What is the definition of the word of God?

[RC_NewProtestants]

study the Bible my friends and let the Holy Spirit direct your thoughts and conclusions.

Here is one of the few times I agree with Jim. Unfortuantely fundamentalism says don't study, don't think and don't draw conclusions other then the one's tradition has established for us.

Jim produces a rationalization for why God tells people to do what today would be considered horrible things. That is what we have to do, determine how revelation from God should be interpreted and what has significance for us and what was for a particular time, people or context. Now I don't like Jim's rationalization because it assumes way too much such as the idea that seeing a miraculus manifestation means that people had greater knowledge of God or were even held to a higher standard.

As one of the members of my class said, can you imagine what would have happened if after the exodus the people were told that it is by grace we are saved not by works. That everything is permissible but not everything profitable. No they were not ready for the gospel message of Paul they were absolute beginners. Quoting the Bible aside from Jim's statement is not disingenuous, it is essential to expose people to the fallacies that they allow to rule their religion. For if you hold to the Bible as the Word of God and we are to obey the word of God how can it be disingenuous to point out that we don't and we do not intend to follow what we claim is the word of God.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Here is one of the few times I agree with Jim. Unfortuantely fundamentalism says don't study, don't think and don't draw conclusions other then the one's tradition has established for us.

Jim produces a rationalization for why God tells people to do what today would be considered horrible things. That is what we have to do, determine how revelation from God should be interpreted and what has significance for us and what was for a particular time, people or context. Now I don't like Jim's rationalization because it assumes way too much such as the idea that seeing a miraculus manifestation means that people had greater knowledge of God or were even held to a higher standard.

As one of the members of my class said, can you imagine what would have happened if after the exodus the people were told that it is by grace we are saved not by works. That everything is permissible but not everything profitable. No they were not ready for the gospel message of Paul they were absolute beginners. Quoting the Bible aside from Jim's statement is not disingenuous, it is essential to expose people to the fallacies that they allow to rule their religion. For if you hold to the Bible as the Word of God and we are to obey the word of God how can it be disingenuous to point out that we don't and we do not intend to follow what we claim is the word of God.

Oh, but RC you couldn't be more wrong. What does the Word of God say in Hebrews 4:2?

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

What about 1 Peter 3:18-20

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The same gospel preached to us today was preached to the antideluvians as well as to the children of Israel. It was and always will be a gospel of faith not works.

By the way... I just have to ask... Are you a Jesuit posing as a christian? All I have seen from your posts is someone trying to break down peoples faith in the Gospel, the word of God, trying your best to cause people to lose their faith. How in the world were you allowed to teach a bible study class?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No I am not a Jesuit, but that you would suspect I am tells me a lot about you. Now I don't know what you are disagreeing with. as you say:

Oh, but RC you couldn't be more wrong. What does the Word of God say in Hebrews 4:2?

What I am wrong about? Is it where I say:
-- Unfortuantely fundamentalism says don't study, don't think and don't draw conclusions other then the one's tradition has established for us.

-- That is what we have to do, determine how revelation from God should be interpreted and what has significance for us and what was for a particular time, people or context.


Now I don't like Jim's rationalization because it assumes way too much such as the idea that seeing a miraculus manifestation means that people had greater knowledge of God or were even held to a higher standard.

--As one of the members of my class said, can you imagine what would have happened if after the exodus the people were told that it is by grace we are saved not by works.


--That everything is permissible but not everything profitable. No they were not ready for the gospel message of Paul they were absolute beginners.

-- For if you hold to the Bible as the Word of God and we are to obey the word of God how can it be disingenuous to point out that we don't and we do not intend to follow what we claim is the word of God.

The gospel that was given to the Old Testament people was to have faith in God, but it was far different in the particulars, as they did not even have a concept of life after death until much later.

The problem is people like you quote texts and you assume that the meaning you put in the text is the only possible meaning and then you refuse to examine the rest of the Bible and it's context and messages and complain that their fundamentalist explaination is not accepted. It is why people like me can teach and people like you stifle thought. Because it is not teaching if you don't expand their understanding.

By the way you are using Hebrews 4:2 out of its context:

Heb 4:1-6
1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
(NIV)

I don't have any idea where you come up with this:

The same gospel preached to us today was preached to the antideluvians as well as to the children of Israel. It was and always will be a gospel of faith not works.

Did I ever say anything about works? Or is this your attempt to confuse the issues because you can't deal with the issues.

 

[Loveaboveall]

RC you said

"--As one of the members of my class said, can you imagine what would have happened if after the exodus the people were told that it is by grace we are saved not by works."

My point was this-- You quoted your student as saying something that you deemed to be true. That student said, according to what you quoted, that the gospel was NOT preached to them. You make it sound as if they did not know about a coming Messiah that would save the world.

What is the Gospel? Is it not that we are saved by the blood of Jesus? It is not about what we do but what Jesus did? Doesn't Paul clearly point out in Hebrews 4 that the gospel was preached to those children of Israel? And doesn't Peter clearly say that this same message of salvation through Jesus was preached by the spirit to the antideluvian world before the flood?


From what you have posted about what you taught your class it sounds like you spent the whole class challenging what they thought they knew about the inspiration of the bible and you tried to help them understand that you do not have to follow everything that is in the bible. This whole quarters lesson is supposed to be helping people study to understand that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God and it sounds to me as if you are trying to undermine that whole concept.

Instead of undermining peoples faith why not focus on Jesus, who is the Word, for He is what the WHOLE Bible is about from beginning to end. This lesson is meant to strengthen peoples faith in the Bible and it's inspiration. You could have focused on Jesus and the change that takes place in a person when they are a "new creature" They are living proof that the Bible is inspired of God because of this change that the Bible says will happen. I don't see any good that can come of all this controversy that you bring to the table.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You present a good example of just why it is so important that people think about what they believe and why rather then simply assuming that they know all the answers. You will not find statement of Paul's like "by grace we are saved not by works" in the Old Testament, hints at that are found in the latter writings but certainly not to the Children of Israel at Sinai.

You make it sound as if they did not know about a coming Messiah that would save the world.

They did not, read the Old testament and you will not find that idea in the first 5 books of the Bible, later they began to develop messianic expections but they were mainly based uon the expectation of a ruling king that would make the nation of Israel great once again. We just went through the book of Ecclesiastes which quite clearly had no expectation of life after death. In fact it ends by saying obedience to God is the best we can do. Obedience to God was the main teaching of most of the old testament. It was not the type of faith based obedience of the New Testament.

What is the Gospel? Is it not that we are saved by the blood of Jesus? It is not about what we do but what Jesus did? Doesn't Paul clearly point out in Hebrews 4 that the gospel was preached to those children of Israel? And doesn't Peter clearly say that this same message of salvation through Jesus was preached by the spirit to the antideluvian world before the flood?

Hebrews 4 points out that faith is what God desires and that the rest they desired to enter was the rest we can enter through Christ Though their rest was far different from the rest we anticipate, for instance Abraham looked for a land based rest as in his own country. It does not present that they knew the gospel of salvation mediated by Jesus Christ 1000's of years before it occurred. The Gospel that Paul espouses is based very much on the historical life death and resurrection of Jesus.

Does Peter ever say that "that this same message of salvation through Jesus was preached by the spirit to the antideluvian world before the flood?" In fact it appears you are using one of the controversial verses of the Bible that many think means Jesus preached in hell or something. One thing for certain is that it is not a clear teaching that people before the flood had the gospel as revealed in the New Testament.

1 Pet 3:18-20
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
(NIV)

From what you have posted about what you taught your class it sounds like you spent the whole class challenging what they thought they knew about the inspiration of the bible and you tried to help them understand that you do not have to follow everything that is in the bible. This whole quarters lesson is supposed to be helping people study to understand that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God and it sounds to me as if you are trying to undermine that whole concept.

That is right I challenged their trite thinking just as I challenge yours. That is why the question was raised in the first place. What does the word of God mean? They. like you started out thinking that it was the Bible and that we must obey what the Bible says. Then when they encounter what the Bible says they have to come to a decision as to why they don't follow what they have called the word of the Lord says:

Exod 31:12-14
12 Then the LORD said to Moses,
13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.
14 "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
(NIV)

They claim the Bible is the word of God yet they don't practice much of what the Old Testament commands, even things that as above are thus saith the Lord. They have to learn to make interpretations about what is for us and what is time and place and context relevant for others in history but not for people today. If the lesson wants to tell you that the Bible is the word of God why is it they they don't define the term? The reason of course is because the fundamentalist concept of the Bible as the word of God does not work and they don't want to delve into that, they want to hold to trite and simplistic thinking.

Instead of undermining peoples faith why not focus on Jesus, who is the Word, for He is what the WHOLE Bible is about from beginning to end. This lesson is meant to strengthen peoples faith in the Bible and it's inspiration. You could have focused on Jesus and the change that takes place in a person when they are a "new creature" They are living proof that the Bible is inspired of God because of this change that the Bible says will happen. I don't see any good that can come of all this controversy that you bring to the table.

This is not undermining faith it is application of our minds into what our faith is about. The Bible is not all about Jesus, it is not even all about God it is a series of stories and poetry which are meant to bring us to a relationship with God. Do you really think the rape of Tamar (Gen 38) is about Jesus or the Ezekiel's prophecies about Egypt (Eze. 31). Too many people don't think about what they are saying they will quote the following and pretend that it means everything in the Bible is about Jesus:

John 5:39
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, (NIV)



The scriptures should lead you to God, just like the law with all its regulations are meant as a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ."
Gal 3:24 " So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (NIV)"

The reason you don't see the importance of these issues is probably because you don't understand the Bible either and instead of trying to understand you claim that people must just grasp it by faith. Well that does not work today if it ever worked. And it certainly does not work with the people in the world who we should be trying to reach. Unfortunately Adventism has focused mainly upon reaching other Christians so we paid little attention to really understanding how we need to interpret the Bible. Then of course most Adventists accepted EGW as the inspired interpreter of the Bible and it left Adventist incredibly weak and in many cases Biblically illiterate. We even tried to say that we were called "people of the book" even though no one outside of Adventism called us that and that we were in fact stealing the term from Moslems who used the term to describe any religious people who had a sacred scriptures they followed like Islam followed the Koran.

 

[Loveaboveall]

You present a good example of just why it is so important that people think about what they believe and why rather then simply assuming that they know all the answers. You will not find statement of Paul's like "by grace we are saved not by works" in the Old Testament, hints at that are found in the latter writings but certainly not to the Children of Israel at Sinai.



They did not, read the Old testament and you will not find that idea in the first 5 books of the Bible, later they began to develop messianic expections but they were mainly based uon the expectation of a ruling king that would make the nation of Israel great once again. We just went through the book of Ecclesiastes which quite clearly had no expectation of life after death. In fact it ends by saying obedience to God is the best we can do. Obedience to God was the main teaching of most of the old testament. It was not the type of faith based obedience of the New Testament.



Hebrews 4 points out that faith is what God desires and that the rest they desired to enter was the rest we can enter through Christ Though their rest was far different from the rest we anticipate, for instance Abraham looked for a land based rest as in his own country. It does not present that they knew the gospel of salvation mediated by Jesus Christ 1000's of years before it occurred. The Gospel that Paul espouses is based very much on the historical life death and resurrection of Jesus.

Does Peter ever say that "that this same message of salvation through Jesus was preached by the spirit to the antideluvian world before the flood?" In fact it appears you are using one of the controversial verses of the Bible that many think means Jesus preached in hell or something. One thing for certain is that it is not a clear teaching that people before the flood had the gospel as revealed in the New Testament.




That is right I challenged their trite thinking just as I challenge yours. That is why the question was raised in the first place. What does the word of God mean? They. like you started out thinking that it was the Bible and that we must obey what the Bible says. Then when they encounter what the Bible says they have to come to a decision as to why they don't follow what they have called the word of the Lord says:


They claim the Bible is the word of God yet they don't practice much of what the Old Testament commands, even things that as above are thus saith the Lord. They have to learn to make interpretations about what is for us and what is time and place and context relevant for others in history but not for people today. If the lesson wants to tell you that the Bible is the word of God why is it they they don't define the term? The reason of course is because the fundamentalist concept of the Bible as the word of God does not work and they don't want to delve into that, they want to hold to trite and simplistic thinking.



This is not undermining faith it is application of our minds into what our faith is about. The Bible is not all about Jesus, it is not even all about God it is a series of stories and poetry which are meant to bring us to a relationship with God. Do you really think the rape of Tamar (Gen 38) is about Jesus or the Ezekiel's prophecies about Egypt (Eze. 31). Too many people don't think about what they are saying they will quote the following and pretend that it means everything in the Bible is about Jesus:

John 5:39
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, (NIV)



The scriptures should lead you to God, just like the law with all its regulations are meant as a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ."
Gal 3:24 " So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (NIV)"

The reason you don't see the importance of these issues is probably because you don't understand the Bible either and instead of trying to understand you claim that people must just grasp it by faith. Well that does not work today if it ever worked. And it certainly does not work with the people in the world who we should be trying to reach. Unfortunately Adventism has focused mainly upon reaching other Christians so we paid little attention to really understanding how we need to interpret the Bible. Then of course most Adventists accepted EGW as the inspired interpreter of the Bible and it left Adventist incredibly weak and in many cases Biblically illiterate. We even tried to say that we were called "people of the book" even though no one outside of Adventism called us that and that we were in fact stealing the term from Moslems who used the term to describe any religious people who had a sacred scriptures they followed like Islam followed the Koran.

RC,

I will pray for you. I have gone to your website and perused much of what you teach and, to be honest, I don't understand why you espouse to be a seventh-day adventist. What bothers me more though is that you try to use common sense as your guide to understanding the Bible instead of letting the Holy Spirit teach you what is contained in the word of God. Yes, people who break the sabbath should be put to death because it is a sin, However, Jesus taught a very important lesson about condemning people didn't He?

Yes, the whole Bible is about Jesus from top to bottom. From the very beginning the human race has been taught of the messiah. Don't you remember Gen 3:15 which was just in this past weeks lesson. It is a promise of Jesus. What about when God told Abraham all would be blessed through him? The WHOLE sanctuary was about Jesus. Do you think the israelites did this without knowing what it meant? When did they finally figure it out? No one has ever been saved by "obeying God" which we call works. All have been saved by faith from the very beginning when we first needed a savior.

Sometimes truths are so simple that our human wisdom can't grasp them. In any case, if you are not leading people to Jesus at every chance you can get, but instead arguing and undermining their belief they do have in Him than you are not following the direction of God. You would rather try to show people how smart and learned you are and boast of your knowledge than humble yourself and be a servant to people by showing them Jesus.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yes, the whole Bible is about Jesus from top to bottom. From the very beginning the human race has been taught of the messiah. Don't you remember Gen 3:15 which was just in this past weeks lesson. It is a promise of Jesus. What about when God told Abraham all would be blessed through him? The WHOLE sanctuary was about Jesus. Do you think the israelites did this without knowing what it meant? When did they finally figure it out? No one has ever been saved by "obeying God" which we call works. All have been saved by faith from the very beginning when we first needed a savior.

I gave you specific examples and of course you simply ignore them. You bring in Gen 3:15 which is nowhere used in the Bible as a reference to the Messiah, you have to take it completely out of its context to do that but you pretend that it what it is all about, because you hold tradition over context. You are rejecting common sense and God given intelligence to hold to man made ideas that you claim are from God.

The sanctuary was not about Jesus, that is what we read into the sanctuary from our perspective after Christ. It was not about the Messiah to them it is a foreshadowing of Christ, but like any foreshadow it is not recognized until after what was foreshadowed occurs. That is the same with Abraham's seed. And from the very beginning there was not even a concept of being saved, the best they hoped for was to be buried with their fathers. No one was trying to be saved by obedience then unless it was from immediate peril such as David running from Saul. You need to read the Bible as it is written without all your traditions.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Still trying to understand why you attend and teach in a seventhday adventist church if you do not hold to there beliefs. Why not go someplace where you can fellowship with likeminded individuals?

If you cannot clearly see the prophecies of the messiah in the old testament than I will not waste my time any longer.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Still trying to understand why you attend and teach in a seventhday adventist church if you do not hold to there beliefs. Why not go someplace where you can fellowship with likeminded individuals?

If you cannot clearly see the prophecies of the messiah in the old testament than I will not waste my time any longer.

First a prophecy in the Old Testament does not mean that the people to which that prophecy was given had any concept of what the prophecy would be fulfilled. That is the critical mistakes so many Christians make. Assuming that those people knew far more then is recorded in the Bible or in their history both oral traditions and written works. The reason people want to pour additional meaning into texts like Gen 3:15 is because they have assumed a penal atonement view and they want to place it into the Old Testament so that they can say here look there is the penal atonement in the Old Testament. Look here God kills a lamb and clothes Adam and Eve with its skin he was showing them the plan of salvation. Of course the story says nothing of God killing the first life on his new creation but because people don't want to read the stories they way they were written or the way that Israel would have heard the stories they add a lot of information. then through tradition they refer to it as though that is what the Bible really says, though it does not. How many times have you heard that Noah preached for 120 years. That is not found in the Genesis account it is a tradition taken from the expression before the Flood account that God's Spirit would not remain

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (NIV)

It was not until Peter says that Noah was a Preacher of Righteousness do we have anything that could possible indicate that Noah said anything to people. And frankly the meaning of preacher of Righteousness may just mean he was an example of righteousness. Yet in all this People have distorted the biblical story, I read it on this forum just a couple days ago.

This kind of traditional thinking is not exclusive to Adventism we are just a product of the times. You can read a very similar example from Jimmy Swaggart's commentary bible where he says:

Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass (the phase used here refers to a long indefinite period), That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (This was Probably the first offering that he brought, even though the Lord had explained to the First Family the necessity of the Sacrificial System, that is if they were to have any type of communion with God and Forgiveness of sins. There is evidence that Adam, at least for a while, offered up sacrifices. Cain knew the type of Sacrifice that the Lord would accept, but he rebelled against that admonition, demanding that God accept the labor of his hands, which, in fact, God could not accept. So we have, in the person of Cain and Abel, the first examples of a religious man of the world and a genuine man of faith.

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/04/jimmy-swaggarts-distorted-bible.html

Naturally he present know evidence because he has none. It is merely a plea to traditionalism like you have done with Gen 3:15.

So it does not really matter where I go there are going to be those traditionalists who can't manage to consider context. Though of course there are others in the Adventist church who see past the non thinking traditionalism, in fact the Adventist church has an advantage have given up the traditionalism of hell long ago, we have been a church historically not afraid to consider new ideas. However with time we often dig ourselves into another rut it appears to be the nature of every denomination but just because that is where the leadership have dug themselves does not mean that that applies to all the members of the Church.