How Do We Interprete the Bible Without Seeing it Thru Our "Systems? cal/Arm/Dispy etc

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause::wavey: Study and seek God...good plan Willis!

 

P4T,

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Thanks Brother. I do ask Him to show me wherever I am wrong. Though I truly believe in FW, if God shows me I am wrong, I will flee from it. I need to know as much about the bible as I need breathing to live.

 

So, by that logic anything that doesn't make sense to us must be deemed as "God's way" and anything that makes good sense must be 'carnal.'

 

No one has said or is saying that "anything that makes good sense is carnal." It's never even been implied. You're attempting to take it out of context to an absurd extreme that has no basis, nor does it even remotely represent what anyone has said on here. That's a misnomer, a misrepresentation and blatantly false.

I hope we can stick to facts instead of sensationalistic conclusions?

What people are saying is that leaning upon ones own logic and reason, against and or above Biblical revelation, and the truth that God is in fact over all things, then such belief is a man-centric philosophy, and is not Biblical.

In addition to this, and what others have said for a long time is that the extreme of this, which does accurately describe what is being seen on here, is that if God does not fit nicely into ones logic and reason, then that cannot be or be of God.

That's where the grave error comes in.

Such as the quote that God uses secondary means to justify Himself quote (or close to it) which is a ridiculous accusation?

Here is the quote:

Let's be certain we understand that the "it" being justified falls on the character of God, not just upon the situation at hand.

I've read several accounts where God did indeed use secondary means to accomplish His Will in the Scriptures. He doesn't need "justified" or need to "look justified" because He already is eternally just and perfect in his being.

So here we have it, if it doesn't fit into ones reason: can't be of God, which is error altogether.

Bottom line, none are nearly intelligent enough in their finite minds to make such an indictment as the above quote, and to do so speaks volumes of what a person is leaning upon: subjective reason.

Scripture interprets Scripture, where one may say that God uses secondary means to justify Himself, the Scriptures speak against such an accusation in that "He is just and the Justifier" Romans 3:26, and "Who are you to reply against God?" Romans 9:20, and "Shall we not also receive evil at the hand of God?" Job 2:10, and "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Job 38:20. There are many more Scriptures that also testify against such reason.

Thus replying against revealed truth concerning God to lean upon ones logic, and deem something that is definitely of God not of God is to lean upon mans reason above the revelation of God Himself in the Scriptures.

See the difference?

 

Reply to 12 Strings,

I think you missed my point, if others who are honest and well studied read your proof texts for Jesus being God and say the verses say something else, how can you have any confidence you are not just reading your view into the text. I referenced more than a dozen verses that say God does not remember forever, but you said, those verses actually mean God does remember. Same issue of man-made doctrine overwriting what a plain reading of text says.

Next, why give any credence to the historical view. When Jesus came and addressed the Pharisees, they were expressing the historical view which made scripture to no effect. And, not to put too fine a point on it, a careful review of the "historical view" shows many differing views as men trying to be helpful added their interpretations to the text.

Only mental defectives assume opponents are devious, rather than upstanding paragons of virtue like themselves. The topic is presumptive filtering of input where overwhelming evidence is simply nullified by arguments such as "consider the source."