everything stated to fit the antittype. This is a simple rule of interpretation in regard to Messanic prophecies which you are ignoring. Hence, New Testament writers are not jerking texts out of context they are simply RIGHTLY DIVIDING the context on a historical versus propheticall contextual basis. Your position is a serious error due to ignorance of simple prinicples of contextual based interpretation in regard to messanic prophecies. All details in a Messanic prophecy ARE BY CONTEXTUAL DESIGN not intended to be applied to Christ but intentionally have some contextual application to the type being used and the type being used is ALWAYS INFERIOR to the antitype. Contextual based interpretation distinguishes between the two by exactly how you determined that not all aspects of the context are applicable to the antitype.
     
  6. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matthew took a sentence of Jeremiah out of context.

    Here is the definition of context:

    the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

    "context." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2013.
    Web. 21 June, 2013.​

    The surrounding sentences of the sentence that Matthew quotes out of Jeremiah does not "throw light on [the meaning of the quotation in Matthew]".
     
    #46 Jope, Jun 21, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2013
  7. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ...

    Are you familiar with the event that Christ speaks of in the Olivet discourse about the abomination of desolation?
     
  8. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you think my argument is that we are to "jerk" things out of context, then you are mistaken.

    Quit trying to make my argument look weak by building straw men with these kind of words.

    You still haven't given an answer about the "random" question of mine.
     
    #48 Jope, Jun 21, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2013
  9. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I spy with my little eye a straw man.
     
  10. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How come "n Jeremiah, the event takes place in Ramah, north of Jerusalem, but in Matthew, it takes place in Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem" (Fruchtenbaum, 2001, p. 844)?

    How come "n Matthew, they died, but in Jeremiah they are still alive and are going into captivity" (Fruchtenbaum, 2001, p. 844)?

    Fruchtenbaum, A (2001). Israelology. San Antonio, TX, USA: Ariel Ministries. (Original work published 1989)​
     
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481

    Do you know the difference between a prophetic context, historical context, grammatical context, immediate context, overall context??? Apparently not!
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    There is more to the context rule than what you are trying to restrict it to. There is prophetic context, historical context, word use context, grammatical context, theme or topical context.

    Obviously the historical context is different between Jeremiah and Matthew. But even the writer you quote sees a similarity in the two historical contexts. Hence, it is not jerked out of the thematical context.


    Again, you don't understand Messanic prophecies. Again, Messanic prophecies use imperfect types for the antitype. The imperfections are ascribed to the type not the antitype. Nothing is out of context.

    When an uninspired finite man attempts to tackle the infinite mind of God, as you are attempting, it can only end in error and it is error to state that God led his prophets to jerk things out of context. He did no such thing. You need to broaden your understanding of "context" to include more than your Webster dictionary model. Again, there is a difference between thematical, prophetic, grammatical, historical, cultural contexts.
     
  13. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
  14. Jope

    Jope Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't restrict the context rule to anything.

    Biblicist,

    Would you continue dialogue with someone who claimed that you believe that Elephants could fly when all you told them was that you took a walk to the zoo?
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The fact is that you are forcing your view upon Messanic contexts. Messanic contexts by their very nature include the historical type and its antitype. Some verses in the context apply to the type only while others go beyond the historical context to the messanic antitype. Some have multiple applications due to a related contextual feature with the primary antitype. So your Messanic texts are simply pretexts due to your own lack of knowledge in dealing with Messanic prophetic contexts.
     
    #55 The Biblicist, Jun 22, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2013
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Yes you are! You are denying contextual types and attempting to force your view by use of one type of context defined by Webster. Webster did not write the Bible, God did. There are more than one kind of contextual type. There is the prophetic telescopic context which is similar to the Messanic prophetic context where quotations from it do not have to relate to the historical context but are by design extend beyond the historical context sometimes to two or more future applications.

    There is a thematic context, where the historical context only provides an example of a certain use or theme which is used in an entirely different historical context in the same related manner but not the same historical context.

    There is grammatical context where certain words, phrases are defined by grammatical definitions in the immediate syntax or related syntax in other historical contexts which historical contexts may have nothing in common but the grammatical usage.

    There is always a contextual based relationship even though it may not be apparent to men without much labor to discover. God is not the author of arbritrary confusion.
     
  17. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you say it, it must be true due to your condition of infallibility.

    Fortunately, there is ample evidence on the forum to prove otherwise.

    Even when I agree with you, which is more often than you might think, that doesn't change the contempt I have for your puffed-up, arrogant, self-righteous belittling and attacks on others.
     
    #57 Thomas Helwys, Jun 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2013
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just to mention one source of false doctrine..............John Calvin
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    This is not a theard about me. If you cannot contribute to the OP then practice what you preach as what you are writing is evidence of a "puffed-up, arrogant, self-righteous belittling and attacks on others"
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please itemize his "false doctrines." Obviously as Baptists we would disagree with his view of Baptism and church order. Aside from those categories what do you have an issue with? Compared with a lot of so-called preachers of today --John Calvin's theology is still top notch.
     
Loading...