Question about Scriptural Interpretation

[Dino246]

You simply define the word prophecy differently as in modern day prophecy. What is that? Its why you keep repeating yourself. God is no longer bringing new prophecy after any manner to confirm any action. Three times when experiences lies coming in his fleshly mind Christ said, as it is written it establishes the one source of faith by which we can believe God who remains without form.

Experence is not the validator of unseen spiritual truth. We walk by faith(His ) it works in us

My comment is not about our different definitions of prophecy. Rather, it's about your comment, "If any man say I had a dream, I had a out of body experience, my hand itched I made a noise, or have fallen backward we are to believe not."

Nobody here has claimed such things. Yet you seem to believe that everyone who speaks in tongues or happens to have experienced any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is seeking such things and is using them as proof. It's ridiculous to keep claiming that people do something that they don't do, don't claim to do, and actually state that they don't do. You can't quote anyone making such claims, but you continually assert that such are the claims made. Either quote the claims or cease with the ridiculous assertions.

Regarding prophecy, God is still speaking. He isn't adding to Scripture though. That's where you are locked in a box of your own making; you cannot accept that God is still speaking because you believe that all prophecy from God becomes Scripture, despite the fact that Scripture itself teaches otherwise.

You say I'm repeating myself? Only in response to your repetition of error.

 

[Chester]

0ops, something went wrong.
We are told that it is God and God alone who decides about our salvation so what we decide about it has absolutely no affect on the truth. We can let it be in God's hands.

What is the truth that we are to know is Christ. We are to die with Christ and accept His payment for our sin, then take on the body of Christ. That would mean that we are to live like Christ, know the laws of the Lord and live by them. This is our basic fundamental truth, all other scripture falls into it. If we see something different, something that disagrees with it we can know we are not understanding that scripture and we must look until we do understand.

The above is a copied post from another thread, but I put it here because it exactly illustrates the principle I have been talking about on this thread!

The poster above insists that we take a basic "fundamental truth" (in this case that it is God and God alone who decides our salvation) and then says that "all other Scripture falls into it". If you find a Scripture that disagrees with it, put the overall Scriptural fundamental truth as the core of truth -

This philosophy definitely follows the second idea I gave: see post #1.

I strongly disagree with this approach!. We need to first interpret each Scripture simply for what it says in its context.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I don't understand that.

How can a person be saved but not know the Righteousness of God?

How can a person be saved but still have the vail over their eyes?


It just doesn't make any sense to me. Not saying that it isn't possible...

When we have been regenerated and given a new heart, we start our spiritual journey as babes in Christ learning more and more as we study and hear the word preached. There is a deliverance (salvation) from our lack of knowledge, as being babes in Christ, when the indwelling Holy Spirit (the savor) reveals the truths of the scriptures we are studying. The Holy Spirit will not reveal until we have denied ourselves (figuring it out by our own intellect). We will never understand all of the scriptures to their fullness and will always strive to understand more.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I don't understand that.

How can a person be saved but not know the Righteousness of God?

How can a person be saved but still have the vail over their eyes?


It just doesn't make any sense to me. Not saying that it isn't possible...

There are many on this forum who do not know the righteousness of Jesus's completed work on the cross, when he said "it is finished". They are still going about trying to establish their own righteousness by their works, one of the works "accepting Christ's offering", Christ offered himself as an offering to God, for God's acceptance and not to man for man's acceptance.

 

[NayborBear]

The above is a copied post from another thread, but I put it here because it exactly illustrates the principle I have been talking about on this thread!

The poster above insists that we take a basic "fundamental truth" (in this case that it is God and God alone who decides our salvation) and then says that "all other Scripture falls into it". If you find a Scripture that disagrees with it, put the overall Scriptural fundamental truth as the core of truth -

This philosophy definitely follows the second idea I gave: see post #1.

I strongly disagree with this approach!. We need to first interpret each Scripture simply for what it says in its context.

Ok? If ya want to interpret each scripture simply for what it says?
Interpret this:
Revelation 20
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Now! Tell us? Who DECIDES our Salvation?

Least, that's the way it appears to me!

I'd even bet, there are some, who don't even THINK they have salvation, yet do!

And? Some who THINK they have salvation, and don't!

 

[Chester]

Ok? If ya want to interpret each scripture simply for what it says?
Interpret this:
Revelation 20
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Now! Tell us? Who DECIDES our Salvation?

Least, that's the way it appears to me!

I'd even bet, there are some, who don't even THINK they have salvation, yet do!

And? Some who THINK they have salvation, and don't!

That is a simple one: when the book of life is opened in Rev. 20:15 the names of those not listed there are cast into the lake of fire!

That verse says nothing about how the names got there; says nothing about Calvinism or Armininanism; says nothing about how one is saved, etc.!

 

[Blik]

Now! Tell us? Who DECIDES our Salvation?
!

It is God the Father who DECIDES our salvation, for He even decided on the salvation of Christ. 1 Peter 2: 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

Scripture tells us there is no salvation except through Christ but it is God the Father's grace that makes the decision about it.

 

[Dino246]

It is God the Father who DECIDES our salvation, for He even decided on the salvation of Christ. 1 Peter 2: 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

Scripture tells us there is no salvation except through Christ but it is God the Father's grace that makes the decision about it.

Fallacy: category error.

The insults thrown at Jesus fundamentally different than the question of our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ; if we are in Christ, our salvation is certain, because God has already said that it is certain. It is not later subject to the whim of the Father; He is not like that.

The god you describe is like the god of the Moslems, who is capricious and who has no established standard for who goes to (their version of) heaven and who doesn't.

 

[Blik]

Fallacy: category error.

The insults thrown at Jesus fundamentally different than the question of our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ; if we are in Christ, our salvation is certain, because God has already said that it is certain. It is not later subject to the whim of the Father; He is not like that.

The god you describe is like the god of the Moslems, who is capricious and who has no established standard for who goes to (their version of) heaven and who doesn't.

We know that you will not acknowledge any scripture if I post that scripture here. It is your policy.

 

[Blik]

Fallacy: category error.

The insults thrown at Jesus fundamentally different than the question of our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ; if we are in Christ, our salvation is certain, because God has already said that it is certain. It is not later subject to the whim of the Father; He is not like that.

The god you describe is like the god of the Moslems, who is capricious and who has no established standard for who goes to (their version of) heaven and who doesn't.

You have made it a policy to not discuss scripture with me but to discuss your personal animosity. I will not join is such discussions.

 

[Dino246]

You have made it a policy to not discuss scripture with me but to discuss your personal animosity. I will not join is such discussions.

Dear lady, I hold no "personal animosity" towards you. Calling your post fallacious is not at all personal. I just see flawed logic in it. It is unfortunate that you consider rational disagreement in the same light as animosity. I suspect you aren't used to your ideas being examined for their logical soundness. Many people aren't, but it might be better if they were. You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?

You accuse me of not discussing Scripture with you. I have posted Scripture, or at least references to it, several times in my responses to you. Plus, I must ask, what then is the following:

"The insults thrown at Jesus fundamentally different than the question of our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ; if we are in Christ, our salvation is certain, because God has already said that it is certain. It is not later subject to the whim of the Father; He is not like that."

 

[tumeric]

Your second question illustrates "the unpardonable sin" of biblical exegesis from a modern scholarly interpretive perspective because believers who take that approach tend to force their own doctrinal bias into a text to make it fit their preconceived notions. I used to regularly attend the meetings of the top academic biblical convention in the world, the Society of Biblical Literature. I recall a round table on 1 Corinthians for which the participating scholars agreed not to allow their interpretations of specific texts tp be informed by Paul's other epistles. This wise agreement was intended to allow Paul to change his mind and evolve over the years. More importantly, it was intended to see whether and to what extent different insights might be gleaned if the bias of parallel texts from other epistles was provisionally kept out of the picture.

Doctrine should only be affirmed when it is supported by the overall message of the Bible..

Too many people establish a doctrine by just one verse of scripture interpreted in isolation without taking into account the full message of the entire Bible on the matter.

 

[tumeric]

when i read scripture and some particular word , verse , or chapter inspires me i feel it is the HOLY SPIRIT at work or maybe a protecting angel from heaven / my belief in G-D was strengthened by reading the prophecies in the OT that were in fruition in then NT , namely JOHN THE BAPTIST , VIRGIN BIRTH , MIRACLES OF JESUS , CRUCIFICTION OF JESUS , AND RESURECTION AND ETC / it is PAUL who states in some of his letters arguments are trite at times of interpretation