Doctrines out of context

Churches have been known to administer 'discipline' in incompetent or evil ways. How does this verse really come into it? And if you have 2 fighting factions within a church, in which both have wronged the other, where does the verse go, considering it only takes 2 in either faction to have what they want "done for them by My Father?"

In the more common application attempts of this verse, though, it can easily be tested. If 2 people-- you and I, for an example-- agree that we want the whole world to know Jesus Christ, then that would be done, since that agrees with what God has demonstrated he wants for the world. If we agree and ask for that to happen, there is obviously something wrong somewhere if we go running down the street and ask everybody we see if he/she knows Jesus, and even one person says "no" or takes issue with the question. That is what I say to anyone who quotes that verse claiming someone needs 'healing' or money to pay a big debt or an estranged spouse to immediately come back....

 

That is not correct. Reread Matthew 7:15. It clearly talks of false prophets. If you believe otherwise, it puts you in the realm of the other thread going on, the one that states you or I can tell if someone is saved or not. There are not many things on this earth I am 100% certain of, but I am of this. You or anyone else on this earth can tell with 100% assurance if someone else is saved or not You many have a good idea or high probability from observation over time, but the bottom line is, you do not know.

 

Every verse dealing with wine as a blessing means juice.

Every verse dealing with wine as a curse means wine.

 

Still out of context

 

Like that Ps104_33

 

How many times have you heard the church dragon proclaim, "The truth will set you free", during a church business meeting as justification for disclosing all the dirt about a particularly sticky situation (John 8:32).

Rob

 

Scofieldism or Darbyism otherwise known as "Dispensational Premillenialism", Do we read of that in the Bible, Church Fathers???

Another one is the "premillenial rapture". Don't read ANYTHING about that until the onslought of Darbyism and Scofieldism.

 

Strange, I read about that in 1 & 2 Thessalonians...

 

I agree with you on this one! This one is used out of context ALL the time.

Jamie

 

No inference, I only said it "seems".

Say, have you ever read where the Bible condemns presumption as a sin?

 

No thanks for inferring your confusion.

By your example, the "faithful" cannot be the "godly man". Now if the passage read "godly men", you might be right, but nope.

Also, you would bring accusation against the Lord in that He has not kept all the poor and needy from the oppressors.

God has kept His Word. His Word is pure. The poor will we always have with us, Jesus said so. But God speaks of arising to the cause of the poor and needy in the area of salvation by grace, through faith, just as the rest of Scripture agrees: in PERFECT harmony. God does all that through the power of His Word, His keeping His Word pure, unadulterrated, infallible, inerrant.

You introduced the title to somehow deal with doctrines formed from verses taken out of context. The verses were brought up.

If you cannot deal with what you're asking, may I suggest you ask another question?

 

Seems you differ. Legalism only suggests earning salvation through works or keeping one saved through works, or meriting favor with God by works. God is no respector of persons, but He does say, be ye holy as I am holy.

Sanctification and separation go hand in hand. It's called holiness.

 

Yeah hard to imagine how "not yet born" and "had not done anything good or bad" could possibly be interpreted to be talking about "before he was born,"especially when Malachi is quoted by Paul in support of it.

Who has ignored v. 28? I always thought it fit right in with vv. 29-30, and have never seen anyone who didn't.

 

John 3:16 is used by many to teach that God can't hate anyone . Which is refuted in a number of places in the Psalms , Proverbs and of course Romans 9:13 .

Also the phrase " free-will offerings" is employed to buttress the free-will stance . I'd say that is rather silly , but O so common .

 

WEB DOG,

I and II Thes. talks of dispensational premillenialism? It talks of a catching away but is it premillenial? The end times as it is taught today - the whole "Left Behind" genre - is quite contemporary, really. The second coming of Christ is no doubt a fundemantal doctrine of the faith, but the Darby - Scofield - LaHaye interpretation of the end times is quite new. Now HISTORIC premillenialism I can accept, but Darbyism? Scofieldism? Dispensationalism of THIER ilk - phooey on them.

 

The tenets of dispensationalism and premillennialism go way farther back than Darby and Scofield. They have solid Scriptural arguments.

 

Amen, Brother Salamander -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

I believe "His Blood..." is refering to some supposed doctrine built on this scripture, not that what he said is the correct interpretation. If I understand this corectly, I agree, for I so often hear it cited on the BB (generally as "We are to be fruit-inspectors!"), usually as some supposed determination of whether or not one is "really, truly, genuinely, completely, thoroughly, and (insert whatever additional adverbs one wishes), saved. Never mind that none of these phrases are to even be found in Scripture. AND never mind the context of the verse in the first place.

If I misread you here, "His Blood", please say so.

Ed

 

Before Jacob and Esau were born, it was pronounced that "the elder shall serve the younger". However it was 400-500 years later before it was written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." this was never written as a prophecy, unlike the first.

And Paul doesn't record this, as such a prophecy fulfilled, either, but did note the first.

And I believe Obadiah is referring to the coming kingdom rule, as well, and certainly has nothing to do with individual salvation..

Ed