Enough is Enough Already! Let's Be Honest!

[A. believer]

All the more reason why scriptures are not to be read outside the context of "The Church".

She wrote it, It is her testimony to Christ God.

Why do we feel the need to decipher it? Ask "The Church" she will explain.

Forgive me.....

I agree that Scriptural interpretation should be done in the context of the church, but I dispute your definition of the church as being limited to one denomination, and I dispute the implication that those of us who are blessed to have God's self-revelation at our disposal are not directly accountable to what God has revealed therein--that "the Church" is a buffer between Scripture and us.

Still, the church is sadly splintered, and although it's sad, the situation is not outside of God's providence, and it doesn't impinge on God's ability to communicate with His people. I think we do well when we don't cavalierly dismiss theologians and theological debates and musings from traditions other than our own.

Forgive me....

You're forgiven.

 

[tall73]

I understand what you are saying here, but still I have to disagree with it, because even if a person shows no intent to lie, but teaches something that is contrary to the truth, he is still telling a lie.

And he can be totally unaware of this; but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a lie, since it is not the truth.

The question now however, is how do you tell if a person is lying intentionally, as compared to someone who just doesn't realize that he is wrong?

Yes, it is a symmantics issue. We just define lying differently. But in any case, the question when studying often is just that--how do you know if they are just being difficult or if they really do believe it.

But does it really change things? All you can do is present what you believe to be true. Others reading the thread can weigh it.

 

[tall73]

The point is....

Scriptures are not to be read outside the context of "The Church".

She wrote it, It is her testimony of Christ God.

Anybody who picks up a life insurance policy is going to read it differnetly and have questions.... you must go to the company that wrote it for detail.

Forgive me....

I do use the Septuagint at times, especially when I am uncertain about the English, or comparing Greek usage in the NT and how it was perceived in the period of the translation of the septuagint.

However, if we are then to read the Scriptures in the context they are written, i suppose we must

a. read Hebrew
b. Read the Septuagint in a JEWISH frame of mind, of one in the diaspora, in Egypt.

The Orthodox did not write the Septuagint.

 

[woobadooba]

The point is....

Scriptures are not to be read outside the context of "The Church".

She wrote it, It is her testimony of Christ God.

Anybody who picks up a life insurance policy is going to read it differnetly and have questions.... you must go to the company that wrote it for detail.

Forgive me....

Ok, since we are on the verge of digressing from the point of the thread, I will state what I believe regarding this one last time.

Yes, the church gave her testimony of Christ; but without Christ she wouldn't have a testimony to give. Thus Christ is the Head of the church, and He promised all believers that the Holy Spirit would guide us in all truth. Jn. 14:26

Therefore, I will listen to what the church has to say, but not without bringing it to the word of God in prayer, where I will thus discover if what the church is saying is really true.

Hence, I don't need the church to tell me what the truth is. I only need God, the Holy Scriptures, and a will to learn.

 

[A. believer]

Absolutely not, because if you take a closer look at what I've been saying throughout this thread, and even in my opening post, you would see that you are the one who has misunderstood me.

And by the way, let's not play these foolish games. The thread is about scriptural dishonesty, not misunderstood discussions.

I'm not playing a game. I'm illustrating a point.

Did you or did you not imply that I should apologize for stating that these Christians were/are being honest?

Yes, or no?

Well, no, I wasn't implying that you should "apologize," especially since, as far as I know, we're speaking in generalities, and I know of no one you need to apologize to. But what does that have to do with the fact that you took what I said (when there's no indication that the person is indulging their sin nature) and turned it into the opposite (when the person is indulging their sin nature.)?

But who ever said every Christian is sincere?

No one.

And how do you tell the difference?

My point exactly. But you seem to be implying that you can tell--when they deny "the obvious" (as defined by you).

I do believe that people give out clues as to where their hearts really are, and sometimes the very thing they're defending makes it fairly clear where their hearts are. I'm just disputing your measuring stick. I think that you're appealing to what you believe is some kind of objective standard, and I'm saying that no such thing exists. And if I'm misinterpreting you there, then please clarify yourself on that point.

In short, they superimpose their own meaning on the text, rather than allowing the text to bring meaning to what they really don't understand.

The question is: why do they persist in doing this when the scriptures make it so obvious that they are wrong?

Which camp are you referring to as "they" in this instance? No doubt, it wouldn't be the camp you fall into, would it. You interpret the Scriptures, "objectively" no doubt.

It appears that you haven't read my other posts in this thread. It would do you well to do that before implying that this is how I feel. So here you misunderstood me again.[.quote]

I've read your posts. Please clarify. So far, everything you've said confirms to me that you are advocating the idea "objective" interpretation of Scripture, but if I'm wrong, then please explain further.

Hmmmm. And does this comment of yours foster a sense of humility?

I'm not sure what you mean about this comment, but I do believe that this approach does.

We are going through this process now.

I haven't seen you make the distinction so far, and a lot of "ink has been spilled" already.

 

[A. believer]

Yes, it is a symmantics issue. We just define lying differently. But in any case, the question when studying often is just that--how do you know if they are just being difficult or if they really do believe it.

But does it really change things? All you can do is present what you believe to be true. Others reading the thread can weigh it.

Although one can write it off as a semantical issue, I do believe it was worth pressing your point, because calling someone a liar has much more negative connotations, and I think that's the essence of what you were saying, if I'm reading you right.

 

[A. believer]

Yes, it is a symmantics issue. We just define lying differently. But in any case, the question when studying often is just that--how do you know if they are just being difficult or if they really do believe it.

But does it really change things? All you can do is present what you believe to be true. Others reading the thread can weigh it.

One can write it off as a mere semantical issue, but I do believe you were right in pressing the point, because saying that someone is lying has very negative connotations, and we all know that. That's why the Bush-haters are getting so much mileage out of saying that Bush "lied" about WMD's (presuming that the information was false to begin with, and I'm not convinced that it was, but that's another issue) when they know full well that, whatever the truth is, he believed he was correct (and so did many, many others, including liberals, who had the same information.)

 

[tall73]

One can write it off as a mere semantical issue, but I do believe you were right in pressing the point, because saying that someone is lying has very negative connotations, and we all know that. That's why the Bush-haters are getting so much mileage out of saying that Bush "lied" about WMD's (presuming that the information was false to begin with, and I'm not convinced that it was, but that's another issue) when they know full well that, whatever the truth is, he believed he was correct (and so did many, many others, including liberals, who had the same information.)

Doh,. and there I mispelled semantics! But yes, that is my take on it too. It is not lying to say something you believe is true.

 

[A. believer]

I respect you right to be wrong.

Why did you just bold part of his sentence? LOL He could have written I don't need the church to tell me what to have for breakfast, and you could have done the same thing, and it would have been just as much a misrepresentation of what he said.

This isn't to say that I necessarily entirely agree with what I think he really did mean, but one should at least try to be responsible with what we believe other people are saying, dontcha think?

Forgive me...

I forgive you, but of course, I can't speak for Woobadooba.

 

[woobadooba]

I'm not playing a game. I'm illustrating a point.

Well, no, I wasn't implying that you should "apologize," especially since, as far as I know, we're speaking in generalities, and I know of no one you need to apologize to. But what does that have to do with the fact that you took what I said (when there's no indication that the person is indulging their sin nature) and turned it into the opposite (when the person is indulging their sin nature.)?


No one.

My point exactly. But you seem to be implying that you can tell--when they deny "the obvious" (as defined by you).

I do believe that people give out clues as to where their hearts really are, and sometimes the very thing they're defending makes it fairly clear where their hearts are. I'm just disputing your measuring stick. I think that you're appealing to what you believe is some kind of objective standard, and I'm saying that no such thing exists. And if I'm misinterpreting you there, then please clarify yourself on that point.

Which camp are you referring to as "they" in this instance? No doubt, it wouldn't be the camp you fall into, would it. You interpret the Scriptures, "objectively" no doubt.

I've read your posts. Please clarify. So far, everything you've said confirms to me that you are advocating the idea "objective" interpretation of Scripture, but if I'm wrong, then please explain further.

I'm not sure what you mean about this comment, but I do believe that this approach does.

The issue here isn't about you or me; it's about scriptural dishonesty, period.

 

[Leah]

But.......he's not saying he doesn't need the church. He's just pointing out that you can't just rely on the church alone for the truth because just as there are the saints of God, there are also wolves in sheep's clothing (and if you sit there and act like everyone that goes to church is saved, you need to straighten that thought out right now! *lol*). It's good to have the fellowship and support of other christians but it's better to have and focus your attention on God alone, being the fact that He doesn't lie to you. Man can steer you wrong; God can't, won't, nor will He ever.

Is my understanding of what Woobadooba's saying wrong?

 

[woobadooba]

Although one can write it off as a semantical issue, I do believe it was worth pressing your point, because calling someone a liar has much more negative connotations, and I think that's the essence of what you were saying, if I'm reading you right.

So what would you call someone who is deliberately twisting the scriptures to support his false view?

 

[herev]

Can you point out which forum you encountered this person pse?

his name is "stranger" He posts here and on www.inallthingslove.net Check him out.

I am not upholding all that this person (you say) is saying but aren't all those who are born again, "saints"?

yes, I think so.

And 1John 3:9 does say, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

yes, it does say this. My own take is that this refers to intentional sinning without concern. To accept that it means total sinlessness goes against so many other scriptures, IMHO.

 

[woobadooba]

But.......he's not saying he doesn't need the church. He's just pointing out that you can't just rely on the church alone for the truth because just as there are the saints of God, there are also wolves in sheep's clothing (and if you sit there and act like everyone that goes to church is saved, you need to straighten that thought out right now! *lol*). It's good to have the fellowship and support of other christians but it's better to have and focus your attention on God alone, being the fact that He doesn't lie to you. Man can steer you wrong; God can't, won't, nor will He ever.

Is my understanding of what Woobadooba's saying wrong?

You are correct; and thank you for defending me. He very blatantly misrepresented what I had said.

 

[Leah]

You are correct; and thank you for defending me. He very blatantly misrepresented what I had said.

I feel what you're saying, Wooba.

 

[Tishri1]

You know, I just don't get it. Why is it that God has given us the command not to lie, and yet so many Christians persist in telling lies?

And this happens all too often. And what I am referring to in particular is scriptural dishonesty.

For example, an argument was given that because Jesus referred to Judas as a devil that means Judas was always a false believer.

I countered this argument by saying that Jesus also referred to Peter as Satan Matt. 6:23, so does that mean he was a false believer too? In other words, to be consistent with the logic of this argument we would also have to assume that Peter was a false believer, which means even Judas had a chance to be saved, since Peter was obviously saved.

But I was told that Jesus did not call Peter Satan. And it was implied that I was twisting the scriptures by saying this. Yet, the Bible says, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan..." V.23

Could it be any more clearer than this?

And then to make matters worse I was told that Judas was removed from the book of life. Now, here is what the Bible says,

"He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Rev. 3:5

Notice how the context of the passage suggests that those who overcome will not be removed from the book of life. Couple this with what Jesus had said,

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt. 24:13

And what do we have? An interpretation that suggests that names will not be removed from the book of life until the end--meaning the great day of God's judgment.

This means Judas could not have been removed from the book of life, since the end has not come.

But then I was told that the names of the wicked are not in the book of life. Well, if this is the case, what sense then is there in speaking of removing names?

Ok, so Judas was removed from the book of life. But then wait a minute, none of the names of the wicked are in the book of life. Well, which one is it?

I am sure the problem here is very obvious!

So why deny it? To me this is nothing less than telling a lie.

You know, it would be nice if people, especially Christians, would at least be honest in their approach to the study of God's word.

People are always arguing that we can't really know what the Bible means because there are so many different interpretations. Truth is: We can know what it means. And the reason why there are so many interpretations is because there are just as many people out there who aren't taking an honest look at the scriptures!

So the problem isn't with God's word, but with the people who refuse to take an honest look at it.

In fact, I've seen so many blatant scriptural denials in GT that it makes my stomach sick! How are we ever going to grow spiritually if we continue to behave in this way?

People, let's be honest, please!

there are 2 books and 3 groups of people

Books:

1. Book of Life
2. Book of No life/Dead/Judgement what ever you want to call it

Groups:

1. The Wholly Righteous (Tzadikim)- those who are saved and written in the book of life
2. The Wholly Wicked (Rashim)- those who are wicked from birth, will never get saved, never ever ever...and are written in the second book
3. The Intermediates/Sinners- these are those who havent decided yet, they are the ones who have untill the end of the Trib (if we should all live so long) to get saved and become written in the book of life....this is the group ALL the focus is on during the Tribulation, it is God's desire that none would parish so he will do all he can to get their attention before it's too late...

 

[Tishri1]

there are 2 books and 3 groups of people

Books:

1. Book of Life
2. Book of No life/Dead/Judgement what ever you want to call it

Groups:

1. The Wholly Righteous (Tzadikim)- those who are saved and written in the book of life
2. The Wholly Wicked (Rashim)- those who are wicked from birth, will never get saved, never ever ever...and are written in the second book
3. The Intermediates/Sinners- these are those who havent decided yet, they are the ones who have untill the end of the Trib (if we should all live so long) to get saved and become written in the book of life....this is the group ALL the focus is on during the Tribulation, it is God's desire that none would parish so he will do all he can to get their attention before it's too late...

lol oops I thought this thread was about the book of life....sorry , my bad

 

[woobadooba]

there are 2 books and 3 groups of people

Books:

1. Book of Life
2. Book of No life/Dead/Judgement what ever you want to call it

Groups:

1. The Wholly Righteous (Tzadikim)- those who are saved and written in the book of life
2. The Wholly Wicked (Rashim)- those who are wicked from birth, will never get saved, never ever ever...and are written in the second book
3. The Intermediates/Sinners- these are those who havent decided yet, they are the ones who have untill the end of the Trib (if we should all live so long) to get saved and become written in the book of life....this is the group ALL the focus is on during the Tribulation, it is God's desire that none would parish so he will do all he can to get their attention before it's too late...

1. Every name of anyone who exists, or ever did exist that is human, is written in the book of life. This is why Rev. 3:5 speaks of blotting names out of the book of life, because certain names will be removed from it. There is no sense in warning people about blotting their names out of the book of life if only the names of those who will be saved were ever recorded in it.

And yes, the Bible says the "books were opened", Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12, but it does not identify one of those books as the book of the dead. However, it does speak of the book of life. As for the other book, which says nothing about the names of the wicked being recorded in it, it is believed that it is that book which contains the record of our lives. That is, the deeds of all people that exist and ever did exist. And we will be judged according to those deeds. Thus the names of those whose deeds testify of Jesus will remain in the book of life, and those whose deeds do not testify of Jesus, will be blotted out of the book of life. The Bible confirms this type of judgment in Rom. 2:6.

2. This thread isn't about the book of life, or types of people that will or won't be saved, but about scriptural dishonesty. And I just used the idea of the book of life and the situation with Peter as examples of this. So let's stay on topic please. Thanks.

 

[woobadooba]

lol oops I thought this thread was about the book of life....sorry , my bad

No problem.

I already posted my response before seeing this post, so please don't be offended by me asking you to keep this thread on topic.

 

[A. believer]

So what would you call someone who is deliberately twisting the scriptures to support his false view?

I have no problem in calling that one a liar. Our disagreement if over how one makes a determination like this.