Looking for serious Bible students - hard to find?

[BobRyan]

I am getting the impression that the bible saying: I will give you a new covenant, it will not be like this one. Means same old, same old...

Eph 6:2 "'honor your father and mother' which is the first commandment with a promise" within that still-valid unit of TEN.

Is your complaint with the text??

Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

No Bible scholars that I know of have written that Jeremiah and his readers believed the "The house of Israel and the house of Judah" were most definitely rejecting the idea that God's Commandments - God's Ten Commandments are excluded from God calls "My Law".

Is your complaint with all Bible scholars??

That same Jer 31 New Covenant is quoted verbatim by Paul in Heb 8:6-12 --

Is your complaint with Paul in Heb 8?

Most Christian denominations have statements published about the fact that the moral law of God is unchanging and that they are written on the heart under the New Covenant.

hence this statement

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"
[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]many others as well..

====================

Even under the New Covenant it is a sin to "take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Even under the New Covenant we are to "honor mother and father" Lev 19:18
Even under the New Covenant we are to "Love God with all our heart" Deut 6:5

If you have a bible detail in the texts we are looking at that makes your case - go ahead and post it, because as it is now your response to the post of the 1 Peter 1:10-11 text was to provide no text and point to no detail in any text at all.

 

[Strong in Him]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

I would say that I'm serious about the Bible, and, I hope, open to being challenged by what the text says.

I am currently trying this discussion idea out in the prophecy forum) of CF -

Yes - but the trouble with that, for me, is:
a) I'm not interested in discussing end times.
b) you've asked for a serious Bible student but posted 2 YouTube clips of someone else's sermon. Why not just post the Bible passage so that we can look at it together?

Do you want a serious Bible student or someone to discuss end times with?

 

[BobRyan]

I would say that I'm serious about the Bible, and, I hope, open to being challenged by what the text says.

Yes - but the trouble with that, for me, is:
a) I'm not interested in discussing end times.
b) you've asked for a serious Bible student but posted 2 YouTube clips of someone else's sermon. Why not just post the Bible passage so that we can look at it together?

Do you want a serious Bible student or someone to discuss end times with?

That OP was just an example of a thread trying to get to an objective discussion of a Bible teaching that pays attention to the details in the text under discussion. I am not proposing a prophecy discussion here in the GT forum.

My question for someone in your position as you describe in your post - is whether you have found it hard (or easy) to get an objective serious response to a thread you have posted where you quote a chapter or a few verses and give your understanding it -- then are looking for serious consideration of what you posted.

Where "serious" means "not ignoring every detail in the text I just posted", where serious means "not insisting that we talk about another chapter of the bible instead", where "serious" means giving a serious POV on what those same texts mean as they exist in the chapter being quoted.

 

[Strong in Him]

That OP was just an example of a thread trying to get to an objective discussion of a Bible teaching that pays attention to the details in the text under discussion. I am not proposing a prophecy discussion here in the GT forum.

Ok.

My question for someone in your position as you describe in your post - is whether you have found it hard (or easy) to get an objective serious response to a thread you have posted where you quote a chapter or a few verses and give your understanding it -- then are looking for serious consideration of what you posted.

I've started very few threads during my time here at CF; I usually comment on what others write.
So it's hard to say, because when I comment on a thread, the OP has often made up their mind about what they post. For example, "ours is the only true church", "X is the only true version of the Bible", "Christmas is pagan", "I'm writing this to teach the truth about .......". Years ago there were a lot of threads on healing over on the Spirit filled/charismatic forum. There have been many threads about women's ministry - though sometimes the OP has been asking a question.
Ironically, at least one of the threads that I have started has been a question about end times - and then I get about as many different views as there are people.

Where "serious" means "not ignoring every detail in the text I just posted", where serious means "not insisting that we talk about another chapter of the bible instead", where "serious" means giving a serious POV on what those same texts mean as they exist in the chapter being quoted.

Serious Bible study, for me, means discussing a text in context, doing exegesis and not just throwing out verses, or parts of verses, that prove a point. I know I've done that myself at times. But on the other hand I have spent much time searching Scripture to find out the context of what others post, even looking at my interlinear Greek NT sometimes, to see if the verses do mean what they say that they mean.
I hope that if I quoted a random verse to prove a point, I was challenged to read it in context and so on and that resulted in me changing my mind, that I'd be brave enough to admit it.

 

[BobRyan]

Ironically, at least one of the threads that I have started has been a question about end times - and then I get about as many different views as there are people.

yeah - that forum area is a tough one - like herding cats as some say. As many views as there are people posting in some cases.

But imagine if they were to calm down for a moment and take a given proposal from scripture seriously - looking at what is posted and what the text says to see if that works

Serious Bible study, for me, means discussing a text in context, doing exegesis and not just throwing out verses, or parts of verses, that prove a point.

If 2 verses in a chapter seem to make point-A and that idea is not my preference I will usually show some objection to how they are being used - but at the end of the day I can't simply dismiss those texts as if they don't exist. I have to show a better view of them as they read.. in the chapter.

I know I've done that myself at times. But on the other hand I have spent much time searching Scripture to find out the context of what others post, even looking at my interlinear Greek NT sometimes, to see if the verses do mean what they say that they mean.

Which is the right way to go and as you note - that is a rare feature to find at times.

I hope that if I quoted a random verse to prove a point, I was challenged to read it in context and so on and that resulted in me changing my mind, that I'd be brave enough to admit it.

Amen to that.

So when someone says "lets look at this other text instead" that usually is a dead giveaway that their view has no real solution for the text just quoted. But if they are saying that a set of texts (including the one quoted) make a logical case for point-B then I have to consider that maybe my "point-A" needs more review, might even be wrong etc.

Exegesis is very important and can be very helping in combating one's own bias.

 

[Davy]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

It still depends upon what your goal is, and 'how' you come to an understanding of Scripture in God's Word. I'll use Apostle Paul as an example.

Saul (later Paul) was originally studied under the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel. Yet Saul was a follower of the Pharisees, and was hunting down Christians on his way to Damascus (Acts 9). He was a Bible scholar of the Old Testament.

And the Old Testament Scriptures spoke prophecies about Jesus' coming, and even God through His servant David prophesied many of the events of Christ's crucifixion in Psalms 22, even about the soldiers casting lots upon Jesus' robes.

So why... didn't the Pharisees recognize those Old Testament prophecies about Messiah when Jesus fulfilled them? Even Christ's Apostles didn't understand many of those prophecies until Jesus showed them. And Paul said Jesus showed him things too after his conversion.

My point with all that is..., that the Bible student can have all the education in the world, and intellectual maturity, but IF God has not called them and given them understanding in His Word, then they will be like Saul when he was following men's doctrines of the Pharisees.

And only someone that God has... called, and given understanding in His Word, is able to recognize the Saul types.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

It still depends upon what your goal is, and 'how' you come to an understanding of Scripture in God's Word. I'll use Apostle Paul as an example.

Paul is a good example of someone who confronted with an idea that was the opposite of his view - changed to accept the one contrary not only to his own view but the view of his magesterium.

the Old Testament Scriptures spoke prophecies about Jesus' coming, and even God through His servant David prophesied many of the events of Christ's crucifixion in Psalms 22, even about the soldiers casting lots upon Jesus' robes.

True - he needed to accept scriptures that were somewhat inconvenient for his prior way of thinking.

So why... didn't the Pharisees recognize those Old Testament prophecies about Messiah when Jesus fulfilled them?

Because they had developed traditions against them . They had an idea of what the Messiah was supposed to do (free them from Roman oppression) and Jesus was not doing that. He did not come as a great general to lead their armies -- yet they expected it.

My point with all that is..., that the Bible student can have all the education in the world, and intellectual maturity,

Indeed in your examples - they were not mentally ill or deficient but they rejected views not inline with their bias.

but IF God has not called them and given them understanding in His Word, then they will be like Saul when he was following men's doctrines of the Pharisees.

And only someone that God has... called, and given understanding in His Word, is able to recognize the Saul types.

Many people in this forum area of the board have proposed some POV and posted a Bible chapter or a few texts that seem to support it.

Responses can be of several forms.
1. As I look at those verses I see how you get to your conclusion - but am not convinced this is the best explanation because of x,y,z.
2. I refuse to actually quote anything in your post that affirms the conclusion you are making - lets talk about some other text more in line with my POV.
3. I have some wild idea that I don't post texts to support, but I like to post it whenever your idea comes up.
4. Only a bad person would post those texts as the do not seem to support my POV
5. I see how those verses appear to make your case - I need to look into this more.
6. Here are some Bible texts on that same subject that don't appear to allow your conclusion, and so here is a better more consistent way to address each one of those verses in our OP.

 

[Davy]

BobRyan said:

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

I don't agree. There's no need for someone to change a Biblical view as long as they have stayed in the simplicity of Scripture, verifying per God's way.

Paul is a good example of someone who confronted with an idea that was the opposite of his view - changed to accept the one contrary not only to his own view but the view of his magesterium.

That above kind of thinking about Apostle Paul is totally... irrelevant. Lord Jesus Christ struck Saul down blind on the road to Damascus, got Saul's attention first. Then He let Saul know Who was speaking to him. And when The LORD wants to get your attention and for you to know it is Him, there is no way the person is not going to understand. And those in Christ don't need to use words like "magesterium" to label God's authority in His Word.

True - he needed to accept scriptures that were somewhat inconvenient for his prior way of thinking.

That's funny, because Saul was following the Pharisees in 'ignorance', even as he admitted later in His Epistles. It was not just because of the existence of traditions of men by the Jews; it was because God had not YET 'called' Saul into His service. When Jesus said that Saul was His "chosen vessel", that meant that Saul was a chosen elect by Christ, even when Saul was in ignorance and not yet following Christ. But when it came time, Jesus directly converted Saul on the road to Damascus, and God doing that is a sign that they are a chosen elect.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with all this intellectualism and traditions thing you are trying to create. No one can come to a true understanding of God's Word without His help by The Holy Spirit. Those who think they can by using men's traditions and intellectualism are simply tooting man's horn to nowhere.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think the most serious Bible students tend to be seminarians in Orthodox / Eastern Catholic, traditional Reformed/Presbyterian, traditional Lutheran, traditional Latin Rite Catholic (FSSP and ICKSP) and traditional Anglican seminaries. Places like St. Vladimir’s, Westminster, Nashotah House, etc.

Conversely the least serious Bible students tend to be those associated with heterodox denominations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses* and Mormons, who in the former case go so far as to modify Scripture to say what they want it to say (in the infamous case of their New World Bible’s “translation” of John 1, done in such a way so that their Arian doctrine would not be at risk of being compromised by any pesky verses that happen to disprove it, although even then J/W Arianism and other related J/W doctrines are such a veritable house of cards that they can be proven false even using a corrupted Watchtower/New World Bible), and in the latter case supplement Scripture with apocryphal nonsense elevated to canonicity which has the effect of warping the meaning of Scriptural texts if one accepts it as legitimate, although like the J/Ws, the resultant Mormon doctrine is nonsensical and self-contradictory, like most of the false religions of the world, such as Islam. It seems that the demons who inspire the Book of Mormon, the Quran etc just aren’t all that skilled when it comes to creative writing, particularly in critical areas like grammar, logic and narrative cohesion.

An honorable mention should go to the students of Old and New Testament classes at certain far left liberal seminaries like Harvard Divinity School and the General Theologival Seminary in New York City for reading the scriptures and knowing the scriptures in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as appropriate, and other languages as well in translation, yet despite impressive amounts of study in both textual and higher criticism and as much a knowledge of what Sacred Scripture says as anyone else, they still choose to voluntarily ignore it when it contradicts their preconceived notions concerning homosexuality, abortion, doctor-assisted homicide, or any other cause celebre of the Far Left.

*Amusingly one of the earliest names the J/Ws traded under was something like “The International Association of Bible Students.”

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

Your bible is too short, needs another seven books to be complete

 

[BobRyan]

Your bible is too short, needs another seven books to be complete

1. My New Testament is the same as yours.
2. The Jews wrote the OT not the Catholic Church.
3. My OT has the same content as the Jews have for the Hebrew Bible.

All of that is "another topic" --

But your response is a good example of what I am talking about .. changing topics for example.

 

[BobRyan]

I think the most serious Bible students tend to be seminarians in Orthodox / Eastern Catholic, traditional Reformed/Presbyterian, traditional Lutheran, traditional Latin Rite Catholic (FSSP and ICKSP) and traditional Anglican seminaries. Places like St. Vladimir’s, Westminster, Nashotah House, etc.

That idea is as old as the NT account in John 7

John 7:
44 And some of them wanted to arrest Him, but no one laid hands on Him.
45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” 46 The officers answered, “Never has a man spoken in this way!” 47 The Pharisees then replied to them, “You have not been led astray too, have you? 48 Not one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?

They change from looking at what was said -- to looking instead at "who goes along with it".

So while that kind of solution has a long history - it has not proven reliable. The name of the group is not what determines if their response is serious. (as it turns out)

 

[BobRyan]

By "serious Bible students" I don't just mean "people who agree with my POV".

I mean people who show they are capable of considering a doctrine from the Bible that is not already what they are thinking and can give it serious consideration rather than a response that is of the form "no texts at all -- I just differ with you" or "Lets not look at those texts you posted at all - lets look at something else".

I don't agree. There's no need for someone to change a Biblical view as long as they have stayed in the simplicity of Scripture, verifying per God's way.

My statement above does not say "serious means they change their view no matter what the Bible says to the contrary".

I think we can both see that point.

So I find it a bit odd that your response appears to be to a statement/POV that has not been posted by anyone on this thread as of now... what am I missing?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Paul is a good example of someone who confronted with an idea that was the opposite of his view - changed to accept the one contrary not only to his own view but the view of his magesterium.

That above kind of thinking about Apostle Paul is totally... irrelevant.

Until you notice the topic of this thread and the fact that Paul did in fact change his POV when confronted with facts confirmed in the Bible.
So also did the Bereans in Acts 17:11 based on the same thing.

Lord Jesus Christ struck Saul down blind on the road to Damascus

Paul is informed by a Christian while he was blind - of true doctrine,

Acts 9:
4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told to you what you must do.” 7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints in Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer in behalf of My name.” 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”


then Paul studies scripture for three years.
Gal 1:
15 But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days.

, got Saul's attention first.

No doubt the Holy Spirit gets people's attention, just as the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture.

And when The LORD wants to get your attention and for you to know it is Him, there is no way the person is not going to understand. And those in Christ don't need to use words like "magesterium" to label God's authority in His Word.

Magesterium is not a reference to scripture - it is a reference to the religious leaders that you follow. ("you" being used in the generic sense)

That's funny, because Saul was following the Pharisees in 'ignorance',

Paul says "I AM a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" in the book of Acts when he is placed on trial. So he viewed the teaching of that group as the leaders he was following at the time of his "road to Damascus" journey. He (like the Bereans in Acts 17:11) had to embrace a change that was totally opposed to what his magesterium was dictating for him.

And that was also true of almost everyone he converted to Christianity.

 

[SplendidSeraphim]

I'd like to think of myself as a serious Bible student. I try to understand the Hebrew, I listen to and watch BibleProject, and I try to understand what the Biblical authors intended to say, not necessarily what I am reading into it. With that said, I do believe in sound Biblical interpretation from the Church fathers and those more skilled that I. I hope we can connect.

 

[BobRyan]

I'd like to think of myself as a serious Bible student. I try to understand the Hebrew, I listen to and watch BibleProject, and I try to understand what the Biblical authors intended to say, not necessarily what I am reading into it.

I think Paul was the same sort of Christian - so say we all.

So when confronted with a topic in a thread - is your response to take into account the details in the text that the person is posting - even when those verses appear to you to be inconvenient?

Do you use exegesis as a way to help dampen the effect of your own bias when you look at a given topic and the related Bible texts?

With that said, I do believe in sound Biblical interpretation from the Church fathers and those more skilled that I.

Good point - there are those who came before us who are themselves good Bible students and do have contributions to make on a given topic.

I hope we can connect.

I look forward to it.

 

[Davy]

My statement above does not say "serious means they change their view no matter what the Bible says to the contrary".

I think we can both see that point.

So I find it a bit odd that your response appears to be to a statement/POV that has not been posted by anyone on this thread as of now... what am I missing?

What? You think you're some philosopher coming with riddles?

Christ's servants are to make their speech plain, easy to understand, our yeahs yeah, and our nays nay. Let God handle the riddles, we don't have the authority to change what God says in His Word. Thus your 'oddness' ploy is simply a mask for more confusion that your words wreak of.

 

[BobRyan]

What? You think you're some philosopher coming with riddles?

no I think this thread is a pretty basic one.

we don't have the authority to change what God says in His Word.

All the more reason to pay attention to the Bible texts posted in a given thread/OP and not ignore them.

your 'oddness' ploy is simply a mask for more confusion that your words wreak of.

You have free will of course and can ignore whatever details you wish

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1. My New Testament is the same as yours.
2. The Jews wrote the OT not the Catholic Church.
3. My OT has the same content as the Jews have for the Hebrew Bible.

All of that is "another topic" --

But your response is a good example of what I am talking about .. changing topics for example.

1 is true, 2 is not entirely true, 3 is bad theology.

And this is on topic, you wanted "bible" studies but you failed to define a bible.

 

[Davy]

no I think this thread is a pretty basic one.

All the more reason to pay attention to the Bible texts posted in a given thread/OP and not ignore them.


You have free will of course and can ignore whatever details you wish

My first post I made very easy to understand, and I didn't use any fancy words to try and make myself 'sound' intelligent like some do. I could have because I have a university background, but that is not how Christ's servants are to communicate.

So I will make this one even easier... to understand:

If one is NOT CALLED of God, (and yes of course that means under the 'unction' of The Holy Spirit), then they will not be given to understand NOR teach God's Word.

All those in Christ are to be saying the same things, according to Apostle Paul. The reason why there's so many denominations (ie., divisions), is because of men's doctrines created by those whom God DID NOT CALL. Those do NOT understand His Word, so they have to revert to intellectualism and a secularist type thinking when they read The Bible. And the method those in turn teach to congregations keeps the congregation limited on the milk instead of maturing to the "strong meat" of God's Word.