Liberal Hermeneutics

[JonC]

This is all they have.

Who is "they"?

 

[Van]

Who is "they"?

Here is the full post:

The endless "taint so" posts grow wearisome. The above post is simply an insult, devoid of content and off topic. This is all they have.

Therefore the they refers to those who post taint so then insult me, those whose posts are off topic (addressing me rather than my position) and devoid of on topic material.

Now this behavior, is like the behavior of political leftest people who say if enough people make the same charge, that validates the charge. They engage in the politics of personal destruction. They misrepresent their opponents. They say they are "committed Christians" yet advocate taxpayer funded abortion.

Would it be correct to assume left leaning voters embrace liberal Christianity?
Would it be correct to assume the decline in mainline churches is due to liberal theology.
Would it be correct to consider the use of loose translations and paraphrases as indicative of liberal theology?

The Bible tells us that false teachers will sneak in and hide their destructive doctrines, such as the Bible does not mean what it says.

 

[evangelist6589]

Here is the full post:


Therefore the they refers to those who post taint so then insult me, those whose posts are off topic (addressing me rather than my position) and devoid of on topic material.

Now this behavior, is like the behavior of political leftest people who say if enough people make the same charge, that validates the charge. They engage in the politics of personal destruction. They misrepresent their opponents. They say they are "committed Christians" yet advocate taxpayer funded abortion.

Would it be correct to assume left leaning voters embrace liberal Christianity?
Would it be correct to assume the decline in mainline churches is due to liberal theology.
Would it be correct to consider the use of loose translations and paraphrases as indicative of liberal theology?

The Bible tells us that false teachers will sneak in and hide their destructive doctrines, such as the Bible does not mean what it says.

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Paraphrases like the Message by Eugene Peterson is one example.

 

[Van]

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Paraphrases like the Message by Eugene Peterson is one example.

Thanks for your on topic post!

 

[JonC]

Here is the full post:


Therefore the they refers to those who post taint so then insult me, those whose posts are off topic (addressing me rather than my position) and devoid of on topic material.

Now this behavior, is like the behavior of political leftest people who say if enough people make the same charge, that validates the charge. They engage in the politics of personal destruction. They misrepresent their opponents. They say they are "committed Christians" yet advocate taxpayer funded abortion.

Would it be correct to assume left leaning voters embrace liberal Christianity?
Would it be correct to assume the decline in mainline churches is due to liberal theology.
Would it be correct to consider the use of loose translations and paraphrases as indicative of liberal theology?

The Bible tells us that false teachers will sneak in and hide their destructive doctrines, such as the Bible does not mean what it says.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with you to an extent. I’ve seen several times where you were insulted for the interpretations you held and I’ve witnessed times where others have ascribed to your conclusions ideas contrary to what you were posting. Point taken.

In terms of your interpretation of Matthew 23:13 I disagree (which is why I asked who “they” were). It is a legitimate interpretation of the text to read it as addressing the actions of the Pharisees rather than the ability of those who come. The reason that I believe this interpretation is that Jesus has been clear to this point that the Kingdom does not belong to these Pharisees (they do not hold the keys and in fact are on the outside themselves).

I may, for example, be judged guilty for blocking someone (for being a barrier or a stumbling block) from entering the kingdom of heaven. But you may be used by God as the vehicle of their salvation. That person “gets in” despite my actions of “shutting them out”. I believe that this is consistent throughout the discourse Jesus has concerning the Pharisees.

Thanks for your on topic post!

And congratulations on recruiting @evangelist6589 . Unfortunately he fairly recently joined a Reformed Baptist church so I'll have to turn him in to the Calvinist police.

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, If they are in uniform, I fear they may be wearing brown shirts.

The illegitimate interpretation of Matthew 23:13 says since the main point of the passage is the ungodly behavior of the Pharisees, it is ok to nullify the other points of the passage.

You next assertion, without support in scripture is that if we hinder a person seeking salvation by our erroneous presentation of the gospel or our ungodly lifestyle witness, they will be saved anyway. We both hope that is always true, but you are fishing in a dry lake.

Nice to hear from you.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, If they are in uniform, I fear they may be wearing brown shirts.

The illegitimate interpretation of Matthew 23:13 says since the main point of the passage is the ungodly behavior of the Pharisees, it is ok to nullify the other points of the passage.

You next assertion, without support in scripture is that if we hinder a person seeking salvation by our erroneous presentation of the gospel or our ungodly lifestyle witness, they will be saved anyway. We both hope that is always true, but you are fishing in a dry lake.

Nice to hear from you.

I agree....probably brown shirts.

But no, the interpretation is not illegitimate because it is not nullifying the other points of the passage. It is, in fact, in keeping with Jesus' descriptions of both the Kingdom (which was not of the Law) and status of the Pharisees in relation to that Kingdom. It is not nullifying the verse but it is remaining consistent with the passage as a whole.

This does not mean, of course, that my interpretation is correct. But it does mean that if you don't understand the interpretation to be a legitimate rendering of the text then what is at fault is not the position but your understanding.

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, you can shout "I am right, you are wrong" till the cows come home. But every word in scripture was inspired by God. No part of it can be disregarded because it conflicts with your presuppositions. The men were entering the kingdom of God, therefore they had some limited spiritual ability. Because your doctrine says sinners have no spiritual ability, you manufacture a reason to ignore this truth. And who decides which parts of passages are untrue.

The problem of course is that the biblical truth, sinners have limited spiritual ability, they can understand spiritual milk but not meat, is also supported by Matthew 13 which explains why Jesus taught in parables. Or Romans 11, where God needed to harden hearts to preclude some of the unbelieving Jews from accepting the gospel. The question you have to ask yourself is how many passages teach that my view is mistaken? The rich young ruler was seeking God. But he could not turn loose of his worldly possessions. Ask yourself why is it harder for a rich man to enter? If no one entered except by the compulsion of irresistible grace, it would be the same for everyone.

Bottom line, every word and phrase of scripture is useful for correction of bogus liberal doctrine, doctrine based on reading between the lines.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, you can shout "I am right, you are wrong" till the cows come home. But every word in scripture was inspired by God. No part of it can be disregarded because it conflicts with your presuppositions. The men were entering the kingdom of God, therefore they had some limited spiritual ability. Because your doctrine says sinners have no spiritual ability, you manufacture a reason to ignore this truth. And who decides which parts of passages are untrue.

The problem of course is that the biblical truth, sinners have limited spiritual ability, they can understand spiritual milk but not meat, is also supported by Matthew 13 which explains why Jesus taught in parables. Or Romans 11, where God needed to harden hearts to preclude some of the unbelieving Jews from accepting the gospel. The question you have to ask yourself is how many passages teach that my view is mistaken? The rich young ruler was seeking God. But he could not turn loose of his worldly possessions.

I'm not saying I am right or you are wrong in interpretation. I have not said that those men lacked some type of spiritual ability. I've not even said that they were not being dragged by their collars kicking and screaming against their will by Almighty God until these Pharisees blocked their path. You are reading into my reply presuppositions of your own.

I'm saying that we can't declare the Earth flat because Scripture says it has four corners. Context matters. I am telling you that the interpretation these Pharisees were blocking people from the kingdom without implying they were ultimately prevented from entering the kingdom is a valid interpretation of the text itself. If you don't understand this then it is a matter hermeneutical objectivity and not of the text itself (or of others who hold different interpretations).

In other words, where I can say "yes, the text itself could mean A,B,C, or D, but it means B because ....." you can only say "the text itself has to mean C because that's what it says" due to your inability to read the text apart from your already preconceived conclusions (regardless to whether or not your preconceived conclusions are correct or if "C" is indeed the right choice).

 

[Van]

JonC, you can invent all manner of flaws in my understanding of scripture, but you are addressing my ability, and not the actual text.
1) The men were entering the kingdom, thus they had some spiritual ability.
2) They were blocked, thus they were not under the compulsion of irresistible grace.
3) I did not address whether at some subsequent time they we saved. Scripture does not say, so to claim one way or the other is illegitimate.
4) I did not say the earth was flat or spherical. When we see a verse that is problematic, we try to understand it as the original audience would have understood it.

Did you say the men of Matthew 23:13 has some limited spiritual ability or did you deny that part of scripture. Answer, you did not say. Liberals say the bible does not mean what it says.