How's Your Hermeneutic?

[One Baptism]

Here is an example for OP, [citing John 10:30-39] ...

Citing again:

John 10:24 KJB - Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

John 10:25 KJB - Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:26 KJB - But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

John 10:27 KJB - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

John 10:28 KJB - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

John 10:29 KJB - My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 10:30 KJB - I and my Father are one.
​

This speaks of at-one-ment, of heart, purpose, not of persons.

John 10:31 KJB - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
​

They did this, because, Jesus just claimed full equality with God, that is, the person of the Father. He had done this before [John 10:25 KJB, "... I told you, and ye believed not ..."], with the same results:

John 5:18 KJB - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 8:57 KJB - Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

John 8:58 KJB - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 8:59 KJB - Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.​

This would have been blasphemy [Leviticus 24:14; 1 Kings 21:10 KJB], and subject for stoning, had it not been that Jesus was who He said He is.

John 10:32 KJB - Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
​

Jesus, then knowing that they do not believe His words, mercifully points them to His actions, deeds, the very miracles wrought, the lives of people delivered from satan, sin, disease, death. Many say that actions speak louder than words, and therefore, Jesus turned up the volume for them, that these willingly deaf might hear, and have no excuse for their own evil present course:

John 10:33 KJB - The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
​

They unwittingly condemn themselves by acknowledging that the works of Jesus were "good works". They should have recognized then, the source of them, and recognize, that Jesus' actions, were matching His words, and have drawn the conclusion by following the result back to their source and see that the words were undeniably true, yet this they did not do, because they sought to justify themselves, and to justify their idea of what the Messiah/Christ ought to have been, and do. Jesus, having already told them [1], and shown them [2], that He was equal to God, that is the person of the Father, and did the very "good works" that the Father does, now attempts to show them from scripture [3] itself [rather than His present words, and present actions], who He is:

John 10:34 KJB - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 10:35 KJB - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
​

Now, Jesus cites the scripture [OT] itself, specifically Psalms 82:1,6, in its context [see also that the priests and rulers of the people are called by God, "gods" [Exodus 4:16, 7:1, 22:28; Psalms 138:1; Daniel 8:11,25, 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 KJB]], which in context, meant "children of the Most High" [Psalms 82:6 KJB], all "brethren" [Matthew 23:8; Hebrews 2:11 KJB], equally Kings and Priests, under God:

Psalms 82:1 KJB - A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

There is a perfect parallelism:

[1A] "... God ..."

[1B] "... he ..."​

[2A] "... standeth in ..."

[2B] "... judgeth among ..."​

[3A] "... the congregation of the mighty ..."

[3B] "... the gods ..."​

Psalms 82:2 KJB - How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

Psalms 82:3 KJB - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Psalms 82:4 KJB - Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Psalms 82:5 KJB - They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Psalms 82:6 KJB - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

There is a perfect parallelism:

[1A] "I have said ..."

[1B] "... and ..."​

[2A] "... Ye are ..."

[2B] "... all of you are ..."
​

[3A] "... gods ..."

[3B] "... children of the most High."​

Psalms 82:7 KJB - But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Psalms 82:8 KJB - Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
​

... to be continued ...

 

[One Baptism]

Here is an example for OP [citing John 10:30-39, etc] ...

... continued ...

How's Your Hermeneutic?

In so doing, Jesus refers to God Himself, being in the midst of the His people, while He being the true just Judge, they being unjust judges, God defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc, they turing away from them. The very moment that Jesus cites this reference to the Psalm, is exactly the moment of the contrast between Himself, His words and actions, and their [the Jews, leaders, Pharisees, etc] words and actions. So, Jesus' [1] words demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were, [2] His actions, the "good works", demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were, and even [3] the very scripture itself in Psalms 82, demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were. However, more than this, Jesus is drawing a greater argument from the text, notice:

John 10:36 KJB - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
​

Jesus, said "I am the Son of God", and in John 10:30 KJB, said, "I and my Father are one", which the "Jews" rightly understood Him, to make the claim that He was indeed equal to God, the person of the Father, when they said [John 10:33 KJB], "... thou ... makest thyself God."

Is Jesus backtracking from making the claim to be God [not the person of the Father, but that of the Son], or backtracking from the claim that He was equal with God [person of the Father]? No. He is making a perfect air-tight case, from scripture, which cannot be broken [John 10:35 KJB], from the 'lesser' to the 'greater'.

Jesus cited Psalms 82, saying that even the scripture called God's own people, "gods", meaning that they were to be just judges, even "children of the most High", and thus were all 'sons of God' in that sense, called to be like Him in character, words, actions, etc. Jesus had claimed to be the actual "Son of God", who from eternity was equal with the Father. Jesus is saying, since the scripture called the adopted persons 'gods', 'children of the most High', which none of them argued with, how much more then does the actual un-adopted, original, eternal, only begotten heir have claim to such, as "Son of God", and they all knew of the person from the OT, see "my fellow" [Zechariah 13:7 KJB], the person at the bush with Moses [Exodus 3 & 4, 23:21 KJB], with Joshua [Joshua 5:13-15 KJB], etc, etc, and the coming "son" [Isaiah 9:6] who was given from the Father.

Therefore, which had the greater claim to the designation and responsibility, the actual Son of God, or those who were later called into the family of God, through adoption, whom were all called "gods", "children of the most High", "sons of God" [Genesis 6:2,4; Hosea 1:10; Ezekiel 16:21 KJB, etc]? How then could they stone Jesus, since the Messiah was the real Son of God, and they all only called and adopted? They would to have as soon stone themselves before they could rightlyfully stone Jesus for the rightful claim, which was superior in everyway to their claim to such. Jesus is not saying that He is not God, nor lessing the arguments and words beforehand made, nor backtracking to save Himself, He, instead is making the perfect unarguable case, from scripture that He is who He said He is, drawing from the 'lesser' to the 'greater' example. Jesus finishes by pointing back again to His actions, which were fulfilling the very scriptures:

John 10:37 KJB - If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 10:38 KJB - But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 10:39 KJB - Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
​

They did not care about all three means by which Jesus sought to show them, because, they were unjust, and proved themselves so and stubbornly wanted to remain so. They could not refute Jesus' words, actions or scripture.

 

[One Baptism]

So Baptists started as Catholics?

That is not what the word "protestant" means:

[though today many Baptist carry many of Roman Catholicism doctrines and practices, through the Jesuit order's infiltration [futurism, preterism, amillenialism, sunday sacredness, theistic evolution [some], immortal sou/spirit theology, eternal torment in helfire, immediate reward to heaven or hell upon death, michael is just a created angel, taking up the alexandrian text-types, and mindsets, etc., etc]​

God Himself is the first protestant:

Jeremiah 11:7 KJB - For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.​

When Lucifer rebelled, in Heaven, God protested, see Revelation 12:7-9 KJB.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Baptists are Protestants.

That is not what the word "protestant" means:

Protestant denominations are those that were founded by former Roman Catholic clergy as a Protest against the Roman Catholic Church. These include the magisterial Protestants, of which there are the Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran traditions as examples. .

The Anabaptists, and later the Baptists are a reaction to a reaction. They reacted against what they thought were unbiblical teachings in Protestant churches, such as infant baptism in the case of Anabaptists and Baptists.

While we call all "Protestant" denominations Protestant there is a case to be made that only the original, magisterial Protestants are in fact "Protesters of the Roman Catholics" in the literal sense. This can be stressed as more true by the severe persecution that Protestants have afflicted upon the protesters in their own midst.

I have heard this argument before and wanted to post it. I find it interesting.

I myself only have the concern that we not make the Roman Catholic Church more central than it is. To segment the Western World into Roman Catholics and Protestants seems to serve the purpose of Roman Catholics more than the truth in my discussions with them. They claim that we are protesters of the Mother Church, and are therefore wayward. The very concept of a Protest against the One Catholic and Apostolic Church brands us divisive and schismatic. Thus, to me, the term "Protestant" seems to be invented by the Roman Catholics to discredit us.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is not what the word "protestant" means:

[though today many Baptist carry many of Roman Catholicism doctrines and practices, through the Jesuit order's infiltration [futurism, preterism, amillenialism, sunday sacredness, theistic evolution [some], immortal sou/spirit theology, eternal torment in helfire, immediate reward to heaven or hell upon death, michael is just a created angel, taking up the alexandrian text-types, and mindsets, etc., etc]​

God Himself is the first protestant:

Jeremiah 11:7 KJB - For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.​

When Lucifer rebelled, in Heaven, God protested, see Revelation 12:7-9 KJB.

So what

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Protestant denominations are those that were founded by former R

That’s right....former Roman Catholics and they carried over sacramental traditions. I have no use for that kinda works based stuff.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

That’s right....former Roman Catholics and they carried over sacramental traditions. I have no use for that kinda works based stuff.

I'm sorry, that posted way too fast by accident. I have finished the post above if you are interested.

 

[HankD]

Baptists are Protestants.

Some like myself disagree.

Hopefully no Baptist is actually a "Protestant".

Hopefully they realize that we don't "protest" the Catholic Church as there is nothing to protest but all to separate from.

2 Corinthians 6
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Yes Catholics can be true believers in spite of the twisted theology of their church.

I separated from the Church of Rome over 50 years ago. I am not a Protestant.

 

[Reformed]

Some like myself disagree.

Hopefully no Baptist is actually a "Protestant".

Hopefully they realize that we don't "protest" the Catholic Church as there is nothing to protest but all to separate from.

2 Corinthians 6
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Yes Catholics can be true believers in spite of the twisted theology of their church.

I separated from the Church of Rome over 50 years ago. I am not a Protestant.

Hank,

I do not think you know what a Protestant is. A Protestant is any individual or church that traces its origin to the Reformation and its break from Rome. It does not mean the word "protest" as you have described it. It means actually what you said, "to separate from". Protestants separated themselves from Rome. The term itself was given to a group of German nobles who wrote a protest letter against an edict condemning Luther's works at the Diet of Speyer (spelling?). If you were to ask 16th-century Protestants if their movement was reduced to just a bunch of men carrying signs and shouting, "Down with Rome!" they would ask you whether you had your head stuck in the sand. Protestantism began as outright opposition to Rome.

You really need to study church history.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

I do not think you know what a Protestant is. A Protestant is any individual or church that traces its origin to the Reformation and its break from Rome. It does not mean the word "protest" as you have described it. It means actually what you said, "to separate from". Protestants separated themselves from Rome. The term itself was given to a group of German nobles who wrote a protest letter against an edict condemning Luther's works at the Diet of Speyer (spelling?). If you were to ask 16th-century Protestants if their movement was reduced to just a bunch of men carrying signs and shouting, "Down with Rome!" they would ask you whether you had your head stuck in the sand. Protestantism began as outright opposition to Rome.

You really need to study church history.

OK - but that is your opinion.

Even if your opinion were true, I would still retain the label of "separatist" as many do to make it totally clear (without having to know history as you claim) what our relationship to the RC Church MUST be in light of the mutilated gospel they teach/preach.

I am a "separatist" NOT a "protestant" in my relationship to the RC Church and I need not have studied church history to make that statement.

 

[Reformed]

OK - but that is your opinion.

It is a fact. I can provide a litany of resources from early Reformers, early Baptists, Puritans, and even modern theologians to make my point if it will matter. Whether you like it or not you can trace your Christian heritage to the Reformation. You may choose to discard history but you cannot change it.

 

[HankD]

It is a fact. I can provide a litany of resources from early Reformers, early Baptists, Puritans, and even modern theologians to make my point if it will matter. Whether you like it or not you can trace your Christian heritage to the Reformation. You may choose to discard history but you cannot change it.

OK then I will as you say personally deny history so-called because in my case its a matter of choice not history books and I refuse to identify with the "Reformation" which IMO failed to make a complete separation from the sacramental, baptismal regeneration, sacerdotal priestcraft church of Rome.

Again, as a Christian of Baptist persuasion and a former member of the RCC, I refuse the title of "Protestant" You or whoever may label me as you please but I only accept "Separatist".

This is not a matter of complete stubbornness but conviction under the Baptist distinction of Soul Liberty.

 

[delizzle]

Nothing???

No disagreement from me.

 

[One Baptism]

So what

It is everything. Look again. Think about it, but even moreso, actually pray about that text.

The text cited, demonstrates that God is the original protestant, thus having valid and true motive for protesting, and His true children follow after Him, protesting against sin [1 John 3:4 KJB] and to instead, calling all, by the grace of God provided in Christ Jesus, to, "Obey [his] voice." [Genesis 3:8; Exodus 20:1-17; John 1:1-3; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6 KJB]

Jeremiah 11:7 KJB - For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.​

 

[Rippon]

So Baptists started as Catholics?

You don't make any sense, as usual.

 

[loDebar]

Hank,

I do not think you know what a Protestant is. A Protestant is any individual or church that traces its origin to the Reformation and its break from Rome. It does not mean the word "protest" as you have described it. It means actually what you said, "to separate from". Protestants separated themselves from Rome. The term itself was given to a group of German nobles who wrote a protest letter against an edict condemning Luther's works at the Diet of Speyer (spelling?). If you were to ask 16th-century Protestants if their movement was reduced to just a bunch of men carrying signs and shouting, "Down with Rome!" they would ask you whether you had your head stuck in the sand. Protestantism began as outright opposition to Rome.

You really need to study church history.

.
You need to study Baptist History, The RCC and the reformers persecuted Baptist. Baptists beliefs have been separate .

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't make any sense, as usual.

You are the reputation

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is everything. Look again. Think about it, but even moreso, actually pray about that text.

The text cited, demonstrates that God is the original protestant, thus having valid and true motive for protesting, and His true children follow after Him, protesting against sin [1 John 3:4 KJB] and to instead, calling all, by the grace of God provided in Christ Jesus, to, "Obey [his] voice." [Genesis 3:8; Exodus 20:1-17; John 1:1-3; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6 KJB]

Jeremiah 11:7 KJB - For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.​

In the context of the discussion, Christian Protestants are protesting the Roman Catholic Church. The original leaders of the movement, ie Luther, Calvin, Hus etc were Roman Catholics attempting to “reform” the RCC. Baptists, unless I am missing something, never went there, never attempted to be Catholic, never accepted a church political system ie the the Pope, the Cardinals, Bishops etc. Nor have we ever had a sacrimental system to jump through. Indeed we Baptists want to draw the line in the sand regarding our relationship with the RCC.... thank God.

 

[JonC]

People define "Protestant" differently. Historically it included all who had joined the movement (to include Anabaptists who had never been a part of the RCC). Luther used 1 John 2:19 in the condemnation to these groups who were among them in the movement but not a part of them.

 

[loDebar]

... continued ...

How's Your Hermeneutic?

In so doing, Jesus refers to God Himself, being in the midst of the His people, while He being the true just Judge, they being unjust judges, God defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc, they turing away from them. The very moment that Jesus cites this reference to the Psalm, is exactly the moment of the contrast between Himself, His words and actions, and their [the Jews, leaders, Pharisees, etc] words and actions. So, Jesus' [1] words demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were, [2] His actions, the "good works", demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were, and even [3] the very scripture itself in Psalms 82, demonstrated/vindicated who He is, and who they were. However, more than this, Jesus is drawing a greater argument from the text, notice:

John 10:36 KJB - Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
​

Jesus, said "I am the Son of God", and in John 10:30 KJB, said, "I and my Father are one", which the "Jews" rightly understood Him, to make the claim that He was indeed equal to God, the person of the Father, when they said [John 10:33 KJB], "... thou ... makest thyself God."

Is Jesus backtracking from making the claim to be God [not the person of the Father, but that of the Son], or backtracking from the claim that He was equal with God [person of the Father]? No. He is making a perfect air-tight case, from scripture, which cannot be broken [John 10:35 KJB], from the 'lesser' to the 'greater'.

Jesus cited Psalms 82, saying that even the scripture called God's own people, "gods", meaning that they were to be just judges, even "children of the most High", and thus were all 'sons of God' in that sense, called to be like Him in character, words, actions, etc. Jesus had claimed to be the actual "Son of God", who from eternity was equal with the Father. Jesus is saying, since the scripture called the adopted persons 'gods', 'children of the most High', which none of them argued with, how much more then does the actual un-adopted, original, eternal, only begotten heir have claim to such, as "Son of God", and they all knew of the person from the OT, see "my fellow" [Zechariah 13:7 KJB], the person at the bush with Moses [Exodus 3 & 4, 23:21 KJB], with Joshua [Joshua 5:13-15 KJB], etc, etc, and the coming "son" [Isaiah 9:6] who was given from the Father.

Therefore, which had the greater claim to the designation and responsibility, the actual Son of God, or those who were later called into the family of God, through adoption, whom were all called "gods", "children of the most High", "sons of God" [Genesis 6:2,4; Hosea 1:10; Ezekiel 16:21 KJB, etc]? How then could they stone Jesus, since the Messiah was the real Son of God, and they all only called and adopted? They would to have as soon stone themselves before they could rightlyfully stone Jesus for the rightful claim, which was superior in everyway to their claim to such. Jesus is not saying that He is not God, nor lessing the arguments and words beforehand made, nor backtracking to save Himself, He, instead is making the perfect unarguable case, from scripture that He is who He said He is, drawing from the 'lesser' to the 'greater' example. Jesus finishes by pointing back again to His actions, which were fulfilling the very scriptures:

John 10:37 KJB - If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 10:38 KJB - But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 10:39 KJB - Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
​

They did not care about all three means by which Jesus sought to show them, because, they were unjust, and proved themselves so and stubbornly wanted to remain so. They could not refute Jesus' words, actions or scripture.

The point was "ye are gods" . The most extraordinary statement that is continually ignored, as your posts show. We all appreciate and recognize that Jesus was God, but yet ignore that Jesus quoted and re stated that these evil Jews were "gods"

"elohyim" in Psalms. Human are gods . Why did you ignore that in your posts that you resented so well?