Theological option for the "I don't know, and that's okay" crowd.

[aiki]

So about that ending in Mark, I suppose you're getting bit by snakes and speaking in tongues and all that.

This is called a "red herring." The purpose of this sort of remark is to distract from a point that's been made for which one does not have a good answer. Do you deny that the context in which a verse or passage appears generally best defines and constrains its meaning?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Predestination, the lake of fire and escatology were things that were here from teh beginning of teh faith of the church. They were not called that as the titles came long after the truth was already trhere and taught.

Actually, the church began with "I preach Christ Crucified." In your three point sermon, where is Jesus?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is called a "red herring." The purpose of this sort of remark is to distract from a point that's been made for which one does not have a good answer. Do you deny that the context in which a verse or passage appears generally best defines and constrains its meaning?

In general, when you look at the Revelation, you see people tossed into the lake of fire, and then afterwards it is written that the one on the throne says "Behold, I make all things new"

From just the immediate context, it would imply all those things tossed into the lake of fire were also made new.

You must also take into context the whole scripture would usually be the next Baptist bible study point, correct?

So why try to make it all about the immediate context?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In our spiritual "election", we all get a vote.

What do you mean by "sewage work"?
And why would "things get really crazy" if you don't do it?

It's like I get to interact with thoughts and emotions directly.

Thoughts have a good intentions layer that laminates all the sin below.

if the layer of good intentions ever ruptures, this tends to result in mental illness.

My role is to introduce a "gospel" solution to this paranormal aspect of reality so it doesn't grow out of control.

 

[aiki]

In general, when you look at the Revelation, you see people tossed into the lake of fire, and then afterwards it is written that the one on the throne says "Behold, I make all things new"

From just the immediate context, it would imply all those things tossed into the lake of fire were also made new.

You must also take into context the whole scripture would usually be the next Baptist bible study point, correct?

So why try to make it all about the immediate context?

Have I done that? Where, exactly, do I "make it all about immediate context"?

The first and primary source from which to extract the meaning of any particular verse is its immediate context. Additional qualifications and contractions or expansions of that meaning may arise from the rest of Scripture, however. I don't deny this nor have I implied such a denial.

In context, what is the "all" being referred to in the Revelation? Does it allow the construction of meaning you're putting upon it? Nope.

Revelation 21:4-5
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

In context, "all things" does not include those "former things that are passed away." The "all" of the verse is actually a reference back to the beginning of the chapter:

Revelation 21:1-2
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

In context, when "he who sat upon the throne" says "Behold" he is referring to what is described in these verses. The "all," then, refers to the new heaven and earth and the city of Jerusalem come down from heaven, not literally and absolutely all things everywhere from all time.

See? Immediate context goes a very long way in aiding one in properly ascertaining the actual meaning of a particular, word, phrase, verse or passage in Scripture. It is not the only criteria by which to properly interpret Scripture, however.

 

[Bobber]

Not really, read the beginning of Acts, it's not for us to know the times set in the Father's power. could turn it around and say, are you off thesis? It's about Jesus, not fortunetelling the end of the world.

Sorry Micheal but this is absolute nonsense. Context. For whatever reason either innocently or on purpose it seems you're choosing to bypass it. You claimed prior there can be no end time teachings which would be a theology which has any importance as to whether you get wrong. It's OKAY to believe anything I believe you said.

Jesus NEVER said that. In Acts they were asking about the EXACT time God was going to set up his kingdom. Jesus told them it wasn't a priority that they should know that right now. Acts 1:7 That certainly doesn't mean other things he told them about the end times all throughout the gospels that it's not important or OK to believe whatever you want. How can you possibly arrive at the conclusions from the warnings Jesus gave about end times in the scripture?

I pointed out an example in my prior post and could put down others as well. Even the belief that his physical kingdom would some day come is a theology. Jesus never said it's not important that you believe that. He was talking about the timing of it. Of course we I think can know now why he told them not to seek to have all the answers, I stress all the answers about it now. Didn't say it's not important to know some things. Seems obvious he knew that if he told them it were a few thousand years in the future it may not have been an easy thing for them to bear. He wanted them to place their main focus on establishing the spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Have I done that? Where, exactly, do I "make it all about immediate context"?

The first and primary source from which to extract the meaning of any particular verse is its immediate context. Additional qualifications and contractions or expansions of that meaning may arise from the rest of Scripture, however. I don't deny this nor have I implied such a denial.

In context, what is the "all" being referred to in the Revelation? Does it allow the construction of meaning you're putting upon it? Nope.

Revelation 21:4-5
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

In context, "all things" does not include those "former things that are passed away." The "all" of the verse is actually a reference back to the beginning of the chapter:

Revelation 21:1-2
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

In context, when "he who sat upon the throne" says "Behold" he is referring to what is described in these verses. The "all," then, refers to the new heaven and earth and the city of Jerusalem come down from heaven, not literally and absolutely all things everywhere from all time.

See? Immediate context goes a very long way in aiding one in properly ascertaining the actual meaning of a particular, word, phrase, verse or passage in Scripture. It is not the only criteria by which to properly interpret Scripture, however.

If all stops meaning all, then there's some trickery in there for sure.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sorry Micheal but this is absolute nonsense. Context. For whatever reason either innocently or on purpose it seems you're choosing to bypass it. You claimed prior there can be no end time teachings which would be a theology which has any importance as to whether you get wrong. It's OKAY to believe anything I believe you said.

Jesus NEVER said that. In Acts they were asking about the EXACT time God was going to set up his kingdom. Jesus told them it wasn't a priority that they should know that right now. Acts 1:7 That certainly doesn't mean other things he told them about the end times all throughout the gospels that it's not important or OK to believe whatever you want. How can you possibly arrive at the conclusions from the warnings Jesus gave about end times in the scripture?

I pointed out an example in my prior post and could put down others as well. Even the belief that his physical kingdom would some day come is a theology. Jesus never said it's not important that you believe that. He was talking about the timing of it. Of course we I think can know now why he told them not to seek to have all the answers, I stress all the answers about it now. Didn't say it's not important to know some things. Seems obvious he knew that if he told them it were a few thousand years in the future it may not have been an easy thing for them to bear. He wanted them to place their main focus on establishing the spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men.

It is not for you to know the times set in the Father's power.

Can't really interpret that much differently than it is none of your business.

However, the fact that there are other interpretations illustrates the point, it's okay to not know.

 

[aiki]

If all stops meaning all, then there's some trickery in there for sure.

This is silly and I'm sure you know it. English uses the same word to refer to many different things - especially a term like "all" that can be a noun, adjective or adverb. If Bob has just gutted his bathroom and his wife looks in on his work, and he says to her, "I'm gonna make everything new," does he mean literally everything? The entire universe? Obviously not. Bob no more means this than "he who sits on the throne" meant "all" in this literal, universal sense. And in both cases we know this from the context within which the statements are made.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is silly and I'm sure you know it. English uses the same word to refer to many different things - especially a counting noun like "all." If Bob has just gutted his bathroom and his wife looks in on his work, and he says to her, "I'm gonna make everything new," does he mean literally everything? The entire universe? Obviously not. Bob no more means this than "he who sits on the throne" meant "all" in this literal, universal sense. And in both cases we know this from the context within which the statements are made.

But Jesus is the creator, so it would be within the range of options, to make all things (literally) new.

In general, I've probably studied the bible too much, I enjoyed studying the different views and in fnding my own, most of what is taught is encroaching on or completely replacing a mystery that is just supposed to be there within us, something God creates within us so we know the way to go.

However, due to the lack of spirituality in the populace, people entering the church lack an ability to "not know" things. There must be an answer, it is a form of idolatry that the church missed it's chance to address.

 

[aiki]

But Jesus is the creator, so it would be within the range of options, to make all things (literally) new.

It would be within his power, yes. But there is no option one is offered by Christ's words, only what he actually was referring to, made plain and limited
by the immediate context of his remark.

In general, I've probably studied the bible too much...

Perhaps. But did you study it well? Study can be done poorly, even though one has done a lot of it. Your comments in this thread make me wonder.

most of what is taught is encroaching on or completely replacing a mystery that is just supposed to be there within us

Says who?

However, due to the lack of spirituality in the populace, people entering the church lack an ability to "not know" things.

How does spirituality necessitate not knowing things? What do you mean by "spirituality"?

 

[Bobber]

It is not for you to know the times set in the Father's power.

Can't really interpret that much differently than it is none of your business.

However, the fact that there are other interpretations illustrates the point, it's okay to not know.

Yes it's OK for you NOT TO KNOW when the Kingdom is going to be established. Nothing to do with being OK not to believe certain things, I stress certain things he said about what you should know about the kingdom.

Or let's put it this way. If I had a will and someone asked me what's in it because I tell them a certain thing isn't for you to know yet does that mean I haven't told them clearly some things. Those some things would be a theological position and if those certain things were warnings how could you or any other claim it's OK not to take seriously what he warned about. Well I suppose people some will still do this but you might want to consider that they do so at their own peril. They certainly don't want the Lord to stand and look them in the face and tell them, "I told you in my teachings and you said it was OK not to believe me" I trust and hope that you won't continue to hold to that position.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How does spirituality necessitate not knowing things? What do you mean by "spirituality"?

The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, that's part of Christian Spirituality.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes it's OK for you NOT TO KNOW when the Kingdom is going to be established. Nothing to do with being OK not to believe certain things, I stress certain things he said about what you should know about the kingdom.

Or let's put it this way. If I had a will and someone asked me what's in it because I tell them a certain thing isn't for you to know yet does that mean I haven't told them clearly some things. Those some things would be a theological position and if those certain things were warnings how could you or any other claim it's OK not to take seriously what he warned about. Well I suppose people some will still do this but you might want to consider that they do so at their own peril. They certainly don't want the Lord to stand and look them in the face and tell them, "I told you in my teachings and you said it was OK not to believe me" I trust and hope that you won't continue to hold to that position.

Treating the bible like a legal document leads to crucifying him all over again.

 

[Bobber]

Treating the bible like a legal document leads to crucifying him all over again.

I have no ideal what you mean by such a statement.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have no ideal what you mean by such a statement.

You compared the bible to a person's will.

However, anyone who has read a will, will note that the bible is not written as a will document is, so first off - it doesn't really follow.

Second, comparing the bible to a legal document causes the interpretation to mimick those who crucified Jesus, and as the scripture says - if you have not loved your brother whom your eye has seen, how can you love God who you haven't seen?

I think we've impaled each other enough over the centuries with the sword of the spirit. Should have got it out of our system by now.

 

[nolidad]

Actually, the church began with "I preach Christ Crucified." In your three point sermon, where is Jesus?

Doctrine is simply Gods opinion on a matter written down for us to obey!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Doctrine is simply Gods opinion on a matter written down for us to obey!

Doctrine is derived when we take all the scriptures that speak on a topic, and read the surrounding contexts, and develop general community rules from them.

Doctrine is simply human opinion of what the bible says on a topic.

 

[Bobber]

Doctrine is derived when we take all the scriptures that speak on a topic, and read the surrounding contexts, and develop general community rules from them.

Doctrine is simply human opinion of what the bible says on a topic.

God the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul obviously doesn't hold to your opinion. In fact he doesn't inspire those he gives revelations with opinions. He tells them FACTS. What did he say through the Apostle Paul?

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 1 Titus 1 :9

What is sound doctrine except that which is absolutely true? And what was to be the response to those who contradict it? A pat on the back? A word which would say, "That's OK not important to really get anything right I mean after all who knows what's right?"

Nope. Everyone who has any respect for scripture can see how anyone putting out unsound doctrine is to be dealt with. 1 Titus 1:9 So really you have the name Christian in your file....are you really going to stay with all doctrines are merely human opinions? If the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul didn't want us to hold that what he said by scripture was a divine origin then why should they be rebuked if they contradicted it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

God the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul obviously doesn't hold to your opinion. In fact he doesn't inspire those he gives revelations with opinions. He tells them FACTS. What did he say through the Apostle Paul?

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 1 Titus 1 :9

What is sound doctrine except that which is absolutely true? And what was to be the response to those who contradict it? A pat on the back? A word which would say, "That's OK not important to really get anything right I mean after all who knows what's right?"

Nope. Everyone who has any respect for scripture can see how anyone putting out unsound doctrine is to be dealt with. 1 Titus 1:9 So really you have the name Christian in your file....are you really going to stay with all doctrines are merely human opinions? If the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul didn't want us to hold that what he said by scripture was a divine origin then why should they be rebuked if they contradicted it?

Sounds like conjecture coupled with condescension.

Thanks for posting though.

Doctrine is what I said it is, sound doctrine is something different altogether.