The Pope's Decree

[BobRyan]

Wasn't John 5:39 a rebuke of the Jews how had the Scriptures and thus 'assumed' (i.e. thought) they possessed eternal life?

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and they are they which testify of me."

It doesn't appear this verse establishes the authors intent. Merely possessing the Scriptures doesn't insure eternal life but interpreting them rightly to reveal Jesus as the Christ. Scripture without rightly interpreted is a dead letter with no life in it. It is 'faith in Christ' which brings life not Scripture.

This is true - many an RC authority in the dark ages had scripture "all to themselves" and still persecuted the saints.

As Christ said to the Jewish leaders in Mark 7 - they were swapping out the real intent of scripture for "the doctrines of men" at a time when Jews had access to scripture but could still be duped by influential leaders.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bound]

This is true - many an RC authority in the dark ages had scripture "all to themselves" and still persecuted the saints.

As Christ said to the Jewish leaders in Mark 7 - they were swapping out the real intent of scripture for "the doctrines of men" at a time when Jews had access to scripture but could still be duped by influential leaders.

in Christ,

Bob

Absolutely, the Jews are the primary example of groups who had the Scriptures, studied the Scriptures and were blind to the life giving revelation within them.

I'm glad we have something to agree upon.

 

[DHK]

You are conflating the theological definition of inspiration "a" with "b"...

in·spi·ra·tion: (theological definition)

a. divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.

b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.

When it comes to theology, there is no such thing as your definition b. Inspiration only applies to the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit moved upon the prophets and Apostles to write what God wanted them to write. One cannot use the word in the sense that God inspired Shakespeare to write MacBeth. That does not apply to any Biblical discussion.

God influencing someone's understanding concerning what God's Word means 'is' an example of theological definition 'a' (i.e. see inspiration). If such abilities are not inherent in the individual then it would be a case of inspiration (i.e. divine influence).

No it would not. God inspired the original authors of Scriptures and them alone.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The holy men of God were the prophets of the OT, and by extension the Apostles of the NT. They were "moved by the Holy Spirit" to write the words of God, not anyone today. They were the ones that were inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--The Scripture alone is inspired--all 66 books of the Bible--nothing more and nothing less. We have God's revelation to mankind within the pages of the Bible. No other man or his writing or words are inspired. If anyone says they are they are a false prophet, and that is where you get the beginnings of a cult.

You are ignoring the aforementioned text which proceeds 1 Corinthians 2:11-12, 14...

As I mentioned before, these verses speak to what we know as "illumination." God gives the believer understanding in the Scripture. The unsaved man is unable to understand the Scriptures as the saved man is able to.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Corinthians 2:9

Why do you keep quoting this verse? It has nothing to do with this subject. It is a description of heaven. Eye has not seen.... what heaven will be like. We will know what it will be like once we get there.

My continued point is not everyone who cries Lord and Lord and believes themselves to be "saved" is inspired by the Holy Spirit (note: I am using the word correctly) to interpret the depths of spiritual matters.

You are not using the word correctly. No one is inspired today, nor ever will be. The writers of the Bible were dead 2,000 years ago and most long before that. The Bible has 66 books, written by about 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years, and through it all has one basic theme--redemption through Christ. Those 40 writers were the only ones that were inspired of God.
You are right to say that not every one who cries Lord, Lord, is actually saved.

The text never mentions 'believers' but 'them that love him'. This would be your own reading into the text. I dare say that anyone who suggestions that they truly love God would be obedient to His Commandments as our Lord suggests, "If God were your Father, you would indeed love me" (John 8:42). Later, he stated, "If you love me, Keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Personally, I would be very skeptical concerning anyone claiming authoritative knowledge of His word except His Eternal Word: Jesus Christ.

What text are you referring to?
The Bible says over and over again that a believer is one who believes in Christ as Saviour.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

 

[BobRyan]

Absolutely, the Jews are the primary example of groups who had the Scriptures, studied the Scriptures and were blind to the life giving revelation within them.

I'm glad we have something to agree upon.

indeed we agree. It does very little good to study the Bible without having a living relationship with the "God of the Bible".

Jesus said "I AM the way the TRUTH and the life" -- To acquire a "Love of the Truth" is to Love Christ - and HIS WORD for it speaks of Christ and through it - the Spirit of Christ speaks to us.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK

No it would not. God inspired the original authors of Scriptures and them alone.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The holy men of God were the prophets of the OT, and by extension the Apostles of the NT. They were "moved by the Holy Spirit" to write the words of God, not anyone today. They were the ones that were inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--The Scripture alone is inspired--all 66 books of the Bible--nothing more and nothing less. We have God's revelation to mankind within the pages of the Bible. No other man or his writing or words are inspired. If anyone says they are they are a false prophet, and that is where you get the beginnings of a cult.

Bounds -- (Or shall I just call you E. M?) Though you have some differences with DHK - you have got him to defend ALL 66 as inspiried and "instructive" even to the point of saying "nothing more - NOTHING LESS".

I have not been able to get him to do that in all this time!

I applaud your work sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Bounds -- (Or shall I just call you E. M?) Though you have some differences with DHK - you have got him to defend ALL 66 as inspiried and "instructive" even to the point of saying "nothing more - NOTHING LESS".

I have not been able to get him to do that in all this time!

I applaud your work sir.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob you need to stop making false accusations without any foundation. Quote me where I have said that any of the 66 books are not inspired or retract your statement.

I believe the Bible--all 66 books to be inspired of God, as the Bible itself claims:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What I don't agree with is you taking Scripture out of its context and making it say something other than what it was intended to say. Here is what Peter says about that:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[BobRyan]

You argued against using acts in the discussion on Gifts of the Spirit.

you argued against using the OT when discussing Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation.

hmmm. Let me see - what else....

in any case - I am just glad to see you finally adding the "NOTHING LESS" statement to your affirmation of 2Tim 3:16.

Well done!

 

[DHK]

You argued against using acts in the discussion on Gifts of the Spirit.

you argued against using the OT when discussing Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation.

hmmm. Let me see - what else....

in any case - I am just glad to see you finally adding the "NOTHING LESS" statement to your affirmation of 2Tim 3:16.

Well done!

Of course, your argument in such cases is bogus. It is like going to the book of Leviticus to try and establish all of Mosaic Law for today. There are some things done is some eras that are not done today. It is that simple. But I never said any book is uninspired. That is slander.

 

[bound]

When it comes to theology, there is no such thing as your definition b. Inspiration only applies to the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit moved upon the prophets and Apostles to write what God wanted them to write. One cannot use the word in the sense that God inspired Shakespeare to write MacBeth. That does not apply to any Biblical discussion.

Theology... is the Study of God. Understanding the proper meaning of such study would indeed apply to a theological definition of 'inspiration' as it is historically used in said study.

You are 'artificially' narrowing the use of this term to 'only' describe divine influence on the minds of the authors of Scripture. Your example of Shakespeare neglects the adjective "divine" to properly define the 'kind' of inspiration of which I am speaking.

Any external influence by God can and is properly understood as 'divine inspiration'. Although I have no problem with the use of illumination I see on grounds to limit the term inspiration as you attempt to do. I didn't define the terms I merely use them properly.

No it would not. God inspired the original authors of Scriptures and them alone.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The holy men of God were the prophets of the OT, and by extension the Apostles of the NT. They were "moved by the Holy Spirit" to write the words of God, not anyone today. They were the ones that were inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--The Scripture alone is inspired--all 66 books of the Bible--nothing more and nothing less. We have God's revelation to mankind within the pages of the Bible. No other man or his writing or words are inspired. If anyone says they are they are a false prophet, and that is where you get the beginnings of a cult.

When truth is spoken, it is the truth. When the words of God are affirmed, such affirmation can and is properly understood to be divinely inspired as the proper possession of God Himself. We can and do participate in the Godhead. It is our inherence as 'adopted' Children of God.

As I mentioned before, these verses speak to what we know as "illumination." God gives the believer understanding in the Scripture. The unsaved man is unable to understand the Scriptures as the saved man is able to.

If an external influence is exercised on an individual, it is normative to affirm that they are in a state of 'inspiration' (i.e. in the spirit). Again your own hermeneutic is coloring what you deem as a proper use of a defined term which I have already proven can be properly used outside your limited interpretation of it's proper usage.

Why do you keep quoting this verse? It has nothing to do with this subject. It is a description of heaven. Eye has not seen.... what heaven will be like. We will know what it will be like once we get there.

Because it is part of the 'context' necessary to understand the 'subject' of the later verses of which you quote.

You are not using the word correctly. No one is inspired today, nor ever will be. The writers of the Bible were dead 2,000 years ago and most long before that. The Bible has 66 books, written by about 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years, and through it all has one basic theme--redemption through Christ. Those 40 writers were the only ones that were inspired of God.

Within the blinders of your own hermeneutic perhaps but as I've stated you and your hermeneutic is 'artificially' narrowing the proper meaning of the term 'inspiration'.

You are right to say that not every one who cries Lord, Lord, is actually saved.

And I would go so far as to say that everyone who thinks they are interpreting Scripture properly, are not. 'Claiming the Spirit' does not insure one's interpretation as 'authoritative'.

What text are you referring to?

Read John 14:15-31 and 15:1-17...

You'll find within the passages greater 'conditionals' them simply 'belief'. Claiming 'belief' does not insure one's 'election', nor one's interpretation as 'authoritative'. You are basing your entire faith on unsubstantiated claims. Our Lord said "we will know them by their fruit" not "by their claims".

The Bible says over and over again that a believer is one who believes in Christ as Saviour.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Our Lord and Saviour also affirmed other 'conditionals' which your use of this one verse fails to recognize. I can only assume that this then is only a 'half-truth' as the whole truth is not present.

What other 'conditionals' do we find within the pages of Scripture?

 

[DHK]

Theology... is the Study of God. Understanding the proper meaning of such study would indeed apply to a theological definition of 'inspiration' as it is historically used in said study.

You are 'artificially' narrowing the use of this term to 'only' describe divine influence on the minds of the authors of Scripture. Your example of Shakespeare neglects the adjective "divine" to properly define the 'kind' of inspiration of which I am speaking.

This is a debate forum where the Bible is our authority. Words have meanings. I gave you the meaning of "inspiration" as it applies to the Bible, and is defined by the Bible. That is the only definition that we need to be concerned with.

The word translated for "church" is "ekklesia". It means assembly. Thus the word church always refers to a local church in the NT. The underlying Greek word simply means assembly--an assembly of baptized believers. It cannot (as the dictionary may say) mean church building. There were no buildings for churches in that day. In fact they didn't build builiding for churches until about 250 years after the death of the Apostles. Thus you can't impose the definition of "church building" into the Bible.
Neither can you impose your defintion of "inspiration" into the Bible, which we are discussing. No man is inspired of God in these days. The only ones that were truly inspired were the authors of the Bible. The only definitions that we use are Biblical definitions.

Any external influence by God can and is properly understood as 'divine inspiration'. Although I have no problem with the use of illumination I see on grounds to limit the term inspiration as you attempt to do. I didn't define the terms I merely use them properly.

First you are not using terms properly. You can't insert a secular definition of a word into the Bible, and expect it to be the right definiton. That is twisting and perverting the Word of God.
Secondly, God doesn't use external influences today, except in convicting people through the work of the Holy Spirit--of sin, of judgement and of righteousness (John 16:8-11)

When truth is spoken, it is the truth. When the words of God are affirmed, such affirmation can and is properly understood to be divinely inspired as the proper possession of God Himself. We can and do participate in the Godhead. It is our inherence as 'adopted' Children of God.

You are on the verge of blasphemy. We do not participate in the Godhead. The truth is spoken through the Word of God alone. Jesus said: "Thy word is truth." The Bible is truth. Christ is truth (John 14:6). All that we need to know about Christ is contained in the Bible. When a preacher preaches the Word of God, his words are not inspired. Are Benny Hinn's words inspired? (Perhaps only by Satan). Paul's words to the Bereans weren't inspired (not everything he said was). The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if everything he preached was true. (Acts 17:11).

If an external influence is exercised on an individual, it is normative to affirm that they are in a state of 'inspiration' (i.e. in the spirit). Again your own hermeneutic is coloring what you deem as a proper use of a defined term which I have already proven can be properly used outside your limited interpretation of it's proper usage.

It seems you don't have an hermeneutic. There is no state of inspiration today. That is just plain heresy. Again you can't insert a secular definition of a word into Biblical theology. That is akin to what cults do. It is also neo-orthodoxy--changing the meaning of the orthodox words of the Bible.

Because it is part of the 'context' necessary to understand the 'subject' of the later verses of which you quote.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course, your argument in such cases is bogus. It is like going to the book of Leviticus to try and establish all of Mosaic Law for today. There are some things done is some eras that are not done today. It is that simple. But I never said any book is uninspired. That is slander.

Actually THIS is your quote

DHK
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

--The Scripture alone is inspired--all 66 books of the Bible--nothing more and nothing less. We have God's revelation to mankind within the pages of the Bible.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1050979&postcount=83

And I can see me holding you to that (linking to this thread and pointing out that you said it) even as you claim to reject the doctrine found in Leviticus or Isaiah 66 or Gen 2 or Mark 2:27 etc

DHK
No other man or his writing or words are inspired. If anyone says they are they are a false prophet, and that is where you get the beginnings of a cult.

Kind of a bold way to condemn Mary, Elizabeth, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters AND ALL of the "EACH ONE" in 1Cor 14 that has either a "revelation, teaching, tongue" and the "TO EACH ONE is given" statement in 1Cor 12 that INCLUDES the distribution of the gift of prophecy TO the church.

The argument that these people are all members of a cult - does not form a compelling argument for the objective unbiased reader (one who is not already clinging to your POV - a POV held no matter what scripture says to the contrary).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Kind of a bold way to condemn Mary, Elizabeth, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters AND ALL of the "EACH ONE" in 1Cor 14 that has either a "revelation, teaching, tongue" and the "TO EACH ONE is given" statement in 1Cor 12 that INCLUDES the distribution of the gift of prophecy TO the church.

The argument that these people are all members of a cult - does not form a compelling argument for the objective unbiased reader (one who is not already clinging to your POV - a POV held no matter what scripture says to the contrary).

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, it is very simple. If the words are not recorded in the Bible they are not inspired. If you look in the OT, you will find both the actual words of Satan: "Thou shalt not surely die," and plenty of words of Jezebel, (the most wicked queen that ever lived). Both Satan's words and Jezebel's words are inspired of God. That doesn't mean that they are God's own words. It means that God accurately recorded through holy men of God what he wanted mankind to hear. If the words are not recorded in Scripture the are not inspired. They are not the Word of God. Jezebel was not a prophetess, did not speak for God, and yet her words are recorded in Scripture. Her words are inspired by the Holy Spirit because God had them recorded, and recorded accurately.

 

[bound]

This is a debate forum where the Bible is our authority. Words have meanings. I gave you the meaning of "inspiration" as it applies to the Bible, and is defined by the Bible. That is the only definition that we need to be concerned with.

No, you gave me 'your' artificially narrow interpretation of the term 'inspiration' which frankly isn't Scriptural.

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. - Job 32:8

The word translated for "church" is "ekklesia". It means assembly. Thus the word church always refers to a local church in the NT. The underlying Greek word simply means assembly--an assembly of baptized believers. It cannot (as the dictionary may say) mean church building. There were no buildings for churches in that day. In fact they didn't build builiding for churches until about 250 years after the death of the Apostles. Thus you can't impose the definition of "church building" into the Bible.

The word 'church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word 'ekklesia' which comes from two words 'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call.' An ekklesia or 'calling out' was not just an assembly. The words agora and paneguris as well as heorte, koinon, thiasos, sunagoge and sunago can all mean an assembly. The word ekklesia was a political term, not a religious term. Jesus was the King and the Bible used the term ekklesia for a good reason. In classical Greek "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."

In Israel the legislative assembly was originally composed of the elders of each family group. By the time of Christ it had become a body of rulers exercising authority over the people of Judea. It was a body of lawmakers who exercised authority and ran the offices of government through a vast bureaucratic system.

Since, the authority of the State in Israel was originally in the hands of the elders of each family they did not usually gather together to overthrow the corruption of government since they were the government. The heads of every household were the princes of Israel, which was a government of the people, for the people and by the people, under the God of Heaven as long as they remained faithful to Him. But once the voice of the people sought a king who appointed officers over them from the top down the need for an ekklesia steadily grew.

When the Greek city states found their governments had become too corrupt and oppressive, they would call for an ekklesia, an assembly outside the civil authority of the city. If enough people came out and refused to accept the existing centralized civil authority, that government would collapse. Non participation has been a successful and peaceful means to free mankind from oppressive civil authority throughout history.

Like the walk out strikes instituted by Gandhi in hope of freeing his people from oppression of colonization, the act of calling the people out could be a very effective method of obtaining freedom through nonviolence. Gandhi did not only encourage worker strikes but also practical methods to free society from the benefits and need of the corporate and often oppressive civil state. Moses had done the same in Egypt when he taught the people how to live without the exercising authority and benefits of the Pharaoh while still maintaining a viable, cohesive and productive society.

Jesus' procession into Jerusalem was a call for the people to stand against a corrupt oppressive government by offering them a legitimate government that operated differently than despots like Herod the Great. John the Baptist had preached the kingdom of heaven at hand,2 which was nothing less than a government operating by freewill offerings,3 voluntary charitable participation4 and the perfect law of liberty.5 Jesus preached the same method of self government and proclaimed that right for all who would remain faithful to him. It was a powerful and non violent movement of the people, by the people, and for the people to change the course of history by changing the hearts and minds of men by altering their relationship with governments like the gentiles who exercised authority.6

The use of the word Church was a poor choice in place of the Greek ekklesia but what men often mean unto evil God turns to good. That word Church has its origin in the meaning of lordship which may be accurate from a certain point of view.

The ekklesia or Church was founded and established by Jesus Christ, Yahshua, almost 2000 years ago. It was a government established by the anointed King and appointed to look after His Kingdom.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; - Luke 22:29

Jesus was recognized by the existing world government, Pontius Pilate, who nailed his official recognition of Christ's kingdom to the cross. Jesus and His little flock of followers, the called out [ekklesia], were persecuted by the apostate church of that day who abandoned the house of David proclaiming they had no king but Caesar. At Pentecost thousands of Jews and others were baptized into that government by the appointed followers of the proclaimed and recognized king. All who became members of that kingdom of Heaven were cast out7 of the existing system of benefits through the Corban of the Pharisees and began to live a new life according to the precepts of God's government, by faith hope and charity and the perfect law of liberty.

[to be continued]

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
DHK
No other man or his writing or words are inspired. If anyone says they are they are a false prophet, and that is where you get the beginnings of a cult.

Bob said
Kind of a bold way to condemn Mary, Elizabeth, Anna in the temple, Philips 4 daughters AND ALL of the "EACH ONE" in 1Cor 14 that has either a "revelation, teaching, tongue" and the "TO EACH ONE is given" statement in 1Cor 12 that INCLUDES the distribution of the gift of prophecy TO the church.

The argument that these people are all members of a cult - does not form a compelling argument for the objective unbiased reader (one who is not already clinging to your POV - a POV held no matter what scripture says to the contrary).

DHK
Bob, it is very simple. If the words are not recorded in the Bible they are not inspired.

No text in all of scripture makes that argument.

RATHER God says "IF there is a prophet among you I WILL make Myself known to them in a dream or a vision".

The Text does NOT say "IF they fail to get the revelation included in scripture then I did not speak to them".

If you look in the OT, you will find both the actual words of Satan: "Thou shalt not surely die," and plenty of words of Jezebel, (the most wicked queen that ever lived). Both Satan's words and Jezebel's words are inspired of God. That doesn't mean that they are God's own words.

#1. You are rationalizing. For example in the case of Gen 3 and Satan's words -- it IS DIRECT inspiration by GOD TO MOSES that gives us those facts. Hopefully we can agree on this point.

They are not the Word of God. Jezebel was not a prophetess, did not speak for God, and yet her words are recorded in Scripture. Her words are inspired by the Holy Spirit because God had them recorded, and recorded accurately.

Well we agree on at least part of what you have said there.

in Christ,

Bob