Why I do what I do the way I do it

[Luke2427]

Question Luke, which of these things is more important than the rest?

"context, authorial intent, literary genre of the book he is exegeting, the original language of the text he is exegeting and he ought to value the tremendous importance of historical theology.?

Are you saying one must know Greek/Hebrew to be able to speak about the Bible properly? Just wanting to clarify.

No, I am not saying that.

But I do think that one who does not know Greek and Hebrew (I do not) should have the humility to utilize the many and various works of those who do.

As to which is most important- I cannot help but see these things as an essential whole.

If one tries to develop doctrine out of the Proverbs with no understanding of its literary genre then that person could be dangerous.

If one interprets Acts 2:38 with no concern for the historical orthodox Christian perspective on that verse and no concern with any systematic theology- that person can be VERY dangerous.

So I cannot say. But I think I know you well enough to safely assume that you are at least to some degree in agreement with that statement you quote.

 

[mandym]

I want to both explain my methods and call you to consider employing them to some degree yourselves due to the fact that I believe so much is at stake.

I am not an intellectual elitist. I do not think you have to have an M.Div. to speak, even authoritatively, on these issues.

I do not have an M.Div. myself.

But I DO think that whether or not one has a degree, he ought to know what he is talking about, and be able to base his declarations on valid, logical argumentation, sound exegesis and solid hermeneutics.

I think he ought to understand something about context, authorial intent, literary genre of the book he is exegeting, the original language of the text he is exegeting and he ought to value the tremendous importance of historical theology.

I think if he does not understand these things, then he ought to have the humility to remain silent until he learns them. This is because, when it comes to matters that have to do with the glory of God and the eternal souls of men, proclaiming things and arguing for things that you don't understand is EXTREMELY dangerous- to oneself and the ones who he might influence.

This is not a game. This is not something to be handled lightly. This is not an innocent exercise or a source of harmless fellowship. This is not a harmless pass time. People read this forum. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong and on many of the things we discuss there hang eternal consequences.

I am intense on purpose. It is not just my personality. I believe it is RIGHT to reprove darkness and cast down ideas and philosophies and beliefs that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

Some of these topics are not as weighty as others. Whether you hold to the regulative principle or the normative principle, whether you are infra or supra in your lapsarian view point, whether you prefer the TR or the Alexandrian texts, etc... are not as heavy as whether or not you base your beliefs on right thinking and good hermeneutics, or if you believe men are born sinners or not, or if you are KJVO, or if you are a legalist, or if you ignore the whole of church history in your pursuit of your doctrines, whether or not you believe that God is truly omniscient and Sovereign, etc...

And I am aggressive in my condemnation of some things on purpose. I think it is right to be that way. I think it is sin NOT to be on many matters. I think silence, or sweetness in addressing many matters is absolutely unbiblical and the opposite of what our Lord has commanded us to be. I think we are losing our culture because many Christians have a VERY confused idea of what real humility and compassion are.

I think the horrid ignorance, arrogance and irreverence of the Church in our culture has created an environment where the damnable doctrines and philosophies of Rob Bell and Joel Osteen and Mormonism and United Pentecostalism are able to thrive. You can poison mold forever- but if you don't change the environment where it thrives you will always have the mold poisoning and killing those who live in the midst of it.

Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, United Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jim Jones, etc... could not thrive in a much deeper, much more theologically astute Christian culture. It is exactly this hyper independence and rabid clinging to simplicity and anti-intellectualism (which I sincerely beleive you find in much of IFB and SBC and non-denominationalism, etc...) that creates the conditions in which this deadly mold of heresy thrives. It thrives in a religious culture which is filled with ignorance, arrogance and irreverence.

I think coddling this ignorance and arrogance and irreverence is sin. I think speaking to it sweetly is terrible error. I think that we are doomed as a culture unless God changes the hearts and philosophies of the true Church in our culture to do what must be done- to confront these things head on, condemn them outright and to aggressively seek to purge these evils from our culture before they kill it.

That is why I do what I do the way I do it. It believe it is right and I believe it is wrong for people who are qualified to speak out on these matters to fail to do so and to fail to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness in our culture with passion and clarity.

Rude people always excuse their bad behavior.

 

[Luke2427]

I do recognize the importance, believe it or not. But your demands are not valid on a public forum. This is something you should seek in you own local church.


I do.


I use commentaries, but don't have any books on systematic theology and see no reason to spend money on them.



I have never posted anything heretical or damning to someone's soul.


As I said, who is going to decide that?

I answered that a few posts back.

 

[Luke2427]

No. I think Matt is saying that he has just as much right to post on this public forum as anyone and neither you nor Luke have the right to say he shouldn't.

No one is questioning anyone's legal right to post on this forum.

I am speaking about your moral obligation before God.

These are very different things.

 

[jbh28]

No. I think Matt is saying that he has just as much right to post on this public forum as anyone and neither you nor Luke have the right to say he shouldn't.

I never said he couldn't. I was just curious about what he said. Luke said if you didn't know basic things like context, original intent of the author.... I would say one should know those things before speaking/writing about a passage. Those are the basics.

 

[Amy.G]

I answered that a few posts back.

Oh yeah. You said "I" would be the one to know how much I know. confused

Doesn't that put you right back where you started? Ignorant people thinking they know things they don't know?

In other words, for your plan to work, somebody smarter than me has to critique all my posts before they're published so as to be sure that I don't spread ignorance and heresy. :BangHead:

 

[Amy.G]

I never said he couldn't. I was just curious about what he said. Luke said if you didn't know basic things like context, original intent of the author.... I would say one should know those things before speaking/writing about a passage. Those are the basics.

Ok, so who on this board should decide if Matt knows these things and is qualified to post? Matt can't decide this for himself because he may just be acting out of ignorance. :tonofbricks:

 

[Luke2427]

Oh yeah. You said "I" would be the one to know how much I know. confused

Doesn't that put you right back where you started? Ignorant people thinking they know things they don't know?

In other words, for your plan to work, somebody smarter than me has to critique all my posts before they're published so as to be sure that I don't spread ignorance and heresy. :BangHead:

Absolutely. If you are not yourself a credible or lettered scholar, somebody smarter than you should critique all your posts on weighty theological matters before you post them.

That somebody should be numerous people. Those people should span a broad spectrum of church history. Those people should be respected scholars in their fields. Many of those people will be in heaven but their works are readily available for you to utilize. And you should absolutely consult with them before you post on weighty matters.

That this is so ought to be patently obvious to any objective thinker in light of the seriousness of those matters which have to do with the glory of God and the eternal souls of men- especially in a venue such as this where potentially THOUSANDS of people could read what you post and think you know what you are talking about and believe it.

Absolutely.

 

[jbh28]

No, I am not saying that.

But I do think that one who does not know Greek and Hebrew (I do not) should have the humility to utilize the many and various works of those who do.

As to which is most important- I cannot help but see these things as an essential whole.

If one tries to develop doctrine out of the Proverbs with no understanding of its literary genre then that person could be dangerous.

If one interprets Acts 2:38 with no concern for the historical orthodox Christian perspective on that verse and no concern with any systematic theology- that person can be VERY dangerous.

So I cannot say. But I think I know you well enough to safely assume that you are at least to some degree in agreement with that statement you quote.

I figured that would be your answer. I'm like you, I don't know Greek/Hebrew.

Just some other thoughts about studying Scriptures.
1. Knowing the context is vital to understanding the meaning of the passage. It's easy to read an isolated verse and think it means something else because of something we may be studying at the time.

2. Original intent of the author is very important as well. If a passage didn't mean "A" to Paul, then it cannot mean "A" to us.

3. Knowing the purpose of the book itself. Matthew and Mark write about similar events, but with a different purpose.

4. Know the historical context. What was going on at the time.

5. Use the English term the same way the author used the original term. If you are like me, I'm do not know Greek. I have to rely on others.

this is just a summary list that I just threw together. When we discuss the Bible, it's important to not just find a passage that sounds like it supports us. We should rather find what the Bible says.

 

[jbh28]

Ok, so who on this board should decide if Matt knows these things and is qualified to post? Matt can't decide this for himself because he may just be acting out of ignorance. :tonofbricks:

Amy, I was commenting on him taking out one of the important things and ignoring the rest. Do you think one should speak on a subject they have not prepared for? If I'm telling you a passage means something, but I don't look at the context or anything, would you even think of listening to me? Of course not. Matt took original language out by itself. That's why I asked Luke to clarify what he meant by that.

 

[Don]

Luke - I've asked this before, but don't recall your answer: do you consider yourself the eyes, the mouth, the hands, the feet, or some other part?

 

[Luke2427]

I figured that would be your answer. I'm like you, I don't know Greek/Hebrew.

Just some other thoughts about studying Scriptures.
1. Knowing the context is vital to understanding the meaning of the passage. It's easy to read an isolated verse and think it means something else because of something we may be studying at the time.

2. Original intent of the author is very important as well. If a passage didn't mean "A" to Paul, then it cannot mean "A" to us.

3. Knowing the purpose of the book itself. Matthew and Mark write about similar events, but with a different purpose.

4. Know the historical context. What was going on at the time.

5. Use the English term the same way the author used the original term. If you are like me, I'm do not know Greek. I have to rely on others.

this is just a summary list that I just threw together. When we discuss the Bible, it's important to not just find a passage that sounds like it supports us. We should rather find what the Bible says.

This is absolutely right.

I would add that we should all recognize the danger of those who do not care at all for such things and post as if they speak facts and even speak the oracles of God.

It is exactly a negligence of care for such things that has given us EVERY SINGLE DAMNABLE HERESY we battle in our day.

There is no Mormonism apart from such evil negligence.
There is no United Pentecostalism apart from a disdain for such things.
There is no Rob Bell universalism apart from such irreverent handling of the sacred Scripture.
Joel Osteen CANNOT thrive in a Christian culture that embraces such things as you cite above.

A negligence, a lack of concern for such things ought to be resisted by every one of us because it is, at the very least, one of the greatest evils we face in our culture.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke - I've asked this before, but don't recall your answer: do you consider yourself the eyes, the mouth, the hands, the feet, or some other part?

I do not know.

I do not know if any of us know the answer to that question.

Does the hand KNOW it is a hand or does it just do what it can with the ability it has been given?

I do not know.

 

[Amy.G]

Absolutely. If you are not yourself a credible or lettered scholar, somebody smarter than you should critique all your posts on weighty theological matters before you post them.

Ok. So for example, since I believe Calvinism is error, should I be allowed to post that?

 

[12strings]

FROM LUKE: If you are not yourself a credible or lettered scholar, somebody smarter than you should critique all your posts on weighty theological matters before you post them.

That somebody should be numerous people.

Luke, I think that's what this forum IS. I post something that may or may not be correct, then lots of people tell me where and how I am wrong, and where and how I am right. If I later determine that I have posted something in error, I should post a correction, or apology if I have posted something mean-spirited. Many on this forum have done just that.

The point is this is a forum for to debate issues. And you as a Calvinist should understand that God has a purpose for allowing people to post ridiculous ideas on this forum...so that the rest of us will be spurred to more study about an issue to better understand our own position.

I'm glad there's a guy over on the "other-denominations" forum who says that faith has nothing to do with salvation. It makes me articulate the truth better.

I think all of us, Cal, arm, non-cal, and "other" could be reminded of Paul's advice to a young pastor in 2 Tim. 2: 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness...

 

[Luke2427]

Ok. So for example, since I believe Calvinism is error, should I be allowed to post that?

Certainly, if you do the work I think we all know ought to be done.

 

[Don]

I do not know.

I do not know if any of us know the answer to that question.

Does the hand KNOW it is a hand or does it just do what it can with the ability it has been given?

I do not know.

It does what it can as of the ability it has been given; but does that mean it's better than the feet? Or the eyes?

 

[seekingthetruth]

Hey Luke

Will you let me know when I am smart enough to have a conversation with you?

John

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I think that's what this forum IS. I post something that may or may not be correct, then lots of people tell me where and how I am wrong, and where and how I am right. If I later determine that I have posted something in error, I should post a correction, or apology if I have posted something mean-spirited. Many on this forum have done just that.

The point is this is a forum for to debate issues. And you as a Calvinist should understand that God has a purpose for allowing people to post ridiculous ideas on this forum...so that the rest of us will be spurred to more study about an issue to better understand our own position.

I'm glad there's a guy over on the "other-denominations" forum who says that faith has nothing to do with salvation. It makes me articulate the truth better.

I think all of us, Cal, arm, non-cal, and "other" could be reminded of Paul's advice to a young pastor in 2 Tim. 2: 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness...

That's fine if you communicate clearly that you don't know what you are talking about and that you are presenting unproven hypotheses that you are asking for help in proving or disproving.

And as for the verse that you post at the end- that verse is absolutely saying that this is the general rule in our dealings.

But what this verse is NOT doing is condmening Paul's bluntness when he withstood Peter to the face.

What it is not doing is contradicting what Paul said when he said that we should condemn to very HELL those that preach another Gospel.

What it is certainly not doing is undermining Peter's handling of Simon when he said to take his money to hell with him.

What is clearly not doing is condemning Paul for saying, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?"

What is most assuredly not doing is condemning Christ for his USUAL way of handling the Pharisees.

What it is not doing is condemning all of the prophets for their fierce handling of wicked kings and false prophets, etc...

And we could go on and on and on.

 

[12strings]

Forgive me for not remembering the exact context of the following example (the facts are true, but I have forgotten both the pastor's name and the association of churches)... but I believe it favors the view that Sometimes a simple Christian who believes the bible can make positive contributions to a church and a conversation:

A guest pastor was preaching at a church whose denomination of Baptists had drifted far to the left, until many churches, including this one withdrew to form a new, conservative group. The pastor said something completely orthodox in his sermon, and an old man with a hearing problem stood up and said, "That's not in the Bible!" Those around him explained his error, after which he sat down and later apologized profusely to the preacher. The Guest preacher said, in effect, "If a few more people like you had been around a few years ago, our denomination might not have gotten so far away from God's word."