- This topic is empty.
- Posts
CO,
The old ROBOT idea?David offers some good ideas to help you apply the words given in CONTEXT which often seems to elude you.
1. Examine the Immediate Context.
Do not isolate a few words, but consider the verses before and after. What is being discussed?2. Consider the Larger Context.
The Bible Interprets Itself. What do related scriptures say?
We must consider all the scriptures on a given subject and weigh them in order to grasp the true meaning.David,
I appreciate you agreeing with my posts on interpretation, however I would add a bit more .As has been said on this thread, many will claim to use proper methods and then use the “dodge to another scripture” to avoid being called on it.
There are a few absolute truths that must be observed and reckoned with when interpreting scripture. One is the purpose of scripture itself. Some look at it as a guidebook on how to walk with God, but it is much more. The proper understanding of the word should produce some good fruit in us. When I ask most about the fruit produced by their doctrines, they are dumfounded and do not know how to answer. Many Christians have been so caught up in the philosophical debate forums that they forget or ignore the reason they exist. That reason is to become like Christ. Once all the mechanical processes have been completed, there is one finale and most important test. The teaching must work to support, encourage and clarify Christ as our example and hold God’s character intact. If the end conclusion of our processes does anything to hinder or defame those things, then a problem in our process has occurred. The only thing to do is to start over and recheck al of the data and methods used to get the wrong conclusion.Quote I appreciate you agreeing with my posts on interpretation, however I would add a bit more
I was hoping you would Martian. What I'm really trying to get is a simple list, with the most important agreed upon ideas. You seem the only one has has attempted this on this forum.Quote I do not believe we have “free will”. In Eph.1:11, it states that “God is operating ALL in accord with the counsel of HIS WILL. If we have “free will”, and it opposes Gods' will, whose will will prevail? I think the answer is clear. –chosenone.
I think I understand you. You are saying we can't have free will because God's will will unquestionably happen. Is that correct. Of course, when our will comes against God's, his will win.
Of course, in the end, the will of God will be done. But not all that is going on now is the will of God. Wars, death, suffering, misery, wickeness–none of this is what God desires. People do things that are not God's will every day. He ALLOWS it, for a very good reason. But it IS NOT his will. People choose to do bad. When people do bad, that is not his will.
The Bible says we must “choose” the good, so that we keep living.
DEUTERONOMY 30:19-20
“I do take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against YOU today, that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and YOU MUST CHOOSE life in order that you may keep alive, you and your offspring, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice and by sticking to him; for he is your life and the length of your days, that you may dwell upon the ground that Jehovah swore to your forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give to them.””Where there is choice, there is free will. If they chose to act with love towards God, they would have life. It was their choice.
Here's another obvious choice:
When God created Adam, did he know that Adam would sin?
“Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” “And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.’” (Gen. 1:28; 2:16, 17)Chosenone, I have a question for you. I would like an answer, please:
Would you encourage your children to undertake a project with a marvelous future, knowing from the start that it was doomed to failure? Would you warn them of harm, while knowing that you had planned everything so that they were sure to come to grief? Is it reasonable, then, to attribute such to God?As I said before and you didn't respond to:
If God foreordained and foreknew Adam’s sin and all that would result from this, it would mean that by creating Adam, God deliberately set in motion all the wickedness committed in human history. He would be the Source of all the wars, the crime, the immorality, the oppression, the lying, the hypocrisy, the disease.Yet, what does the Bible say?
But the Bible clearly says: “You are not a God taking delight in wickedness.” (Ps. 5:4) “Anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.” (Ps. 11:5) “God . . . cannot lie.” (Titus 1:2) “From oppression and from violence he [the One designated by God as Messianic King] will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes.” (Ps. 72:14) “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) “He is a lover of righteousness and justice.”—Ps. 33:5.How do you reconsile these things, knowing that the Bible doesn't contradict itself?
Chosenone, here is something else I want you to consider. It is very similar to your scripture, Eph 1:11:
Rom. 8:28, 29: “We know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose; because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained [“predestinated,” KJ] to be patterned after the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Also Eph. 1:5, 11)
Yet, to these same ones, 2 Peter 1:10 says:
“Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for IF YOU KEEP DOING THESE THINGS you will by no means ever fail.”THINK ABOUT THOSE WORDS IN CAPS, AND THEN RESPOND TO THIS:
If the individuals were predestinated to salvation, they could not possibly fail, regardless of what they did. Since effort is required on the part of the individuals, it must be the class that is foreordained. God purposed that the entire class would conform to the pattern set by Jesus Christ. Those selected by God to be part of that class, however, must prove faithful if they are actually to attain the reward set before them.
I await your response.
david
Hi Martian,
Understanding produces no fruit except the fruit of human intellect.
The Spirit of God is what can produce fruit.David.
You have answered with a lenghly post that contained various opinions. I find that I cannot respond to all of these at this time, because of the time required, and I have not the time avalable at the moment. But I will respond to the “free will” discussion for now.
Our salvation is not out of ourselves. We do not possess it because we have done this or that in order to acquire it. Consequently, boasting is debarred (Rom.3:27). This is because we are God’s achievement. “For His achievement are we” (Eph.2: 10a). We are saved because we are God’s achievement. It is just that simple and this is fully the truth.
The word “achievement,” is poiˆma (DO-effect). We are the product of God’s doings. It is only unbelief that will seek to modify this or to explain it away. This unbelief is due to the deceptive influences of the worldly philosophy known as “free will”. We do not care for the fact that we ourselves, who effect much evil and some good, are the product of God’s own doings.
God, however, is able to operate in us, to will and to work for the sake of His delight (Phil.2:13), so that we think of these matters continually, and in a profitable and uplifting way. As those who are God’s achievement, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, ones which God Himself prepared beforehand, there is no possibility but that we should be walking in them. Indeed, since the subjunctive, “should,” in this case, points us only to God, the good works to which it refers are just as certain to be accomplished as would be the case had the indicative “shall” been used instead.
May God grant us a foretaste of the superabundant and transcendent good works of the future in a measure of good works even now, even if the best of these should be totally eclipsed when compared to our labors to come, during the oncoming eons, when we are conformed to the image of God’s Son and seated together among the celestials (Rom.8:29; Eph.2:6).
“Lest anyone should be boasting”—lest we ourselves should artfully contrive some way to look to and lean upon the flesh—we would glory only in God and in His Christ. We are saved in grace through faith, faith being an assumption, based upon God’s own word, concerning what is already true prior to and apart from our conviction in it. “For His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them” (Eph.2:10).Copied from “Concordant Publishing Concern”.
Blessings, Jerry.
david,
interesting post, if you don't mind my replies.1. line by line
2. precept by precept
3. yes, there are
4. how denominations are formed
5. milk or meat (limited to cannonized bibles, and only use ones that are dogma)
6. Who is the teacher?
7. Most don't have the watchtower to explain what scripture really menas.thanks for trying to explain your method, still don't understand it.
much love
Hi W.O.B,
I assure you the JWs do not use this methodology.
If they did they would laugh out of town their theory that Jesus is MichaelQuote david,
interesting post, if you don't mind my replies.1. line by line
2. precept by precept
3. yes, there are
4. how denominations are formed
5. milk or meat (limited to cannonized bibles, and only use ones that are dogma)
6. Who is the teacher?
7. Most don't have the watchtower to explain what scripture really menas.I'm wondering if you could explain these in more detail.
Quote I assure you the JWs do not use this methodology.
If they did they would laugh out of town their theory that Jesus is MichaelNick, you use the book of enoch to tell you there are more than one arch angel. We only use the Bible–it never mentions arch angel in plural. Your methodology goes beyond the Bible.
Hi david,
Where did I do this?I believe you are wrong and mean Daniel where it says this:
Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.Quote Hi david,
Where did I do this?Many many times you have argued that there are “archangels” and you take this idea from Enoch. Nowhere does the Bible use the word “archangels” or give the idea that there are archangels in plural. In fact, the word “arch” “angel” means “chief” “angel” or chief messenger. I wonder who God's chief messenger was?
Hi david,
So rather than fantasising let us see you take the idea through your rigourous system of evaluation.Meanwhile of interest perhaps
Jude 1
9Yet Michael the archangel [743], when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.Number 743
Transliteration:
archaggelos {ar-khang'-el-os}
Word Origin:
from 757 and 32
TDNT:
1:87,12
Part of Speech:
noun masculine
Usage in the KJV:
archangel 2Total: 2
Definition:
archangel, or chief of the angels The Jews, after the exile, distinguished several orders of angels; some reckoned four angels (according to the four sides of God's throne) of the highest rank; but the majority reckoned seven (after the pattern of the seven Amshaspands, the highest spirits of the religion of Zoroaster)Hi david,
So looking at the theory
JESUS IS MICHAEL
1. Examine the Immediate Context.
Do not isolate a few words, but consider the verses before and after. What is being discussed?NO SCRIPTURE SAYS IT
2. Consider the Larger Context.
The Bible Interprets Itself. What do related scriptures say?
We must consider all the scriptures on a given subject and weigh them in order to grasp the true meaning.
NO OTHER VERSES TO COMPARE WITH3. God’s Word never contradicts itself.
So if there is an apparent contradiction, then you are misunderstanding a scripture. If there are a group of scriptures that state one idea clearly, use those to help you understand the scripture in question.NO SCRIPTURES SAY HE IS NOT
But they do say he was made less that the angels in hebrews so that makes him no form of angel, arch or otherwise.4. Start with Clear Scriptures.
Never attempt to establish doctrine by unclear scriptures. Isolating only one scripture that can be understood a number of ways and building a belief around that is dangerous.THERE ARE NONE THAT SAY IT
5. Use More Than One Scripture.
No single scripture can be used to establish doctrine.
Examine verses throughout the Bible that are related.THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE SO COMPARISON IS NOT POSSIBLE
6. Use More Than One Translation.
Understand what other translations say. Look at the margins/footnotes and see how else that verse can be translated. Some Bibles are almost paraphrases of what the text actually says. If one Bible translates a certain verse differently than most, understand why it does so.NOT EVEN THE NWT SAYS IT
7. Find Out What the Bible really says.
Many beliefs are common but actually aren’t in the Bible. (Nowhere does it say Adam ate from an “apple” but it simply says “fruit.”) Many people believe things, but can’t scripturally explain why.CLOSER EXAMINATION STILL NEVER FINDS SCRIPTURE SAYING JESUS IS MICHAEL
Conclusion.
IT IS A FALSE PREMISE1. Examine the Immediate Context.
2. Consider the Larger Context. (Scripture interprets scripture.)
3. God’s Word never contradicts itself.
4. Start with Clear Scriptures. (Spend most of your time in the clear scriptures.)
5. Use More Than One Scripture.
6. Use More Than One Translation.I'm sure everyone on here uses some or all of these ideas AND more. I'm actually wanting to add to this list. I haven't actually spent a lot of time considering this. What other ideas can help one come to accurate knowledge of Bible understanding?
Hi David,
What if your church doctrine includes teachings from outside scripture?
Should we slavishly follow the church leadership?
Or should we stand up for scripture?Nick, your predictablility / disregard for the rules / rudeness, is beginning to bother me.
Do you seriously not have any thoughts on how YOU understand the Bible? Or was my list perfect and complete?
Hi david,
So there are no bible verses to support this fanciful idea.
Then why not drop it?Michael is Michael.
Jesus is the Son of God and Michael is a prince or archangel.
Scripture does say these things.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
