Why not the Bible?

[JonC]

On the discussions here, especially this section of the Baptist board, people seem to argue theories and old dead men. I have repeatedly asked where, in the Bible, some of these Ideas are found. I have been asking this for over a decade. There is never an answer, except perhaps to flood the thread with passages where those ideas are not found (e.g., "Where does the Bible say that there were three wise men?" Reply - "John 3:16, Ezekiel 2:8, Genesis 4:10, Matthew 11:9; Revelation 3:1; 1 Corinthians 5:18, the Bible from cover to cover, John Owen, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Myers, John MacArthur, John Murray, most Reformed Baptists.....etc".

The top sender of missionaries per population is South Korea. I can see that. The US and UK are not even in the top five.

I heard recently an interesting tidbit. A missionary said that they focus on sending missionaries to the US and UK because Christianity is pretty much dead, even among professing Christians. In the US znd UK "Christianity is tradition and traditions. It is being "Christian" because that is what your family is. It is being "Christian" based on the teachings of a denomination, or theories, or theologies. It is "Christian" philosophy. I can see that.

At one time somebody would tell your their position and then provide passages that stated what they believed. The discussion woukd then go to different interpretations of those passages. Somebody might say "a divorced man can't be a deacon" and provide 1 Timothy 3. Another might disagree and say he views that as a prohibition of polygamy. Then you'd get a verse about divorce and a discussion.

But it is not like that today. Today somebody makes a claim and when asked to provide the passage they give you John Murray, or Kennith Copeland, or Taylor Swiftt....anything but a biblical reference.


Why the aversion to the actual Bible (to God's Word)?

 

[Dave G]

On the discussions here, especially this section of the Baptist board, people seem to argue theories and old dead men. I have repeatedly asked where, in the Bible, some of these Ideas are found.

If you'll remember Jon, many of the subjects spoken about have been one side presenting Scripture, and another side essentially saying, "it doesn't say that"...
Which is an ongoing problem on not only this board, but on sites and among "denominations" the world over.

IMO,
This scene plays itself out over and over, has done so and probably will do so until the Lord comes again.

e.g., "Where does the Bible say that there were three wise men?

It doesn't;
It says "the wise men" presented three gifts... gold, frankincense and myrrh.
But it's become tradition nevertheless.

 

[Dave G]

At one time somebody would tell your their position and then provide passages that stated what they believed. The discussion woukd then go to different interpretations of those passages. Somebody might say "a divorced man can't be a deacon" and provide 1 Timothy 3. Another might disagree and say he views that as a prohibition of polygamy. Then you'd get a verse about divorce and a discussion.

But it is not like that today. Today somebody makes a claim and when asked to provide the passage they give you John Murray, or Kennith Copeland, or Taylor Swiftt....anything but a biblical reference.

Ah, I see what you're saying.
Since I've only been here for about 7 years, I don't know what it was like prior to that.

Why the aversion to the actual Bible (to God's Word)?

Perhaps it's because people rely too much upon their favorite teachers fir their own understanding of God's word?

Or perhaps it's because they don't know how they could phrase their own beliefs better than some well-regarded preacher or teacher that they do know or have read...
And they simply defer in favor of that person's better wording on a matter.

 

[JonC]

If you'll remember Jon, many of the subjects spoken about have been one side presenting Scripture, and another side essentially saying, "it doesn't say that"...
Which is an ongoing problem on not only this board, but on sites and among "denominations" the world over.

IMO,
This scene plays itself out over and over, has done so and probably will do so until the Lord comes again.

It doesn't;
It says "the wise men" presented three gifts... gold, frankincense and myrrh.
But it's become tradition nevertheless.

Thing is, we have to actually look at the passages. That is not what many are doing. They give a passage snd tell us what they think that passage teaches, what they see in that passage, or what that passage means to them...at best.

I believe God's Word means what it says. That appears to be a very unpopular view around here.

Even if we were to go with "what is written" in Scripture there will be plenty of room for disagreement. We see this with propitiation vs expiation vs atoning sacrifice.

But just giving a verse and then saying what one thinks is taught by that verse is kinda self-defeating. You end up with doctrine that fails the test of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Ah, I see what you're saying.
Since I've only been here for about 7 years, I don't know what it was like prior to that.

Perhaps it's because people rely too much upon their favorite teachers fir their own understanding of God's word?

Or perhaps it's because they don't know how they could phrase their own beliefs better than some well-regarded preacher or teacher that they do know or have read...
And they simply defer in favor of that person's better wording on a matter.

CS Lewis made a good point when, as a child, he was told that he had no right to whatever belief he gave.

Some peoole who work through Scripture. They, to varying degrees, employ they own presuppositions, theories, and philosophy because they are human and "see as though through a glass, dimly". This is normal because we all have presuppositions, theories, and philosophy. We are not perfected in this life.

But then there are people who like those people's conclusions and expectations. They cannot go back and work through Scripture. Much of the older ideas have even been disproven, or shown to fail. But they adopt the conclusions of those men and have a borrowed belief they have not earned, have no right to hold, snd have no hope of defending.

And yes, some like the wording of ither people. But these shoukd at least be able to word it thenselves, if questioned. They should be able to start with Scrioture (if the conclusion is valid) and arrive at that conclusion. I have found very few that do this, because they can't.

Too many are indoctrinated- holding a borrowed beluef that they cannot defend. This was the reason I changed my major as an undergrad to theology. It is why I continued that path in grad school. I realized I "knew" what to believe but that belief was borrowed and not really mine at all.

 

[Dave G]

Thing is, we have to actually look at the passages. That is not what many are doing. They give a passage snd tell us what they think that passage teaches, what they see in that passage, or what that passage means to them...at best.

And at the end of the day, we find that because of the differences, things stall out...
Don't they?

No one can agree on what the words say, because each side sees it their way.

I believe God's Word means what it says.

As do I, Jon.
But again, what one side says and what the other side says, still contradict one another in many cases.

 

[Dave G]

That appears to be a very unpopular view around here.

It's popular with those who are willing to throw away what the theologians say, and simply read and understand it for themselves;
But again, in practice, I see that many will still disagree regardless of the motive behind it.

There's also something more at play behind why one understands it one way, and another understands it another way Jon...
But I'm not going to mention it here because it's already been discussed in other threads.

Even if we were to go with "what is written" in Scripture there will be plenty of room for disagreement. We see this with propitiation vs expiation vs atoning sacrifice.

There will be, but should there be?
Should there be constant and never-ending disagreement among those who profess Christ, or is there something else that is contributing to the problem and complicates things far beyond what we as men should be able to solve, given enough time and effort?

But just giving a verse and then saying what one thinks is taught by that verse is kinda self-defeating. You end up with doctrine that fails the test of Scripture.

But given the situation and it's likelihood of never changing, that's about all we have left, isn't it?

 

[Zaatar71]

On the discussions here, especially this section of the Baptist board, people seem to argue theories and old dead men. I have repeatedly asked where, in the Bible, some of these Ideas are found. I have been asking this for over a decade. There is never an answer, except perhaps to flood the thread with passages where those ideas are not found (e.g., "Where does the Bible say that there were three wise men?" Reply - "John 3:16, Ezekiel 2:8, Genesis 4:10, Matthew 11:9; Revelation 3:1; 1 Corinthians 5:18, the Bible from cover to cover, John Owen, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Myers, John MacArthur, John Murray, most Reformed Baptists.....etc".

The top sender of missionaries per population is South Korea. I can see that. The US and UK are not even in the top five.

I heard recently an interesting tidbit. A missionary said that they focus on sending missionaries to the US and UK because Christianity is pretty much dead, even among professing Christians. In the US znd UK "Christianity is tradition and traditions. It is being "Christian" because that is what your family is. It is being "Christian" based on the teachings of a denomination, or theories, or theologies. It is "Christian" philosophy. I can see that.

At one time somebody would tell your their position and then provide passages that stated what they believed. The discussion woukd then go to different interpretations of those passages. Somebody might say "a divorced man can't be a deacon" and provide 1 Timothy 3. Another might disagree and say he views that as a prohibition of polygamy. Then you'd get a verse about divorce and a discussion.

But it is not like that today. Today somebody makes a claim and when asked to provide the passage they give you John Murray, or Kennith Copeland, or Taylor Swiftt....anything but a biblical reference.


Why the aversion to the actual Bible (to God's Word)?

In your mind...John Murray,and John Owen are no different from...Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Myers, ...and Taylor Swift! That is very interesting!

 

[JonC]

And at the end of the day, we find that because of the differences, things stall out...
Don't they?

No one can agree on what the words say, because each side sees it their way.

As do I, Jon.
But again, what one side says and what the other side says, still contradict one another in many cases.

What you are talking about ate different interpretations of the text.

I gave the example of propitiation, expiation, znd atoning sacrifice in 1 Jn 2:2. Those reflect different interpretations. BUT they ate all three legitimate interpretations. Which one is correct? We do not really know. The choice dies not really affect end doctrine anyway because we have other passages.

What I am talking about are people who read "ABC" abd try to tell us it teaches "XYZ".

Words have meaning, and often words have many meanings. We have to use context, but we can disagree. What shoukd never happen, however, is "interpreting" a text using ideas not epressed by ANY of the various legitimate meaning of the words actually in the text.

We cannot start with a theory, bend oassages to fit that theory, and have any hope of being biblical.

We have to start with God's Word. Read the context of the passage. Ask, what is the passage as a whole talking about, how does the target verse support that argument.

 

[JonC]

In your mind...John Murray,and John Owen are no different from...Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Myers, ...and Taylor Swift! That is very interesting!

Lol....no. What is interesting is that is how you read my post. That proves what I have been saying (you read into words and sentences based on your own preconceived ideas).

It is impossible for you to come to that conclusion from what is written in my post. You failed to grasp the idea that those words conveyed because you read into those words ideas that were not there. And you were so sure you were correct in your error you replied on this form for all to see.

Your error comprehending my short post highlights the problem you are having with the Bible. You read into God's Word.

I do not like Kennith Copeland (he is a nut) or Taylor Swift (I never listened to her music). I enjoyed reading the other two, but like Owen better (I have read The Mortification of Sin numerous times).

 

[Dave G]

What you are talking about ate different interpretations of the text.

I gave the example of propitiation, expiation, znd atoning sacrifice in 1 Jn 2:2. Those reflect different interpretations. BUT they ate all three legitimate interpretations.

How can three versions of the truth all be the truth, Jon?

Which one is correct? We do not really know.

I know what is correct, but it's not my job to show anyone else.
It's the Lord's.

Also, relegating things to a "we do not really know" is really not accurate, is it?
The Lord would never leave His own children in that kind of situation, would He?

The choice dies not really affect end doctrine anyway because we have other passages.

Every word affects every other word, Jon ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
There is no such thing as "essential doctrines" or "core doctrines".

There is the truth of God's word, and there is error.

 

[Dave G]

We cannot start with a theory, bend oassages to fit that theory, and have any hope of being biblical.

I agree.

We have to start with God's Word. Read the context of the passage. Ask, what is the passage as a whole talking about, how does the target verse support that argument.

Asking what the passage as a whole is talking about, pretty much confesses that one does not know what it's talking about, wouldn't you agree?
In other words, if a person who is reading the Bible for themselves has to ask what it means, doesn't that mean that they don't know?

But that can be remedied over time, Jon.
According to God's word, studying it further should eventually lead to an understanding of it independently of having to ask anyone else what it means...
Provided one has the Spirit as their Teacher, right?
God's Spirit would never teach one Christian one meaning, and another a different one.

That would be lying...
Something that the Lord cannot ever do.

 

[JonC]

It's popular with those who are willing to throw away what the theologians say, and simply read and understand it for themselves;

I think you misunderstood a very important point (one I have made, but not on this thread).

I do believe we should read the Bible before reaching for theologians to see what they said. There are two reasons for this -

1. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat you will find it very difficult to think of it for what it really is because you will see a bat.

2. One can find theologians to supoort sny view. I can find text Mormon theologians, over 20 Roman Catholic theologians, sever Open Theology theologians, a bunch of Reformed theologians, plenty of Free-Will theologians.....and all of them well spoken, intelligent, educated, etc. When you look to find somebody to follow, I guarantee you will end up finding somebody to follow you like.

BUT I said we start by prayerfully reading Scripture and sering what we believe it means. We make very sure we did not invent a new position.

We obviously consider historical theology, consider how theories developed and what was going on when they developed. We consider the 1st century understanding (what woukd it have meant to the original audience).


That said, we still are talking about interpreting God's Word (what is written in the text of Scripture).

 

[JonC]

How can three versions of the truth all be the truth, Jon?

I know what is correct, but it's not my job to show anyone else.
It's the Lord's.

Every word affects every other word, Jon.
There is no such thing as "essential doctrines" or "core doctrines".

There is the truth of God's word, and there is error.

In 1 Jn 2:2 the word shoukd be propitiation, expiation, or atoning sacrifice (which includes both).

But all three ARE truths. We can read in the Bible that in Christ we escape the wrath to come (propitiation), that Jesus is rhe Lamb that takes away the sins of the World (expiation), and that He gave Himsrlf as a sin offering (atoning sacrifice).

All three are truths. But all three do not represent the word in 1 Jn 2:2.

Those who prefer propitiation look at the word as focused on God, those who view it as expiation see it as taking away our sins, snd those who choose atoning sacrifice see John as meaning both in that passage.

I lean towards propitiation because verse 1 is talking about Jesus advocating with the Father for us sin we sin.

But all three are legitimate meanings of the Greek word, and even though all three are not correct in 1 Jn 2:2, all three are truths.


Think of it this way:

Which would you deny as a truth, that Jesus advocates with the Father when we sin (propitoation), that Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (expiation), or that Jesus gave Hkmself as an atoning sacrifice?

Which one would you say is false?

 

[Dave G]

In 1 Jn 2:2 the word shoukd be propitiation, expiation, or atoning sacrifice (which includes both).

But all three ARE truths. We can read in the Bible that in Christ we escape the wrath to come (propitiation), that Jesus is rhe Lamb that takes away the sins of the World (expiation), and that He gave Himsrlf as a sin offering (atoning sacrifice).

All three are truths. But all three do not represent the word in 1 Jn 2:2.

1 John 2:2 is one "verse" out of over 10,000 snippets of things the Lord has to say in a very large book, Jon.
There's more to why Christ died, for whom He died and the fact that He died than one single "verse" can possibly address.

Good evening to you.

 

[JonC]

I agree.

Asking what the passage as a whole is talking about, pretty much confesses that one does not know what it's talking about, wouldn't you agree?
In other words, if a person who is reading the Bible for themselves has to ask what it means, doesn't that mean that they don't know?

But that can be remedied over time, Jon.
According to God's word, studying it further should eventually lead to an understanding of it independently of having to ask anyone else what it means...
Provided one has the Spirit as their Teacher, right?
God's Spirit would never teach one Christian one meaning, and another a different one.

That would be lying...
Something that the Lord cannot ever do.

Lol......By asking I mean "considering", consciously noting snd even writing down the topic of the verse.

People need to do the work. We need to study (a rare thing these days).

Read the passage, note the topic. When you find a problematic verse write it doen and continue reading. You'll get the overall narrative.

Then read it again, this time use a commentary if needed to look up at least three possible meanings of the verse giving problems.

But always stick with Scripture. Murray, Owen, these are not commentaries. A good commentary will give you several possible meanings.


Remember, the Spirit illuminates. The Spirit reveals. The Spirit teaches what God revealed. If you arrive at a conclusion that is not actually in God's Word then it is not God's Spirit doing the teaching.