Literal Interpretation

God speaking through the Apostle Paul reminded the Church not to get involved with ' . . . philosophy . . . . after the traditions of men.' [Colossians 2:8] Dr. Leon Morris, Ph.D. is of the belief that the Book of Colossians was written from prison 4:10 & 18 toward the end of his life.

During this same era of time Philo, the Jewish scholar lived and died. {20 B.C. - 50 A.D.} It was his opinion that Greek philosophy obtained a lot of their truth from the O.T. Scriptures. He felt it was his task to commingle Divine revelation with Greek philosophers ideas. He was familiar with Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism. Dr. Albert Henry Newman, "A Manual of Church History" Vo. I p. 59 tells us that Philo believed that everything that 'was wise and exalted in Greek philosophy lay concealed' in the Scriptures. By allegorizing the Scriptures one could get at the true meaning of the Word of God. Through this Israelite and others like Clement of Alexandria, the unbiblical hermaneutic of Scriptural interpretation was adopted for the Church. It was from this renegrade son of Abraham that the Word of God has become diluted and contaminated, rejecting his own pure religion and tradition.

We do not wish to blend true Christian spirituality with philosophical intellectualism.
God's people want to know the truth and not some semblance of the truth.

It was from the Alexandrian Catechetical School of interpretation that the codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (X) were developed and revealed to the Christian clientele.

The true hermaneutic of a strict literalist interpretation flourished from Antioch where people were first called Christian and not from pagan Egypt.

One mega-huge mistake in 50 A.D. of making God's Word, a Book of allegory, does not improve things in our 21st. Century. The Book of Revelation and Zechariah chapter 14 are still to be interpreted in the standard meaning of John the Apostle's day and that of the Prophet Zechariah. A literal interpretation of Scripture without a blending of the Word of God and philosophy is well pleasing to the Lord Almighty.

 

Bob Ryan,

I agree 100% with your post.

Mr. Carson has been overstudying the history of the popes and their ex cathedras, the history of the Catholic Church, the doctrines of his church, and has and still tries to portray to us that he is a Bible thumping, interpreter of holy Scripture. Catholicism disallows free/open thinking. They tell the fledgling Catholic what to think, what to believe, and how to OBEY the sacraments of said church. I guess they still allow them at least one choice and that is whether to bring their '$dues$ on either to a Saturday night mass or a Sunday morning one.

These people from said church cannot debate Scripture because they have to check with the higher ups because their untrained minds, sub-standard spirituality, and weak human faculties can only be told what to think and believe. This is not what I think and believe about their ability to understand, it is what their superiors really think. In almost every situation they have to first, check with the bishops and/or their quasi-theologians to find out what to think. And usually Catholic tradition tells these souls what are the set answers.

In Protestantism we believe the Holy Spirit guides to true understanding of His Word. If there is disagreement they are free to go where that denomination thinks a little differently on none cardinal points of thinking. All Christian denominations agree on things like the Deity of Christ, His birth to a virgin called Mary, salvation by faith, the Genesis account of our beginnings, the Second Coming, the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment, and I could go on and on.

Non-Catholicism and Protestantism allows you freedom of thought; we do not have to bow to any human agent or system of theology.

 

It has been said, 'The only thing you left out is calling us Papists!'

Ray is saying, 'It sounds like a good description to me. Protestants aren't into kissing a bishop's ring; we bow only to the Word of the Living God, because truth comes from Christ alone and not out of an aging bishop's notebook.

I must admit that I have at times read from theology books that call the alleged vicar of Christ a papist. If one adheres to the pope he or she might well be called a 'papist' with no hurt intended. I am a Biblicist; I'll let you work on that one. It probably will take you all but one half second to figure that out.

 

John v,

Read my post again.

John said, 'Non-Catholicism and Protestantism allows you freedom of thought; we do not have to bow to any human agent or system of theology.'

Ray is saying, 'If you don't like the minor distinctives of the Baptist Church you can attend and join a Methodist Church.' There is no mind control of our people. If you don't like the Methodist Church try the Assembly of God denomination. Bowing to a system of theology is not forced it is entered into by one's own free will and accord.


Yes we do. We bow to the Baptist Distinctives. They're mandatory beliefs for
the Baptist. They're not optional in the slightest.

 

neal4Christ,

I distantly am reminded of a radio program called, not Ray and Bob, but Bob and Ray.

Anyway, I cannot speak for Bob but we tire, after awhile, of people who do not bow to what Scripture which is Authored by Jesus and yet genuflect to Mary who centuries ago returned to dust.

Neal4Christ said, 'Carson acts far more in a Christ-like manner than either of you or me. Why don't you show a little respect to others?

Ray is saying, 'When John the Baptist preached he was forthright. 'And now the axe is laid to the root of the trees . . . . He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.' Jesus did the same. 'It is written, My House shall be called the House of Prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!' Jesus pointed to the Word when He said, 'It is written . . . ' but when we say there is but one Mediator [I Timothy 2:5] you mark us out as the bad guys? It is an affront to God to say that Mary and the saints are conduits through whom messages are carried to God's throne.'

You said, 'That's right, once you attain a certain intellectual level, you don't have to do that any longer!'

Ray is saying, 'Most of us acknowledged on Go-Between/Mediator, for example, long before we went to junior high school.' Some spicy language, at times, gets people to sit up and take notice of what you are saying.

I respect Carson Weber and other people as being great and loving human beings and admire Carson who is becoming a scholar, but I do not at all respect some of the things they believe. We are not attacking the person but the add-on theology of Catholicism.

Neal4Christ said, 'Just as a side note, in my studies of Catholicism there seems to be far more freedom of thought that any of the churches I have been a part of (and no, I have not been a Baptist all my life). So while you make that claim rest assured that it does not find fertile soil here in me.'

Ray is saying, 'I am not saying that every Protestant Christian is going to agree with everything neal4christ is saying, but they give you the freedom of finding a denomination that meets your spiritual needs and agrees with you theology. Catholicism does not always have this infrastructure. They have their rules. For example, if a Catholic is divorced and remarries that person is not allowed to receive the Eucharist. It is interesting that the Lord forgives all kinds of sins, but their church makes rules that negates not only what He says but the very act of forgiveness and absolution that He secures for that person. After all, if their record is expunged, the Lord does not even see their past sin. Their record is clean and they should be able to receive the Holy Sacrament of Communion. It is not that we are showing disrespect to persons but to their philosophy of religion.

Once a month I fly into Charlotte, North Carolina for breakfast with Bob Ryan and we put a little 'rat poisoning' in our coffee as creamer, just to keep the edge on our sarcasm and straightforward manner.

 

Carson Weber,

You said, 'Forgiveness entails repentance. What use would it be to forgive someone of a sin that they are planning on committing tomorrow?

Ray is saying, 'When people are divorced and remarried they are not necessarily weak in morals. Sometimes there is an innocent party who has tried to keep the marriage together. Especially in these cases God says that that person is at liberty to marry again. [Matt. 5:32]

And even if an adulterer or an adulteress confesses that sin, the Lord will forgive. That sin is forever gone from their record. Even a person like this is not planning on committing the same horrible sin tomorrrow. Like you said, repentence means they intend to turn from said sin.

If Almighty God can forgive, why cannot the Church affirm what God has already done. This person, if repentance has taken place, is in good conscience allowed to remarry. And in the words of St. Paul, 'Who is he who condemeth?' [Romans 8:34] A forgiven person is free of condemnation and even a Pharasiac, Christian has no right to say anything, and neither does a Christian organization have a right to condemn a forgiven person.