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

[JesusFan]

Skandelon, do you realize that you just implicated yourself in very "human" terms? What of the leading of God from the Scriptures? What of the revelation of God in the Scriptures that goes just so far and no further (unlike human logical arguments where the point is often (almost always) pressed beyond where God takes it!)? What of a God who will not share His glory or throne with anyone else -- First Commandment -- and who alone is the author and finisher of salvation?

None of these issues can be derived from human logical inferences, but they are ALL revealed in the text by God.

To the man who can be "convinced" is always another point just around the corner that is even more "convincing." The FATAL FLAW in the Arminian system.

problem is that we impress upon the bible texts our own reasoning of what "should be" the case, as that would make morre sense to us IF God actually did things the way that we would "IF" we were Him!

man centered theology, arminianism actually makes a great deal of sense, as we would be enabled to see that God loved all equally, that it would be fair and just to give all the opportunity to get saved, that all are still able to freely repond by faith etc...

problem in all of that is once we get to a God centered theology, have to see the Bible as teaching that His ways aree NOT our ways, and that God has determined to do what is the best way for Him to receive the glory, and for us to have a "shot" at actually getting saved by Him!

 

[Iconoclast]

The best any of us can do is to study and seek after God for His wisdom. As much as I oppose DoG, I ask God a lot if I have this right(defending FW). One should never be past being teachable.

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

 

[JesusFan]

It troubles me that the human element is so aggrandized in his post. But I am not surprised, this is all stems from arminian and non-cal error.

Nothing in Scripture supports this facet of arminian theology, and all other error with this theology stems from this false premise. I see nothing that lends itself to a theology that makes God dependent upon the choice of man, nor anything in Scripture that unduly exalts man. Spiritual discernment, not the logic of man, will ensure that the honest spiritual man rejects this type of theology altogether.

I can understand to a point where one says he was logically led to be arminian. Think about it: "logically lead." Yes, logically, by mans reason and understanding, which is exactly what is exalted within this theology and with other non-cal theologies. But Scripture and truth aren't in agreement with man and his reason, nor are they logically discerned, but spiritually. Thus one theological stance leads one to accept the things of God spiritually, with many things being against what seems sound reason and logic, and that theology is what some call "Calvinism." We are admonished to not lean upon our own understanding.

To the OP, one must use context in reading. Ones theology may be difficult to put to the side as one studies, and one must choose to be honest when dealing with truth.

isn't the "lense" the arms read scripture through is the one that projectsunto God human reasoning, that tends to see this is how we would dothings if we were actually God?

 

[Iconoclast]

P4T,

Don't forget that Calvinists also exalt "logic." One of the reasons that calvinism is attractive is that in its pure forms, it seems to have a very strong internal logical integrity. In fact any theological belief system RIGHTLY uses logic to arrive at its conclusions. We must use our human reasoning and understanding to understand scriptures...we must simply do it humbly, recognizing that when our reasoning collides with scripture, we must pause and ask whether or logic needs adjusting; and be careful not to take our logic so far that it denies a clear statement from scripture.

Are you saying that anyone who accepts Calvnist theology is exalting "logic"?

Nothing in Calvinist theology concerning the pursuit of Scriptural truth and exaltation of God places man above God, or that mans choice cripples Sovereign God, or that God awaits mans choice.

So then, in your last line above you are correct. When ones theology exalts man in this way, one should pause due to its statements concerning God and its exaltation of man beyond measure, and turn back from this.

That was my entire point.

Do Calvinists tend to become haughty? Perhaps. Is the described flaw in arminian theology haughty in the specific aspect I am addressing? Absolutely. So here we have a calvinist person who perhaps becomes arrogant due to discovering of truth, but in this is giving God all Glory, Supremacy and Sovereignty magnifying His greatness and in turn recognizing the abased state of man in comparison, with a proper and Biblical understanding of man in his lost state; -or- we have one whose theology leans towards mans choice and reason as a controlling factor supplanting in many cases the Sovereignty of God.

I hope you see my point and why in this aspect, yes, I will be dogmatic as you've seen.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

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

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.

 

[Skandelon]

man centered theology, arminianism actually makes a great deal of sense, as we would be enabled to see that God loved all equally, that it would be fair and just to give all the opportunity to get saved, that all are still able to freely repond by faith etc...

problem in all of that is once we get to a God centered theology, have to see the Bible as teaching that His ways aree NOT our ways, and that God has determined to do what is the best way for Him to receive the glory, and for us to have a "shot" at actually getting saved by Him!

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.'

 

[preacher4truth]

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:

So, you have God doing anything and everything through secondary means as if that somehow justifies it.

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?

 

[Van]

Reply to 12 Strings,

1. Why I believe Jesus is God: Matt. 1:23, John 1, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, Is. 9:6-7, Revelation 4-5, and others.

2. Regarding how we can know we are interpreting scripture correctly: I would add one more thing that has not been added here, that we MUST take in to account what historical Christians have believed, and what other living Christians believe. They are not infallible, but We are unwise when we think we have discovered some new truth that no one else has believed for the last 2,000 years. The ancient creeds can help us have a grounding or center that keeps us from going too far astray. To disregard such things is to in effect claim that those early christians got it all wrong, and that they arians and gnostics might have been just as right as the groups that called them heretics...which is to beleive that there is no real truth.

3. Regarding Skan, You, & Me: Thanks, I assume you are referring to our recent discussion on the definition of omniscience. I can't speak for Skan, but I guess I'm just an honest, caring, stupid Christian. (or maybe I'm devious enough to convince at least one person on this board who has never met me that I am "honest and caring")

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."

 

[JesusFan]

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.

the bible would not be saying ANYTHING that would contridict though the very Attributes of God, as the scriptures CLAERLY teach that God knows ALL things, and would remember all things!

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.

Waht do you mean here by "the historical view?"

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."

Think that we all have to realise that the scriptures speak with authority of God behind/in them, as as such, would be fully inerrant/infallible regardless of how we actually interprete them!