What Sword will you depend on?

[revmwc]

Hebrews 4:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have noticed many of us pull out the bible inour debates. I personally like to go the the Concordences and post the menaing of words there.
Then I see all these other folks who pull out their Spurgeon Sword, or Calvin Sword, or Arminian Sword and whatever man they have depended on for their interpretation of scripture. Even saying I'll go with this one or that one.

Sorry I will go with God's sword and the concordences for word menaings. I will let the Holy spirit be guide.
So how many will use the only Sord that is able to pierce and divide man's philosophies?

 

[Greektim]

Hebrews 4:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have noticed many of us pull out the bible inour debates. I personally like to go the the Concordences and post the menaing of words there.
Then I see all these other folks who pull out their Spurgeon Sword, or Calvin Sword, or Arminian Sword and whatever man they have depended on for their interpretation of scripture. Even saying I'll go with this one or that one.

Sorry I will go with God's sword and the concordences for word menaings. I will let the Holy spirit be guide.
So how many will use the only Sord that is able to pierce and divide man's philosophies?

What if "word of God" is not a reference to the Scriptures there but the gospel message. Read the context of chpt. 4 and the repeated use of "word" or logos" in Hebrews. It makes sense. Just a thought.

 

[jbh28]

What about the Sword of the Lord?


Just kidding!

 

[preacher4truth]

Some use the 'Ephesians 4:11-12 Sword,' so we learn from those He has appointed to teach. The 'I only learn from God directly Sword' sure sounds pious though! :laugh: :wavey: :love2:

 

[12strings]

Hebrews 4:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have noticed many of us pull out the bible inour debates. I personally like to go the the Concordences and post the menaing of words there.
Then I see all these other folks who pull out their Spurgeon Sword, or Calvin Sword, or Arminian Sword and whatever man they have depended on for their interpretation of scripture. Even saying I'll go with this one or that one.

Sorry I will go with God's sword and the concordences for word menaings. I will let the Holy spirit be guide.
So how many will use the only Sord that is able to pierce and divide man's philosophies?

Well which sword is it: God's word or the concordnance? Some man wrote the definitions in the concordinances too.

 

[revmwc]

Well which sword is it: God's word or the concordnance? Some man wrote the definitions in the concordinances too.

But the concordance is based on the meanings of the words, grant it men interpret those words just as men by inspriation wrote the Bible and men by inspiration determined what books were placed in it. So that is where we seek the Guidence of the Holy Spirit to show us what He meant by what was written.
The Bible, scripture will never fail us because it was inspired by God to give us revelation of Him.

Commentaries are written by men too and we all of us depend on commentaries but when I study a passage I use more than one and get varying views then trust that the Holy Spirit leads me to the correct meaning. But I will always seek scriture over commentaries or even the concordence as much as possible.
My favorite bible is the interlinear Greek to English straight translation based on the Textus Receptus Greek Bible. It is eye opening how the straight out reads in a lot of passages.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hebrews 4:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have noticed many of us pull out the bible inour debates. I personally like to go the the Concordences and post the menaing of words there.
Then I see all these other folks who pull out their Spurgeon Sword, or Calvin Sword, or Arminian Sword and whatever man they have depended on for their interpretation of scripture. Even saying I'll go with this one or that one.

Sorry I will go with God's sword and the concordences for word menaings. I will let the Holy spirit be guide.
So how many will use the only Sord that is able to pierce and divide man's philosophies?

Bro,

I believe that you would consider context important in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Is that correct?

If this is true, then what tools do you use to help you understand the context, setting, background of the texts you interpret?

 

[revmwc]

Bro,

I believe that you would consider context important in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Is that correct?

If this is true, then what tools do you use to help you understand the context, setting, background of the texts you interpret?

Again that is where the commentaries come in but some for basic doctrines are not required. The symbolism of the lost coin for instance ones needs to understand the culture of the time, if the coin satayed lost the woman would be believed to have committed adultry and lost husband, home and possibly her life.
But when it comes to the Doctrine of Soteriology I would first go to the Interlinear see how it reads and then a concordance of Bible dictionary then I would consult several commentaries if needed. I believe the interlinear and conrdence can help in most of then, several commentaries not just one with one mans view.
For instance I see Christ prayer in the Garden as a prayer of making it to the cross not avoiding it why because God immediately sent a Angle to strengthen Him and get Him through the pressure on the body. Can you imagine the blood pressure of Christ that night, knowing Judas would betray Him, knowing the agony of the cross the sweat drops of Blood. Luke 22:42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
The Father sent an Angel to His aide immediately upon His request for the cup to pass from Him. That was the cup of premature death in the Garden not the cup of the Death on the cross.

 

[MB]

Some use the 'Ephesians 4:11-12 Sword,' so we learn from those He has appointed to teach. The 'I only learn from God directly Sword' sure sounds pious though! :laugh: :wavey: :love2:

You never know maybe it is pious. Though I know you meant that as an insult to those who claim this, The Bible clearly states;

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Because you feel it sounds pious can only mean that maybe the comforter isn't your teacher. So why on earth would anyone listen to what you think or believe?.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

Again that is where the commentaries come in but some for basic doctrines are not required. The symbolism of the lost coin for instance ones needs to understand the culture of the time, if the coin satayed lost the woman would be believed to have committed adultry and lost husband, home and possibly her life.
But when it comes to the Doctrine of Soteriology I would first go to the Interlinear see how it reads and then a concordance of Bible dictionary then I would consult several commentaries if needed. I believe the interlinear and conrdence can help in most of then, several commentaries not just one with one mans view.
For instance I see Christ prayer in the Garden as a prayer of making it to the cross not avoiding it why because God immediately sent a Angle to strengthen Him and get Him through the pressure on the body. Can you imagine the blood pressure of Christ that night, knowing Judas would betray Him, knowing the agony of the cross the sweat drops of Blood. Luke 22:42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
The Father sent an Angel to His aide immediately upon His request for the cup to pass from Him. That was the cup of premature death in the Garden not the cup of the Death on the cross.

So then, while calling upon others to use, or to admit to using 'the Sword only' which again sounds pious, you yourself don't use 'the Sword only.' Is that correct?

 

[revmwc]

Again that is where the commentaries come in but some for basic doctrines are not required. The symbolism of the lost coin for instance ones needs to understand the culture of the time, if the coin satayed lost the woman would be believed to have committed adultry and lost husband, home and possibly her life.
But when it comes to the Doctrine of Soteriology I would first go to the Interlinear see how it reads and then a concordance of Bible dictionary then I would consult several commentaries if needed. I believe the interlinear and conrdence can help in most of then, several commentaries not just one with one mans view.
For instance I see Christ prayer in the Garden as a prayer of making it to the cross not avoiding it why because God immediately sent a Angle to strengthen Him and get Him through the pressure on the body. Can you imagine the blood pressure of Christ that night, knowing Judas would betray Him, knowing the agony of the cross the sweat drops of Blood. Luke 22:42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
The Father sent an Angel to His aide immediately upon His request for the cup to pass from Him. That was the cup of premature death in the Garden not the cup of the Death on the cross.

Then if you couple it with this verse Hebrews 5: 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Says God heard His prayer then we see He was not praying that the cup of the cross pass from Him but the cup of a pre-mature death in the garden because of the extreme pressure on His body with Him being Agony.
How many of us could have endured that night of knowing one of our close friends would betray us, we would be beaten, whipped have our beard plucked out and then placed naked on the cross, having all that knowledge the sorrow and agony He suffered that night would have killed us but God the Father Heard His prayer and sent the Angle to strengthen Him because his disciples were sleeping.

 

[preacher4truth]

So then, while calling upon others to use, or to admit to using 'the Sword only' which again sounds pious, you yourself don't use 'the Sword only.' Is that correct?

So could you answer the above?

 

[revmwc]

So then, while calling upon others to use, or to admit to using 'the Sword only' which again sounds pious, you yourself don't use 'the Sword only.' Is that correct?

Again I stated from the start I used concordances and other means but to determine what is correct we are told to listen to the Spirit and follow the word.
My point being that many want to Pull the Sword of Spurgeon out to prove their point in lieu of the Bible, They want to Pull Calvin out in lieu of the scripture, They want to pull Arminius out in lieu of the scripture and argue scripture from those men rather than depend on God's word. I may not have conveyed my point the best way I could but I see you got it. Never meant to sound pious was only trying to make a point. I thought your comment was done in jest whe you said it sounded pious sorry to have offended you with what I wrote.
Forgive please.

I will say this in here when discussing on these boards I very seldom have anything at my disposal except the word of God and a interlinear and concordance. To study in message preparation I use other means. Here I do not in most cases. Sometimes to help find scripture refernces I'll go back to notes I have taken in the past.

 

[MB]

So then, while calling upon others to use, or to admit to using 'the Sword only' which again sounds pious, you yourself don't use 'the Sword only.' Is that correct?

I never said I use the sword only this is only you trying to make it seem we are talking about the bible alone. I learn from God's word as the text and God's Holy Spirit as my teacher. What the Spirit teaches me is from the word. Most of what I know of the word you are in contradiction to. Which is why you call those like me "pious". I believe it's Jealousy on your part.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

Again I stated from the start I used concordances and other means but to determine what is correct we are told to listen to the Spirit and follow the word.
My point being that many want to Pull the Sword of Spurgeon out to prove their point in lieu of the Bible, They want to Pull Calvin out in lieu of the scripture, They want to pull Arminius out in lieu of the scripture and argue scripture from those men rather than depend on God's word. I may not have conveyed my point the best way I could but I see you got it. Never meant to sound pious was only trying to make a point. I thought your comment was done in jest whe you said it sounded pious sorry to have offended you with what I wrote.
Forgive please.

I will say this in here when discussing on these boards I very seldom have naything at my disposal except the word of God and a interlinear and concordance. To study in message preparation I use other means. Here I do not.

No offense taken rev, so there is nothing to apologize for.

I think it is a bit accusatory or opinionated to say that since others quote another scholar, theologian &c that it is that they are dependent upon them. That's a stretch and a strawman. It had more weight to it when you left off what all you really use in study, which is just not the case concerning how you actually study for messages.

Leaving off usage of other authors whom you reserve for message preparation may present you in a different light here, but that is different than the reality of what you truly practice. Others are simply doing in public forum that which you reserve for pulpit time, that is, quoting others.

I read your OP, and in it you allude to concordances, and that is fine if you use such. However, when you get to the end of the OP, it is solely Scripture that is mentioned, which is a little misleading. Also, there was no mention of commentary usage there, something that you for some reason left out in describing your methods of study and interpretation in the OP. As things have transpired you've admitted to using more sources for interpretation, which I think is good.

I think all of us here depend solely upon Scriptures, as far as the Baptist side of the Board. Some like to quote those you've mentioned, and others who help clarify things, or say things in such a manner that the truths of Scripture are made more plain. These are also used when whatever the quoted says something we agree with, and sometimes to show what we believe to be error.

Question; Why do you not use other means on the BB, and reserve usage of commentaries &c for use only in message preparation?

 

[mandym]

What if "word of God" is not a reference to the Scriptures there but the gospel message. Read the context of chpt. 4 and the repeated use of "word" or logos" in Hebrews. It makes sense. Just a thought.

And how is it you believe the use of that word narrows it down in that manner?

 

[revmwc]

No offense taken rev, so there is nothing to apologize for.

I think it is a bit accusatory or opinionated to say that since others quote another scholar, theologian &c that it is that they are dependent upon them. That's a stretch and a strawman. It had more weight to it when you left off what all you really use in study, which is just not the case concerning how you actually study for messages.

Leaving off usage of other authors whom you reserve for message preparation may present you in a different light here, but that is different than the reality of what you truly practice. Others are simply doing in public forum that which you reserve for pulpit time, that is, quoting others.

I read your OP, and in it you allude to concordances, and that is fine if you use such. However, when you get to the end of the OP, it is solely Scripture that is mentioned, which is a little misleading. Also, there was no mention of commentary usage there, something that you for some reason left out in describing your methods of study and interpretation in the OP. As things have transpired you've admitted to using more sources for interpretation, which I think is good.

I think all of us here depend solely upon Scriptures, as far as the Baptist side of the Board. Some like to quote those you've mentioned, and others who help clarify things, or say things in such a manner that the truths of Scripture are made more plain. These are also used when whatever the quoted says something we agree with, and sometimes to show what we believe to be error.

Question; Why do you not use other means on the BB, and reserve usage of commentaries &c for use only in message preparation?

Most of the time I am no where near my library and most of my commentraies my library is boxed up I have no where to put them right now. In fact I have to dig several out if God gives me a message that I don't have the commentary for.