Please challenge me--with Scriptures

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

What I may ask you then, as a child of the most High God and as one that considers you my brother in Christ, do you only accept the OT books which Jesus quoted from as scripture? Because, there are several in your 66 which he didn't.

Most all of the NT quotes citing OT scripture comes from the Septuagint, which shows that the biblical NT writers relied on it heavily and viewed it as scripture.

Yes, I understand that Jesus didn't quote from all of them. But, He verified the group for me by using them. Again, I am re-examining my stance on the other books. Jesus and the Apostles (other than Paul) would not have been quoting the Greek version of the Old Testament. They were in and around Jerusalem. It is entirely possible that anything Paul used was from the Septuagint, because of where he was most of the time, unless he carried the Hebrew Scriptures with him from his days as a Pharisee--which is also possible.

Some claims that I have run across so far in my reading that go against accepting the Deuterocanon as Scripture (rather than just helpful for devotion books):

1. There is a cluster of about 14 books, known as the Apocrypha, which were written some time between the close of the Old Testament (after 400 B.C.) and the beginning of the New. They were never considered as part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Jews themselves clearly ruled them out by the confession that there was, throughout that period, no voice of the prophets in the land. They looked forward to a day when “a faithful prophet” should appear.
2. Whether or not the Septuagint also contained the Apocrypha is impossible to say for certain, since although the earliest copies of the Septuagint available today do include the Apocrypha—placed at the end—these are dated in the fifth century and therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier.
3. Significantly, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha, even though they were obviously using the Greek Septuagint. Since there are literally hundreds of direct quotations or clear allusions to Old Testament passages by Jesus and the apostles, it is evident what the early Christians thought of the Hebrew Scriptures. The New Testament writers rarely quote from other books and never with the same authority. The Apocrypha is entirely absent in their writing.
4. Josephus was familiar with the Septuagint and made use of it, but he never considered the Apocrypha part of the Scriptures.
5. The New Testament scholar John Wenham concludes: “There is no reason to doubt that the canon of the Old Testament is substantially Ezra’s canon, just as the Pentateuch was substantially Moses’ canon.”
6. While it is true that some of the early church leaders quoted from the Apocrypha—though very rarely compared to their use of the Old Testament books—there is no evidence that they recognized these books as equal to the Old Testament.
7. From the orthodox reasoning for accepting the books: "We must not forget that although Abe Athanasius the Apostolic mentioned in his Paschal message in 365 AD that the number of books was 22 the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabets, but he make it clear that those books were useful in teaching the catechumens and in his writings he quoted verses from them." (My Note: useful and Scriptural are not the same things).
8. The Catholic Church determined the authenticity of these books at the Trent Council in 1546 AD. This Council announced that whoever does not accept the books referred to, and whoever does not recognize their authenticity (as they were read in the Catholic church and were, the Vulgate version) would be ex-communicated. During the Reform Period, these books became part and parcel of the Catholic belief. (My Note: isn't it interesting that they weren't regarded as highly by the catholic church until after the protestants broke away? But, your church said that those who don't accept these books would be ex-communicated.)

If you want to help, how would you respond to these?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I go to an Orthodox Church so none of the things apply to me.
One think to consider is that you are not the only one who says is filled with the Holy Spirit and most of them will have ideas that would contract you, so is the Holy Spirit tricking all of us?
Be aware that the Bible you use was formed with Apostolic authority, otherwise you will be using the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas.

The Holy Spirit doesn't trick anyone. People and their traditions do.

Glad you think you're a lock to enter. Just keep in mind the Jews that missed Jesus thought they were, too.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

The claim that, when that which is perfect is come that which is part will be done away is not just an absurdly false teaching. Because the entire context is when that which is perfect is come it’s talking about agape.
Saying that is talking about the Scripture for so many is an actually heresy. Of the type that will damn many a soul to hell. Let me explain. The word heresy is the Greek word for sect or a sectarian. So many who make this claim about this referring to scripture are manifesting a horrendous sectarian spirit because they are claimng spiritual things like manifestations of the Holy Spirit, manifestations of the human spirit inspired by the Holy Spirit and the miraculous walk the Apostles had has all ceased and any claims contrary to this or manifestations are of the devil. In other words my little group is the true church and you Billion Pentacostals\ Charismatics and others practicing these things are of Satan.
Classic sectarianism of the type that will keep one out of heaven.

 

[pinacled]

Here is what I believe about the 66 Books of Scripture contained in the Bible. Please challenge me with Scriptures, if you believe I have erred. Feel free to also share Scriptures you believe support what I have said.

Let's not make it mean-spirited. Just share, please. I'm not demanding your agreement. Please don't be offended if I don't argue with you. If I ask questions, I am only looking for clarity. You are free to believe what you want to believe about the Scriptures; but this is what I believe, as of today (I labeled with a number so you could share Scriptures specific to that number). Thank you, in advance.

1. I believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which I understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture.

2. I believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. I also believe that God does not lie. I also believe that, as the omnipotent Absolute Sovereign over all, He has the ability to keep His Word. As He promises to be faithful to His Word, His Word will never return void. Therefore, we can trust in Him to bring His Word to pass.

3. Therefore, I believe the Scriptures included in what we call the Bible are the reliable, true, honest, and perfectly consistent Testimony of God regarding the human matters He chose to speak to us about.

4. I believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error and perfectly consistent. However, The Bible is not what is referred to in 1 Cor 13:10 as “that which is perfect”.

5. I do not believe it is appropriate to call the Testimony of God (that we have in The Scriptures we call The Bible) “The Word of God”, because it confuses people into thinking that they can use things that were said by people other than God as if they are true. While it is true that these things were said, according to the inerrant Testimony of God, what people said is not necessarily true and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as if it was. (For example: Job’s three friends said a lot about God who said they didn’t speak correctly about Him; so, to quote those three friends as if what they said was true would be using the inerrant Scriptures errantly. In Jesus’ run-ins with the pharisees, they often said things that weren’t true. To quote them, as if it was, would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious.

6. I also believe in transcendant inspiration whereby God carries the Life of His Word forward through translations, in spite of translational errors (which I believe all translations have). I believe God will bring an indwelt believer into all Truth regardless of translational error, if the believer will listen to Him over men and their traditions. God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words. God chooses to be constrained by an individual’s genuine response to Him. If this were not true, I would not have been able to be woken up by God through an NIV audio Bible while in a hotel room by myself, in spite of my “church’s” lack of belief in being born again.

7. I believe God watches over His Word to perform it (Jer 1:12), I believe that God’s Word never returns void, but accomplishes that which God pleases and that His Word will succeed in the thing for which He sent His Word. (Isa 55:11) I believe the Word of God is living and active (Heb 4:12) and I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

8. I believe in the Theocentricity, as opposed to the Christocentricity, of the Scriptures. Within that bigger context, I believe the Scriptures in what we call the Old and New Testaments of the Bible speak extensively of the Person and Work of our One and only True Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. I also believe that all the Scriptures were given for much more than simple practical instruction. Jesus said “My Words are Spirit and they are Life”. (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).

Hello Johnny,
That is quite an amount to read.
Number 5) seems to be a bit off where fruits of the spirit is concerned. And then each subsequent statement made veers off the path of sound doctrine or teaching.

For the sake of clarity(water) there is always divine counsel to be found in the Torah and Prophets. If not then what Yeshua spoke to us is null.
Perhaps start with the letter that kills that ole sh,aul spoke of and take into consideration that he as a Pharisee was speaking about a letter of divorce given to those who with hardening heart as an example of deliverance from bondage.
When reading from the book of judges where Gideon is given the beauty of instruction to shatter the clay vessels. Is it not said by the prophets that one day the Torah will be written on the heart. So if the clay represents the flesh so to does the inner light represent the inner man of the heart.
This mystery was made with a shout and confession as far as I can see.
After all keen eyes are found in the assembly of the Lord and founded in faith.
And no stone was offered when bread is cast upon the waters in portions of 7 and 8.

Blessed be the children's bread.

 

[pinacled]

Or if the letter of divorce where to be likened to a sword of Truth to render soul and spirit.

With this in mind I personally try not to make haste judgements.

Blessed is the children's bread.

 

[Ing Bee]

Hello-

In general I think I agree, however you may want to compare #1 to #5 because these seem to me to be contradictory: if "the very words of scripture" are inspired by God the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 2:12-13) who teaches us things with spiritual words that reveal the mind of God the father, in what sense are these not "the Word of God"? Additionally, the narrative of scripture is narrative and acts as a framing device for God's self-disclosure. The broth is important because it's what the noodles float in.

I think I see what you're wrestling with however: accusations about the bible supporting slavery, polygamy, etc. If "all" scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) that includes the context of those words which have been intentionally preserved and transmitted. If your fear regarding use of the phrase "word of God" will confuse people, I would refer you to Acts 20:30, 1 Cor. 2:14 and 2 Peter 3:16–the big distortion of God's Word is an act of will.

Also, this fear can be addressed with consistent discipleship. In light of Jesus's words in John 6:44, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other passages, I don't think we need to be worried about your concern in #5. Also, you answer your own concerns with your last two sentences: "To quote them, as if [their wrong words were the word of God], would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious." Yep, and Paul says the Holy Spirit is the person who makes spiritual things understood, but only to the spirit-awakened man. In fact, reading 2 Timothy 3:13-15 (the run up to v. 16) makes it clear that (as the Lord Jesus has said) only his sheep hear his voice and that others will continue to deceive and be deceived.

In the final analysis, you can commit to explaining your list every time you lead bible studies or discussions, or you can simply explain the concepts of context and genre in scripture and you'd get to very similar places, it's just that you may cause confusion and end up having to explain more with your list than you would by simply teaching sound exegetical practice.

From #6, I liked your statement: "God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words." Amen. He is a seeker and saver of the lost and is an interpersonal free-agent.

From #8, you may be creating an unnecessary dichotomy. Yes, of course the Trinity is in full display, but Jesus IS God the Son, fully God. There are also those passages that demonstrate the Father's desire to exalt the Son as the focal point (yes, Just as the Son glorifies the Father, so you see why, to me, your assertion has a slight tritheistic taste). Examples: Ephesians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 10:11, Romans 16:25, Colossians 1:15-20, Colossians 3:17.

I think the more we reflect on the individual roles and the unity of love within the persons of the tri-unity, we will run from one to the others, exclaiming "The Father's initiating Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Son's rescuing Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Spirit's abiding love is amazing!"

Incidentally, if it's relevant or you would like to share, I would be interested to learn from you about what has led you to formalize this list. Is this part of a personal odyssey? What is driving your "knowing venture" (to use Esther Meek's helpful phrase).

 

[pinacled]

Hello-

In general I think I agree, however you may want to compare #1 to #5 because these seem to me to be contradictory: if "the very words of scripture" are inspired by God the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 2:12-13) who teaches us things with spiritual words that reveal the mind of God the father, in what sense are these not "the Word of God"? Additionally, the narrative of scripture is narrative and acts as a framing device for God's self-disclosure. The broth is important because it's what the noodles float in.

I think I see what you're wrestling with however: accusations about the bible supporting slavery, polygamy, etc. If "all" scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) that includes the context of those words which have been intentionally preserved and transmitted. If your fear regarding use of the phrase "word of God" will confuse people, I would refer you to Acts 20:30, 1 Cor. 2:14 and 2 Peter 3:16–the big distortion of God's Word is an act of will.

Also, this fear can be addressed with consistent discipleship. In light of Jesus's words in John 6:44, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other passages, I don't think we need to be worried about your concern in #5. Also, you answer your own concerns with your last two sentences: "To quote them, as if [their wrong words were the word of God], would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious." Yep, and Paul says the Holy Spirit is the person who makes spiritual things understood, but only to the spirit-awakened man. In fact, reading 2 Timothy 3:13-15 (the run up to v. 16) makes it clear that (as the Lord Jesus has said) only his sheep hear his voice and that others will continue to deceive and be deceived.

In the final analysis, you can commit to explaining your list every time you lead bible studies or discussions, or you can simply explain the concepts of context and genre in scripture and you'd get to very similar places, it's just that you may cause confusion and end up having to explain more with your list than you would by simply teaching sound exegetical practice.

From #6, I liked your statement: "God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words." Amen. He is a seeker and saver of the lost and is an interpersonal free-agent.

From #8, you may be creating an unnecessary dichotomy. Yes, of course the Trinity is in full display, but Jesus IS God the Son, fully God. There are also those passages that demonstrate the Father's desire to exalt the Son as the focal point (yes, Just as the Son glorifies the Father, so you see why, to me, your assertion has a slight tritheistic taste). Examples: Ephesians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 10:11, Romans 16:25, Colossians 1:15-20, Colossians 3:17.

I think the more we reflect on the individual roles and the unity of love within the persons of the tri-unity, we will run from one to the others, exclaiming "The Father's initiating Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Son's rescuing Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Spirit's abiding love is amazing!"

Incidentally, if it's relevant or you would like to share, I would be interested to learn from you about what has led you to formalize this list. Is this part of a personal odyssey? What is driving your "knowing venture" (to use Esther Meek's helpful phrase).

If the bread hasn't been unleavened before being cast upon the waters.
There is no reason a stranger would understand the spiritual tongue. The lashon hakodosh.


Blessings are the children's bread.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Hello-

1. In general I think I agree, however you may want to compare #1 to #5 because these seem to me to be contradictory: if "the very words of scripture" are inspired by God the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 2:12-13) who teaches us things with spiritual words that reveal the mind of God the father, in what sense are these not "the Word of God"? Additionally, the narrative of scripture is narrative and acts as a framing device for God's self-disclosure. The broth is important because it's what the noodles float in.

2. I think I see what you're wrestling with however: accusations about the bible supporting slavery, polygamy, etc. If "all" scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) that includes the context of those words which have been intentionally preserved and transmitted. If your fear regarding use of the phrase "word of God" will confuse people, I would refer you to Acts 20:30, 1 Cor. 2:14 and 2 Peter 3:16–the big distortion of God's Word is an act of will.

3. Also, this fear can be addressed with consistent discipleship. In light of Jesus's words in John 6:44, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other passages, I don't think we need to be worried about your concern in #5. Also, you answer your own concerns with your last two sentences: "To quote them, as if [their wrong words were the word of God], would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious." Yep, and Paul says the Holy Spirit is the person who makes spiritual things understood, but only to the spirit-awakened man. In fact, reading 2 Timothy 3:13-15 (the run up to v. 16) makes it clear that (as the Lord Jesus has said) only his sheep hear his voice and that others will continue to deceive and be deceived.

4. In the final analysis, you can commit to explaining your list every time you lead bible studies or discussions, or you can simply explain the concepts of context and genre in scripture and you'd get to very similar places, it's just that you may cause confusion and end up having to explain more with your list than you would by simply teaching sound exegetical practice.

5. From #6, I liked your statement: "God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words." Amen. He is a seeker and saver of the lost and is an interpersonal free-agent.

6. From #8, you may be creating an unnecessary dichotomy. Yes, of course the Trinity is in full display, but Jesus IS God the Son, fully God. There are also those passages that demonstrate the Father's desire to exalt the Son as the focal point (yes, Just as the Son glorifies the Father, so you see why, to me, your assertion has a slight tritheistic taste). Examples: Ephesians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 10:11, Romans 16:25, Colossians 1:15-20, Colossians 3:17.

7. I think the more we reflect on the individual roles and the unity of love within the persons of the tri-unity, we will run from one to the others, exclaiming "The Father's initiating Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Son's rescuing Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Spirit's abiding love is amazing!"

8. Incidentally, if it's relevant or you would like to share, I would be interested to learn from you about what has led you to formalize this list. Is this part of a personal odyssey? What is driving your "knowing venture" (to use Esther Meek's helpful phrase).

I numbered your paragraphs, so I could respond:

#8 first: God did. He has led me since waking me up. I believe He has put it on my heart to develop what I really believe. From the very beginning, He has been breaking lies--that I had been taught and just assumed to be true--off me. This is a continuation of that process. By putting together a sort of "full personal doctrinal statement" (of which this is only the Scripture part), I am putting together what I believe, allowing that to be scrutinized across boundaries (there are many aspects of what could be considered the church on this forum who all look at things differently), and waiting to see what stands in me after the scrutinization. I don't know the full purposes of God for what I am doing or going through, but I seldom do, until after what He had me do is done. I also have no boundaries. I have no church organization that I am trying to validate or any church organization that I am desiring to tear apart. I just want God's Truth without limits. My audience is One. My God-appointed helpers are many by the ordination of that One.

#1: I don't see the conflict. Maybe I combine my first and fifth bullets together into one bullet:

"I believe that all Scripture is the Testimony of God about all matters He chose to testify about. I believe He gave His Testimony (The Scriptures) to men through the inspiration of God, in that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture (God's Testimony).

I have found that referring to the Scriptures (God's Testimony about everything He chooses to testify about) as "The Word of God" leads to confusion. The Word of God is The Person of Jesus Christ, who is much larger than any book we have, including the Bible.

Equating "God's Testimony about things" (The Scriptures) to "God's Word" leads people to defend or declare the errant words of others, as if they are true. While God has given a true and sufficient Testimony that includes what we need to know, from His omniscient perspective, it does not mean that everything that others said and did--according to that true and sufficient Testimony--is God's Word, God's will, or even True about God, depending who said it. For example, (a) satan's directions to Jesus or (b) what satan said about us to God or (c) the words of the three friends to Job about God (which God denounces later) or (d) what the Pharisees said about God in Jesus' frequent run-ins with them. To quote them as if they were "God's Word" and therefore "inerrant" would be an errant use of the inerrant "Testimony of God" (The Scriptures).

Side Note: Your challenge has blessed me to reconsider something else. I have always thought of The Bible as the full and complete Testimony of God. But, I don't like "complete" anymore. I would change that word to "perfect" and or "sufficient". Full in the sense of having everything God wanted to include (there aren't missing Scriptures) and "perfect" and or "sufficient" in the sense of having what God knows we need. I can't imagine how long the Scriptures would be if God had included every thought, every word, every action on every topic He addresses. He gives us what He knows we need to know.

Okay this is getting quite long, so let me stop here.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Hello-

In general I think I agree, however you may want to compare #1 to #5 because these seem to me to be contradictory: if "the very words of scripture" are inspired by God the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 2:12-13) who teaches us things with spiritual words that reveal the mind of God the father, in what sense are these not "the Word of God"? Additionally, the narrative of scripture is narrative and acts as a framing device for God's self-disclosure. The broth is important because it's what the noodles float in.

I think I see what you're wrestling with however: accusations about the bible supporting slavery, polygamy, etc. If "all" scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) that includes the context of those words which have been intentionally preserved and transmitted. If your fear regarding use of the phrase "word of God" will confuse people, I would refer you to Acts 20:30, 1 Cor. 2:14 and 2 Peter 3:16–the big distortion of God's Word is an act of will.

Also, this fear can be addressed with consistent discipleship. In light of Jesus's words in John 6:44, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other passages, I don't think we need to be worried about your concern in #5. Also, you answer your own concerns with your last two sentences: "To quote them, as if [their wrong words were the word of God], would be an errant use of the Scriptures. God makes errant words obvious." Yep, and Paul says the Holy Spirit is the person who makes spiritual things understood, but only to the spirit-awakened man. In fact, reading 2 Timothy 3:13-15 (the run up to v. 16) makes it clear that (as the Lord Jesus has said) only his sheep hear his voice and that others will continue to deceive and be deceived.

In the final analysis, you can commit to explaining your list every time you lead bible studies or discussions, or you can simply explain the concepts of context and genre in scripture and you'd get to very similar places, it's just that you may cause confusion and end up having to explain more with your list than you would by simply teaching sound exegetical practice.

From #6, I liked your statement: "God is neither constrained by missing words nor extra words nor wrong words." Amen. He is a seeker and saver of the lost and is an interpersonal free-agent.

From #8, you may be creating an unnecessary dichotomy. Yes, of course the Trinity is in full display, but Jesus IS God the Son, fully God. There are also those passages that demonstrate the Father's desire to exalt the Son as the focal point (yes, Just as the Son glorifies the Father, so you see why, to me, your assertion has a slight tritheistic taste). Examples: Ephesians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 10:11, Romans 16:25, Colossians 1:15-20, Colossians 3:17.

I think the more we reflect on the individual roles and the unity of love within the persons of the tri-unity, we will run from one to the others, exclaiming "The Father's initiating Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Son's rescuing Love is amazing!" "Wait, the Spirit's abiding love is amazing!"

Incidentally, if it's relevant or you would like to share, I would be interested to learn from you about what has led you to formalize this list. Is this part of a personal odyssey? What is driving your "knowing venture" (to use Esther Meek's helpful phrase).

So for paragraphs, 2-4, I think I answered. All Scripture, the Full & Sufficient Testimony of God is good for all that 2 Timothy 3 describes. I don't eliminate any bit, at least as far as I know to date (I have already been challenged concerning the 66 books versus the 73 or 74). All 66 Books of Scripture are useful for the purpose God inspired them. And actually, all 73 or 74, were considered useful for devotions or teaching by the very early church. There is just debate on whether they were considered Scripture, like the 66.

I do think that is something important that we teach, just like rather than being afraid of personal prayer and limit who can be used by God, we should teach the sheep how to defend themselves. We won't always be there when someone prays for them. They should grow up learning what to accept and how to reject when someone is praying over them something that the Spirit tells them is wrong.

Paragraph 6: Others created the dichotomy. I'm simply going back and declaring that I believe the larger context, not the smaller context. Too many eliminate and re-define what Scripture means based on what they think Jesus (the Jesus they want to believe in) is. They act as if the God of the Old Testament isn't the same as the God of the New Testament. That just isn't true. There are things God Himself spoke about Himself through Isaiah or Jeremiah (for instance) that are just as relevant as what God Himself revealed about Himself through Jesus Christ. What God proclaimed about Himself as He passed by Moses is no less true than what God proclaimed about Himself through Jesus Christ. So, I check my "Christo" within the larger "Theo" context.

For Paragraph 7: God's Love is amazing. But in many cases, we have taken a piece of God's love out of the full context of God's love. Many have re-defined it to mean something different than God defined it as. And, then we, necessarily, reach different conclusions by writing off Scriptures that say something to the contrary of what we want to believe.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I agree with your other points wholeheartedly.
But this statement is confusing.
The first part you state you believe in Theocentricity, not Christocentricity.
Then in the 2nd part you say the OT and NT both speak about our LORD Jesus Christ. To me the 2nd part is Christcentric.

I believe the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ.
OT = Christ concealed
NT = Christ revealed.

Thanks for taking the time to share, Doug. I certainly believe there is a lot of Scripture about Jesus Christ. I just don't believe that it is exclusively about the Person of the Word of God.

Why do you suppose The Father concealed the Son in the OT?

 

[Ing Bee]

For Paragraph 7: God's Love is amazing. But in many cases, we have taken a piece of God's love out of the full context of God's love. Many have re-defined it to mean something different than God defined it as. And, then we, necessarily, reach different conclusions by writing off Scriptures that say something to the contrary of what we want to believe.

To clarify, my point in this paragraph was simply to note that keeping the tri-unity on display prevents pendulum-swing overemphases in our devotion to the "Magnificent Three". I couldn't agree more that God's "agape" nature never denies Yahweh's perfect justice.

 

[Not David]

The Holy Spirit doesn't trick anyone. People and their traditions do.

Glad you think you're a lock to enter. Just keep in mind the Jews that missed Jesus thought they were, too.

Just keep in mind you follow traditions too.

 

[Ing Bee]

#8 first: God did. He has led me since waking me up. I believe He has put it on my heart to develop what I really believe. From the very beginning, He has been breaking lies--that I had been taught and just assumed to be true--off me. This is a continuation of that process. By putting together a sort of "full personal doctrinal statement" (of which this is only the Scripture part), I am putting together what I believe, allowing that to be scrutinized across boundaries (there are many aspects of what could be considered the church on this forum who all look at things differently), and waiting to see what stands in me after the scrutinization. I don't know the full purposes of God for what I am doing or going through, but I seldom do, until after what He had me do is done. I also have no boundaries. I have no church organization that I am trying to validate or any church organization that I am desiring to tear apart. I just want God's Truth without limits. My audience is One. My God-appointed helpers are many by the ordination of that One.

Thanks for this. You've beautifully described the nature of our family relationship with Yahweh: he transforms our mind and sets us free from lies and false assumptions.

As encouragement, and not knowing where you are or have been in your journey, I have found that the process of shedding and clarifying is sometimes unsettling but the Good Shepherd is faithful and true to get you to the green pastures he has for you. I have never been more at rest and confident in the care of Christ, never more free of fear, never more affectionate and loving toward God's people than I am now, and it is a direct result of responding to His call to know him and hear his voice more clearly.

Keep it up, brother. I am confident that your efforts to know and walk in humble delight with the Savior will benefit those around you.

 

[Doug Melven]

Why do you suppose The Father concealed the Son in the OT?

For the same reason He blinded the eyes of the 2 disciples on the Emmaus Road.
We need to see Jesus in the Word by faith.
On the Emmaus Road Jesus could have just told them who He was. But He was known to them in the breaking of bread. That is in studying the Scriptures.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

For the same reason He blinded the eyes of the 2 disciples on the Emmaus Road.
We need to see Jesus in the Word by faith.
On the Emmaus Road Jesus could have just told them who He was. But He was known to them in the breaking of bread. That is in studying the Scriptures.

I agree that we have to see The Word (Jesus) in Scripture through faith, but what you said about seems to contradict your earlier point of concealed (OT) and revealed (NT). Also, I realize the symbolism, but they actually were doing communion with Him and then their eyes were opened.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Just keep in mind you follow traditions too.

I certainly am not against Tradition before it becomes corrupted. What Moses got from God wasn't corrupted. The form of it that rejected Jesus was. What the early Church had from God wasn't corrupted. What we have today is. Power struggles, the entrance of state politics into the church, changing traditions and understandings over time, based on human wisdom all contribute to the kind of thing that rejected Jesus when He came.

Saul thought he was serving God and defending His honor and protecting His doctrine until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Saul became the Apostle Paul after that encounter, not by hearing the original Apostles preaching or hearing the stories of their being used to heal people.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

To clarify, my point in this paragraph was simply to note that keeping the tri-unity on display prevents pendulum-swing overemphases in our devotion to the "Magnificent Three". I couldn't agree more that God's "agape" nature never denies Yahweh's perfect justice.

I think I am still confused a little by what you mean here with over-devotion to the "magnificent three"? Can you clarify what you mean there.

 

[Doug Melven]

I agree that we have to see The Word (Jesus) in Scripture through faith, but what you said about seems to contradict your earlier point of concealed (OT) and revealed (NT). Also, I realize the symbolism, but they actually were doing communion with Him and then their eyes were opened.

No it doesn't.
Jesus had to reveal Himself from the OT therefore it wasn't obvious.
If Christ could have been seen in the OT without God revealing Him to those who searched for Him His whole plan would not have worked.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8 says if they had known they would not have crucified the LORD of glory.
The devil thought he had won when he had Jesus crucified, but it was God's plan all along.
But there were people who did interpret the OT Scriptures correctly. Anna, Simeon and John the Baptist.

 

[Pneuma3]

As long as God accepts their faith, and there is no reason to doubt that he does, then it is inspired for them.

I did not ask if it was inspired for them, they obviously believe the 1 book if Enoch is inspired as it is in their canon. I asked do YOU believe the 1 book of Enoch is inspired?

 

[Pneuma3]

God accomplished the salvation of the world before sending his Word into the world. That was the whole point of sending his Word in the first place. God took our sins upon himself, and in accordance with his own law was obligated to offer a lamb for a sin offering. Hence, Jesus was the Lamb of God, or more precisely, God's Lamb. God couldn't die, so his Word went forth from his mouth and became flesh, to taste death for every man.

There is plenty of scripture to support this if you need it.

Hi Fazier if you are referring to the salvation of all I am already a long time believer that God, who cannot fail, will do exactly what He set out to do.