Calvinists are preaching a false message .

[phil36]

Using what I explained already ( a consistent hernanutical approach drawn from the text ) We try understand what the text actually says and mark that down . We should know that we have bias and presuppositions that we constantly need to realise that hinders our understanding of what it'says and not what its claimed to ' teach ' . If you have learned Calvinism this would put you at a severe disadvantage, because now you have a ideological set of glasses which you see the text through. I would say how we know is based on consistency and context . Trusting we can believe what it says apart from a system .

Hi throughfaith,


So how do you know you are right in biblical understanding compared to the next guy who says the exact same thing to you as you said above, yet has a different view than you on scripture?

Take the end times for an example. If their view differs from yours are they giving a false message? why or why not?

 

[throughfaith]

Hi throughfaith,


So how do you know you are right in biblical understanding compared to the next guy who says the exact same thing to you as you said above, yet has a different view than you on scripture?

Take the end times for an example. If their view differs from yours are they giving a false message? why or why not?

Ultimately there is only one correct meaning of the text . Thats the starting assumption I have . I start with the bible is God's word and God cannot lie . I believe we can understand the discoverable meaning of the text given the approach I've explained .Which is said in the bible itself how to read and understand. Now I do have things which i hold in probability space on certain things in the bible as I mature and grow . I don't claim exhaustive understanding and knowledge. I can only go to the text with someone and see how we are both coming to the text. I believe if we can do this honestly, preparing to drop any presupposition s we can agree that on what the text says .

 

[phil36]

Ultimately there is only one correct meaning of the text . Thats the starting assumption I have . I start with the bible is God's word and God cannot lie . I believe we can understand the discoverable meaning of the text given the approach I've explained .Which is said in the bible itself how to read and understand. Now I do have things which i hold in probability space on certain things in the bible as I mature and grow . I don't claim exhaustive understanding and knowledge. I can only go to the text with someone and see how we are both coming to the text. I believe if we can do this honestly, preparing to drop any presupposition s we can agree that on what the text says .

So you would agree that basically the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself? ie. scripture interprets scripture? and not from the imaginations of man.

 

[throughfaith]

Hi throughfaith,


So how do you know you are right in biblical understanding compared to the next guy who says the exact same thing to you as you said above, yet has a different view than you on scripture?

Take the end times for an example. If their view differs from yours are they giving a false message? why or why not?

Some things don't effect as much as others and

So you would agree that basically the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself? ie. scripture interprets scripture? and not from the imaginations of man.

Yes , but even that is a bit slippery , because what some take as ' scripture interpreting scripture ' resembles pulling isolated verses from all over the place, mush them together and claim this is ' harmonising ' .

 

[throughfaith]

So you would agree that basically the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself? ie. scripture interprets scripture? and not from the imaginations of man.

I would go with ',what does the text say ' approach. What i learned as a new believer was rigid wilful assertions of doctrines and statements of faith .

 

[throughfaith]

So you would agree that basically the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself? ie. scripture interprets scripture? and not from the imaginations of man.

The discovery of what the text says is simply in the text itself . The context ect . I've just posted a thread today on Romans 5 . Let's see how it goes with the ' what does the text say ' approach.

 

[phil36]

Hi through faith,

Yes , but even that is a bit slippery , because what some take as ' scripture interpreting scripture ' resembles pulling isolated verses from all over the place, mush them together and claim this is ' harmonising ' .

I think so far we both agree that scripture interprets scripture. or else how would you know someone is pulling verses out of context? Some people take one chapter and read their whole theology into it..that's wrong!


Sola Scriptura.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is needed for salvation is plain for all to read. yet not all things are as plain to understand?

would you agree or disagree?

 

[throughfaith]

Hi through faith,





I think so far we both agree that scripture interprets scripture. or else how would you know someone is pulling verses out of context? Some people take one chapter and read their whole theology into it..that's wrong!


Sola Scriptura.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is needed for salvation is plain for all to read. yet not all things are as plain to understand?

would you agree or disagree?

I think scripture is plain to understand. Especially on salvation . Of course if we don't mature then some of the ' deeper ' things that Paul spoke amoung the mature cannot be understood.

 

[phil36]

What is needed for salvation is plain for all to read. yet not all things are as plain to understand?

would you agree or disagree?

I think scripture is plain to understand. Especially on salvation . Of course if we don't mature then some of the ' deeper ' things that Paul spoke amoung the mature cannot be understood.

Glad to hear you agreeing with a part of reformed theology

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto allp) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)

(p) II Pet. 3:16.
(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.

(Westminster confession of faith)

 

[throughfaith]

Glad to hear you agreeing with a part of reformed theology

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto allp) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)

(p) II Pet. 3:16.
(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.

(Westminster confession of faith)

I just meant that carnal fleshy behaviour and letting the worlds wisdom into your mind as a believer ,you will not understand the deeper things of God. This is practical and self evident.