Is being Biblical, Biblical?

Gregory Thompson · Dec 29, 2016

That's the question, what do you think? What does the bible say?

vinsight4u · Dec 29, 2016

Stillicidia · Dec 29, 2016

Everything does revolve around scripture, and scripture is what proves things, but if you cannot divide it properly then you have to be careful. Basically one should sit down if they can't divide it properly. Don't find yourself argumentative against one who does know, this is where "hitting people on the head with the book" comes from among prophets today.

Paul Yohannan · Dec 29, 2016

Michael Collum said:
That's the question, what do you think? What does the bible say?

The real question is not what but who? Obviously we should not look to King Herod or Cain or Haman as inspirational figures.

smithed64 · Dec 29, 2016

We should be doers of Word, not just hearers.

James 1:19-27

19My beloved brothers, understand this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger, 20for man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and every expression of evil, and humbly receive the word planted in you, which can save your souls.

22Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves. 23For anyone who hears the word but does not carry it out is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror, 24and after observing himself goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the one who looks intently into the perfect law of freedom, and continues to do so—not being a forgetful hearer, but an effective doer—he will be blessed in what he does.

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart and his religion is worthless. 27Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Percivale · Dec 29, 2016

Perhaps it is biblical to be biblical, but not to be Biblicist. To believe and follow the Bible, but not to the neglect of conscience, reason, experience, science, and history.

Stillicidia · Dec 29, 2016

Percivale said:
Perhaps it is biblical to be biblical, but not to be Biblicist. To believe and follow the Bible, but not to the neglect of conscience, reason, experience, science, and history.

Fear of the Lord would say believe on the Bible regardless of any reasoning of man. Proper dividing of scripture is different.

ChristsSoldier115 · Dec 29, 2016

Michael Collum said:
That's the question, what do you think? What does the bible say?

I don't understand the circular logic of "I believe the bible to be the authority of all things christian because the bible says so." Someone want to explain that?

Stillicidia · Dec 29, 2016

ChristsSoldier115 said:
I don't understand the circular logic of "I believe the bible to be the authority of all things christian because the bible says so." Someone want to explain that?

Doesn't have to be a circular logic, but the Bible does say so, so why worry? Where else would you fall to?

ChristsSoldier115 · Dec 29, 2016

Stillicidia said:
Doesn't have to be a circular logic, but the Bible does say so, so why worry? Where else would you fall to?

You believe in the bible, because the bible tells you to be.
I had a revelation upon my own culture lately. We are biased naturally towards literacy and the written word. A paper explaining something usually holds more weight than a person saying it. The "bible is true, because it says it is true" is just our culture's natural contextualization of the doctrine of emphasizing sola scriptura as the sole and only worthwhile doctrine. We think sola scriptura is the only worthwhile authority, because in our worldview, this makes sense. We also choose this single doctrine, because American culture lives in the world of either/or. Things can be either this or that. There is no in between. the two a long time ago.

It doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it different.

Stillicidia · Dec 29, 2016

ChristsSoldier115 said:
You believe in the bible, because the bible tells you to be.
I had a revelation upon my own culture lately. We are biased naturally towards literacy and the written word. A paper explaining something usually holds more weight than a person saying it. The "bible is true, because it says it is true" is just our culture's natural contextualization of the doctrine of emphasizing sola scriptura as the sole and only worthwhile doctrine. We think sola scriptura is the only worthwhile authority, because in our worldview, this makes sense. We also choose this single doctrine, because American culture lives in the world of either/or. Things can be either this or that. There is no in between. the two a long time ago.

Why worry that the Bible says the Bible is the means for knowing if something is Christian. Where else should you go.

ChristsSoldier115 · Dec 29, 2016

Stillicidia said:
Why worry that the Bible says the Bible is the means for knowing if something is Christian. Where else should you go.

You are a good example of what I just said.

Stillicidia · Dec 29, 2016

ChristsSoldier115 said:
You are a good example of what I just said.

I am a brethren bro, not any sort of example, treat me better. Where else would you go for the word of Christianity other than the Bible, and the words written therein. You get 2+2=4, not 2 and blue make my shoe.

ChristsSoldier115 · Dec 29, 2016

Stillicidia said:
I am a brethren bro, not any sort of example, treat me better. Where else would you go for the word of Christianity other than the Bible, and the words written therein. You get 2+2=4, not 2 and blue make my shoe.

Sorry if I offended. I did not mean that.

But for my answer: How about every church everywhere for the past 2000 years? How else was the gospel spread for the first 300-400 years or how was the church run prior to the compilation of Scripture as we know it today?

What do you mean you are "not brethren"?

JESUS=G.O.A.T · Dec 29, 2016

Michael Collum said:
That's the question, what do you think? What does the bible say?

The bible says the God is the word and the word is god so i mean yeah it's biblical.

Bible=mind of God/thoughts of God

Gregory Thompson · Dec 29, 2016

I like the conversation so far.
1) The bible says many things.
2) The bible has priority texts explaining which concepts are hierarchical.
3) The bible when looked at as a majority of sayings, tends to be a set of rules.
4) Focussing on 3 at the expense of 2, tends to be the issue with whether something is biblical or not.

JESUS=G.O.A.T · Dec 29, 2016

Michael Collum said:
I like the conversation so far.
1) The bible says many things.
2) The bible has priority texts explaining which concepts are hierarchical.
3) The bible when looked at as a majority of sayings, tends to be a set of rules.
4) Focussing on 3 at the expense of 2, tends to be the issue with whether something is biblical or not.

Well you can take out #3 becuase in the new testament I believe Hebrews 10:1-25 some of the old stuff doesn't apply. Additionally Jesus acknowledged that the old law wasn't enough so he decided to (and still does if we seek him) manifest himself in individuals through the spirit of christ (holy ghost). So no longer do we have to follow old specific laws but rather he can lead and guide us unto all truth.

And I agree good thread.

TurtleAnne · Dec 29, 2016

ChristsSoldier115 said:
You believe in the bible, because the bible tells you to be.
I had a revelation upon my own culture lately. We are biased naturally towards literacy and the written word. A paper explaining something usually holds more weight than a person saying it. The "bible is true, because it says it is true" is just our culture's natural contextualization of the doctrine of emphasizing sola scriptura as the sole and only worthwhile doctrine. We think sola scriptura is the only worthwhile authority, because in our worldview, this makes sense. We also choose this single doctrine, because American culture lives in the world of either/or. Things can be either this or that. There is no in between. the two a long time ago.

It doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it different.

For me personally it's more about being wary of the false prophets, those warnings seemed/seem significant to me.

Especially with verses like: Romans 16: Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

I consider myself to be pretty simple of mind, at least in most regards. I have not even read most of the Bible as it is, in addition, so it would be fairly easy for someone to trick me, for example, about what is sin and what is not, if I wasn't able to demand scripture references, look it up for myself and try to understand those verses in their full context. So that is exactly what I try to do.

Then there is the matter of trying not to be a false speaker of sorts. Like for example I might feel very moved by the Holy Spirit that I should move in a certain direction, and then comes along someone telling me that God speaks to them and tells them that my direction is wrong. Now what? As far as I am able to see, it would become a dispute between what I perceive to be feeling the Holy Spirit moving me, versus some person, but at the same time, there is the potential pitfall of arguing with them and thus attempting to dissuade them from what could very well be their own interpretations of a very real message from God. That seems a bit too potentially treacherous either way, to listen to them or to argue with them, but there is the third option, of just referencing the scripture, so that at least it is not what I perceive from the Holy Spirit vs some other person, but rather what I perceive from the Holy Spirit versus the words of Jesus. That seems like a much more reliable test of sorts, when trying to figure out if I'm experiencing the Holy Spirit or just evil masquerading.

If this hypothetical person wrote down their thoughts on a piece of paper, or on the internet, it wouldn't change the situation for me.

LoveofTruth · Feb 17, 2025

Gregory Thompson said:
That's the question, what do you think? What does the bible say?

Is being biblical, biblical?

a few scriptures to consider

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Timothy 3:16,17)

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20_

Jo555 · Feb 17, 2025

I would add this to the mix:

John 5:
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

A warning of how we can know scripture, but miss the One it speaks of and gives us eternal life

Is being Biblical, Biblical?

Is being biblical, biblical?

What is biblical?

Do you have any tongue twisters involving the word Biblical?

Yes.

No.

Other.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Contributor

Revanche Flower

Well-Known Member

To Die is gain, To Live is Christ

Sam

Revanche Flower

Mabaho na Kuya

Revanche Flower

Mabaho na Kuya

Revanche Flower

Mabaho na Kuya

Revanche Flower

Mabaho na Kuya

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Christ builds His church from within us

Well-Known Member

Similar threads