-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Venting on out of context uses of scripture
- Thread starter Marcia
- Start date
LaymansTermsPlease
Member
I love that verse in Psalms 127 like the ones I quote below in James.
I can't see this as being a terrible misuse of the Psalms verse. Original context may have been the house of David, but you can't deny the truth of this to us all.
To me, it's just like:
James 4:13-15 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit." You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes. You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."
I repeat Psalms 127:1 to myself and to God as a prayer every night when I double check the lock on our front door and set our alarm before laying down to sleep.
Nothing comforts me more than reminding myself that God is in control, and that no matter what kind of locks or alarms or whatever prudent steps we take to protect ourselves, He's running the universe.
I'm going to go lay my head on the pillow in subjection to His will (whether that means another night of safety or means unforeseen tragedy in the night despite the steps I take) and not under any kind of false comfort that a lock and alarm in and of themselves mean anything in comparison to his will.
However, I'm still going to set the lock and alarm. Psalms 127 is a beautiful statement of our dependence on God that does not excuse our responsibility.
God doesn't say the watchman is wasting his time watching the city at all, but rather He tells us that even if the watchman watches, God's will is going to be done. God doesn't tell us to give up all labor and just sit down and be lazy and expect Him to just protect us and provide for us.
Jerry Bridges in a book called "The Discipline of Grace" points out Nehemiah 4:8-9 as well as Psalms 127. Nehemiah stationed guards around Jerusalem and prayed.
Nehemiah 4:8-9 All of them conspired together to move with armed forces against Jerusalem and to create a disturbance in it. So we prayed to our God and stationed a guard to protect against them both day and night.
Responsibility, and ALWAYS reminding yourself of your total dependence.
I can't see this as being a terrible misuse of the Psalms verse. Original context may have been the house of David, but you can't deny the truth of this to us all.
To me, it's just like:
James 4:13-15 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit." You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes. You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."
I repeat Psalms 127:1 to myself and to God as a prayer every night when I double check the lock on our front door and set our alarm before laying down to sleep.
Nothing comforts me more than reminding myself that God is in control, and that no matter what kind of locks or alarms or whatever prudent steps we take to protect ourselves, He's running the universe.
I'm going to go lay my head on the pillow in subjection to His will (whether that means another night of safety or means unforeseen tragedy in the night despite the steps I take) and not under any kind of false comfort that a lock and alarm in and of themselves mean anything in comparison to his will.
However, I'm still going to set the lock and alarm. Psalms 127 is a beautiful statement of our dependence on God that does not excuse our responsibility.
God doesn't say the watchman is wasting his time watching the city at all, but rather He tells us that even if the watchman watches, God's will is going to be done. God doesn't tell us to give up all labor and just sit down and be lazy and expect Him to just protect us and provide for us.
Jerry Bridges in a book called "The Discipline of Grace" points out Nehemiah 4:8-9 as well as Psalms 127. Nehemiah stationed guards around Jerusalem and prayed.
Nehemiah 4:8-9 All of them conspired together to move with armed forces against Jerusalem and to create a disturbance in it. So we prayed to our God and stationed a guard to protect against them both day and night.
Responsibility, and ALWAYS reminding yourself of your total dependence.
Marcia said:Here's another one:
Unless the LORD builds the house,They labor in vain who build it;Unless the LORD guards the city,The watchman keeps awake in vain. Ps 127.1
A lot of people use this when dedicating a church or building.
But it's really about the house of David, according to my Hermeneutics prof. I'm going by memory - can't recall how he explained it.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence." --- II Peter 3:9 (bolding mine)
The bolded portion of this verse is one of the most misapplied verses I've ever heard preached!!
This verse is NOT referring to lost people in the sense that God isn't willing that all men [used here generically to refer to both genders] die and go to hell, but rather that He wants unsaved people to repent (and, thus, receive Christ as Savior).
About 99.9% of the times that this verse is used in that sense the entire verse is NEVER quoted. Why? Well, if it were, its real application might be understood.
Who is the "us-ward" with which the Lord is "longsuffering"?
If people would bother to read the context of this verse, they would find that the "us-ward" refers to the recipients of II Peter (See 3:1). And just who were the recipeints of "This second epistle..."? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they were the same ones to which I Peter was addressed.
I Peter 1:1 plainly tells us that Peter is writing "to the strangers scattered throughout ..." what would now be locations in or near the western and southern coastal areas of modern-day Turkey, many of which were some of the very same places that the Apostle Paul visited. The fact that these people were "scattered out" probably meant that they were ethnically Jewish people. (See also I Peter 2:11-12 where these "strangers" are compared to Gentiles.)
So, the "us-ward" in II Peter 3:9 isn't referring to lost people at all but rather to the elect of God (cf. I Peter 1:2).
What then is II Peter 3:9 talking about when it says that the Lord isn't willing...? Well, verses 1-5 are referring to scoffers that will show up in the last days who will deny that Jesus Christ isn't going to keep His promise that He's going to come back since it's been about 35 years since Christ promised He'd come back.
The Lord isn't willing that His elect people (and here Peter isn't talking about OT Israel as a nation) perish, i.e., every person whom God elected according to His foreknowledge (I Peter 1:2) is guaranteed that they won't perish before Jesus comes back to this earth to destroy both the heavens and the earth as is covered in Revelation 17ff.
If that isn't a reassurance of what Philippians 1:6 tells us, then I don't know what else you'd call it!
The bolded portion of this verse is one of the most misapplied verses I've ever heard preached!!
This verse is NOT referring to lost people in the sense that God isn't willing that all men [used here generically to refer to both genders] die and go to hell, but rather that He wants unsaved people to repent (and, thus, receive Christ as Savior).
About 99.9% of the times that this verse is used in that sense the entire verse is NEVER quoted. Why? Well, if it were, its real application might be understood.
Who is the "us-ward" with which the Lord is "longsuffering"?
If people would bother to read the context of this verse, they would find that the "us-ward" refers to the recipients of II Peter (See 3:1). And just who were the recipeints of "This second epistle..."? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they were the same ones to which I Peter was addressed.
I Peter 1:1 plainly tells us that Peter is writing "to the strangers scattered throughout ..." what would now be locations in or near the western and southern coastal areas of modern-day Turkey, many of which were some of the very same places that the Apostle Paul visited. The fact that these people were "scattered out" probably meant that they were ethnically Jewish people. (See also I Peter 2:11-12 where these "strangers" are compared to Gentiles.)
So, the "us-ward" in II Peter 3:9 isn't referring to lost people at all but rather to the elect of God (cf. I Peter 1:2).
What then is II Peter 3:9 talking about when it says that the Lord isn't willing...? Well, verses 1-5 are referring to scoffers that will show up in the last days who will deny that Jesus Christ isn't going to keep His promise that He's going to come back since it's been about 35 years since Christ promised He'd come back.
The Lord isn't willing that His elect people (and here Peter isn't talking about OT Israel as a nation) perish, i.e., every person whom God elected according to His foreknowledge (I Peter 1:2) is guaranteed that they won't perish before Jesus comes back to this earth to destroy both the heavens and the earth as is covered in Revelation 17ff.
If that isn't a reassurance of what Philippians 1:6 tells us, then I don't know what else you'd call it!
Rippon said:"Eye hath not seen,nor ear heard,neither have entered into the heart of man,the things which we can build." :Bill Clinton
I believe it was Chris Matthews who said this about Bill Clinton, not something Clinton said about himself.
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't exactly a verse/passage taken OUT of context; rather it's about "ending" a context before it should be. (Maybe there's some fancy $0.50 term for that, but since I'm no seminary grad, I don't know what it'd be called!:smilewinkgrin: )
To wit:
Why do so many commetators make a complete break in thought from Hebrews 10:25 and Hebrews 10:26?
10:25 -- "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."
10:26 -- "FOR [emphasis mine] if we sin willfully after that which we have received the knowlege of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"
My point is this: Why did the Holy Spirit inspire "whoever" it was that wrote Hebrews to use the connective FOR if there isn't to be any connection with the command (not a suggestion!) to not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together" of 10:25 with the implication that doing so is nothing less than sinning willfully of 10:26 ff?
Moreover the placement of the 10:25 command would seem to me to be a rather obvious cause and effect statement (forsaking the assembling = sinning willfully).
Now the Holy Spirit could have chosen many other kinds of sins besides forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as a prime example of a willful sin, but He did not! Why did He not chose any other willful sin besides forsaking the assembling of ourselves together?
Then the question arises, "Exactly what is meant by 'assembling ourselves together'?" Is that the "when two or three are gathered together"? Can it be some random assembling that "just happens"? These are possiblilties, but I'm inclined the believe the "assembling of ourselves together" speaks more about the "local NT church assembly" than these other kinds of "assemblies."
Why do I say that?
Well, if Jesus instituted the local church, what did He institute it for?
Matthew 28:19-20 ("The Great Commission") talks of Evangelizing, Enlisting, & Educating. The only institution I know of that can effectively do ALL THREE of these is the local NT church.
The bulk of Paul's epistles were addressed to local NT churches, or to officers of local NT churches. The first three chapters of Revelation deal with local NT churches. Even Peter, James & John's writings refer to local NT churches or individuals that are identified in some way with a local NT church. One would be hard pressed to find any NT writer that doesn't include the concept of the local NT church at least somewhere in his writings.
Ephesians 4:11-16 tells us of the value and benefits of the local NT church.
Do you not see a pattern here?
Now, every one of us can probably cite examples of "imperfect" local NT churches. Every one of the five churches of which I've been a member in my 42 years as a born-agan Christian were/are "imperfect" (For one thing, they all let ME join them! :smilewinkgrin: ), but just because there are "imperfect" churches and "imperfect" pastors and/or chuch members doesn't therefore mean that we need to jump ship on the institution that Jesus founded. (After all, I've also known of some imperfect homes/marriages; and no one has to tell me that there aren't any imperfect human governments!!]
Why do we find too many "Lone Ranger Christians" "and even more so as [we] see the day [of Christ's return] approaching"?
Could some of that be because they won't lower themselves to openly affiliate and monetarily support a local NT church?
Could it be that they want to live an "unaccountable" life?
In summary, I believe that, based on the context Hebrews 10:25 AND 10:26ff, that one of the worst (if not THE worst wilful sin) that a NT Christian can commit is forsaking the assembling of ouselves together in the capacity of a local NT church.
Comments from my BB friends and any "Lone Ranger Christians" who may be out there are welcomed. Opinions supported by appropriate NT scripture(s) will be highly appreciated!!
To wit:
Why do so many commetators make a complete break in thought from Hebrews 10:25 and Hebrews 10:26?
10:25 -- "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."
10:26 -- "FOR [emphasis mine] if we sin willfully after that which we have received the knowlege of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"
My point is this: Why did the Holy Spirit inspire "whoever" it was that wrote Hebrews to use the connective FOR if there isn't to be any connection with the command (not a suggestion!) to not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together" of 10:25 with the implication that doing so is nothing less than sinning willfully of 10:26 ff?
Moreover the placement of the 10:25 command would seem to me to be a rather obvious cause and effect statement (forsaking the assembling = sinning willfully).
Now the Holy Spirit could have chosen many other kinds of sins besides forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as a prime example of a willful sin, but He did not! Why did He not chose any other willful sin besides forsaking the assembling of ourselves together?
Then the question arises, "Exactly what is meant by 'assembling ourselves together'?" Is that the "when two or three are gathered together"? Can it be some random assembling that "just happens"? These are possiblilties, but I'm inclined the believe the "assembling of ourselves together" speaks more about the "local NT church assembly" than these other kinds of "assemblies."
Why do I say that?
Well, if Jesus instituted the local church, what did He institute it for?
Matthew 28:19-20 ("The Great Commission") talks of Evangelizing, Enlisting, & Educating. The only institution I know of that can effectively do ALL THREE of these is the local NT church.
The bulk of Paul's epistles were addressed to local NT churches, or to officers of local NT churches. The first three chapters of Revelation deal with local NT churches. Even Peter, James & John's writings refer to local NT churches or individuals that are identified in some way with a local NT church. One would be hard pressed to find any NT writer that doesn't include the concept of the local NT church at least somewhere in his writings.
Ephesians 4:11-16 tells us of the value and benefits of the local NT church.
Do you not see a pattern here?
Now, every one of us can probably cite examples of "imperfect" local NT churches. Every one of the five churches of which I've been a member in my 42 years as a born-agan Christian were/are "imperfect" (For one thing, they all let ME join them! :smilewinkgrin: ), but just because there are "imperfect" churches and "imperfect" pastors and/or chuch members doesn't therefore mean that we need to jump ship on the institution that Jesus founded. (After all, I've also known of some imperfect homes/marriages; and no one has to tell me that there aren't any imperfect human governments!!]
Why do we find too many "Lone Ranger Christians" "and even more so as [we] see the day [of Christ's return] approaching"?
Could some of that be because they won't lower themselves to openly affiliate and monetarily support a local NT church?
Could it be that they want to live an "unaccountable" life?
In summary, I believe that, based on the context Hebrews 10:25 AND 10:26ff, that one of the worst (if not THE worst wilful sin) that a NT Christian can commit is forsaking the assembling of ouselves together in the capacity of a local NT church.
Comments from my BB friends and any "Lone Ranger Christians" who may be out there are welcomed. Opinions supported by appropriate NT scripture(s) will be highly appreciated!!
dragonfly said:I believe it was Chris Matthews who said this about Bill Clinton, not something Clinton said about himself.
No I heard it with my own ears and noted it with my eyes as well.W.J.C.said it.