Is it possible to be SCRIPTURALLY CORRECT AND NOT BE SPIRITUALLY CORRECT?

[ScottA]

I offer that as a rhetorical question, but one worthy of consideration.

Seriously--just ask the Priests and Pharisees of Jesus's time when you see them. Some may only be able to wave from across the everlasting gulf, if at all. But surely there are a few present in heaven...like Nicodemus for example perhaps. Or Paul for that matter, who experienced his rude spiritual awakening before becoming "alive and remaining" in the world. And it was Paul who said that the scriptures are to be "spiritually discerned."

Being "alive and remaining" became a topic which Paul expounded upon, regarding the return of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Which is a status not necessarily true of all who believe in God and Christ. Certainly, it was not true of many in Israel, even though Jesus had declared God and His words to be spirit, and said "follow Me." And before He was finished, He rebuked the scriptural lawyers, for not entering in to the spiritual, but "hindering" those who were.

As we get closer to our own moment of truth with God, and to the end, is it not clear that as God himself is spirit, so is His word? Just imagine all the errors that are possible if the words were only literary!

I am going to be out of the country for the next couple of weeks, but feel free to chime in. May the Lord richly bless you in Word and in Spirit!

 

[ElieG12]

My shortest possible answer is this:

to be "spiritually correct" you must first be "scripturally correct"

... unless you mean something different with those two phrases than what I perceive.

 

[Wrangler]

Is it possible to be SCRIPTURALLY CORRECT AND NOT BE SPIRITUALLY CORRECT?​

No. The question reduced to is A is not A. Of course, this is for one frame of reference.

Just imagine all the errors that are possible if the words were only literary!

Exactly! Discerning what is figurative and what is literal in Scripture takes discernment. For instance, can Jesus alone Literally rebuild (Solomon’s) temple in 3 days when it took 45 years for teams to build? No. But he was not talking in literal terms.

 

[ScottA]

My shortest possible answer is this:

to be "spiritually correct" you must first be "scripturally correct"

... unless you mean something different with those two phrases than what I perceive.

I should think that is not the order of Jesus' own walk...thus not one to "follow", but to avoid.

 

[ScottA]

No. The question reduced to is A is not A. Of course, this is for one frame of reference.

I might need a math lesson to follow you on that one.

 

[ElieG12]

A person who does not know, for example, the personality of God, would not understand why although some people were healed of their illness like the Syrian Naaman, the apostle Paul was not healed of what he asked God to take away... or why David, who had committed adultery, was forgiven, when the law condemned this behavior with death.

A student of the Bible must progress in knowledge while placing it in his mind to coordinate it with previous knowledge, turning everything into a "perfect" spiritual system of worship. That is precisely the arrangement that God wants to have in each one of his servants throughout the world. He does not want to turn them into robots, all the same, marching like Chinese soldiers in a military ceremony. What he wants is for everyone to adjust to his way of seeing things, in continuous growth, from the simple to the complex.

This knowledge will make people be guided by a conscience molded according to the thought of God and thus they will act in accordance with those principles. So the fruits necessarily come from correct knowledge of things.

 

[ElieG12]

I should think that is not the order of Jesus' own walk...thus not one to "follow", but to avoid.

Any proof of that?

Jesus said:

John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

knowledge --:> everlasting life

I always thought people act according to what they think. Do you think differently?

 

[ScottA]

Any proof of that?

Jesus said:

John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

knowledge --:> everlasting life

I always thought people act according to what they think. Do you think differently?

It is written, Jesus was "Us" in spirit before the Word, came in the flesh, then returned. From flesh and blood He returned to be One with the Father again, whom "is spirit", and said, "follow Me."

Depending on what point you come in on Jesus' example, I suppose you could answer it either way. Nonetheless, we are first drawn by the Father (John 6:44).

 

[ElieG12]

Is it possible to be SCRIPTURALLY CORRECT AND NOT BE SPIRITUALLY CORRECT?

NO. If an individual lacks interest in any form of "spirituality," that won't happen.

And vice versa: A person with the right mindset will naturally gravitate towards a spiritual path.

 

[ScottA]

NO. If an individual lacks interest in any form of "spirituality," that won't happen.

And vice versa: A person with the right mindset will naturally gravitate towards a spiritual path.

Yes, and yet there is still the issue and example made by the Priests, Pharisees, and lawyers of the Law/Word, who failed seemingly knowing the scriptures.

 

[ElieG12]

I think one cannot really know what is good if one do not practice it.

A person can only offer what he has, talk about what he knows, and do what he think is better to himself.

A psychology professor I know used to say that if the patient continued to engage in self-harming acts, it was because he found some personal gain in them. You had to show him that he was actually losing in order to get him to stop these self-destructive acts.

 

[Lambano]

Is it possible to be SCRIPTURALLY CORRECT AND NOT BE SPIRITUALLY CORRECT?​

In the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), those who wanted to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery were scripturally correct - but spiritually wrong.

Think about it.

Where else did Jesus show the Pharisees where they were scripturally correct but spiritually wrong?

Where could we be playing it by the Book but still be spiritually mistaken?

 

[ScottA]

I think one cannot really know what is good if one do not practice it.

A person can only offer what he has, talk about what he knows, and do what he think is better to himself.

A psychology professor I know used to say that if the patient continued to engage in self-harming acts, it was because he found some personal gain in them. You had to show him that he was actually losing in order to get him to stop these self-destructive acts.

Yes, that is what the precedent set by Israel's failure was for--as something we should learn of not to make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, we have already made those same mistakes now for 2,000 years: They rejected Jesus in the flesh, and the church has rejected Him in spirit, by expecting Him to return in the flesh.

 

[ScottA]

Where could we be playing it by the Book but still be spiritually mistaken?

I just answered that question replying to someone else:

The precedent set by Israel's failure was something we should have learned from, not to make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, we have already made much the same mistake now for 2,000 years: They rejected Jesus in the flesh, and the church has rejected Him in spirit, by expecting Him to return in the flesh. He came speaking of spiritual realities, of God and heaven, and things unseen to this world--then disappeared into the clouds of that reality we as a church have not yet come to grips with. We're still expecting things to go the way of this world and of flesh and blood. Making our failure even greater than theirs.

 

[ElieG12]

Yes, and yet there is still the issue and example made by the Priests, Pharisees, and lawyers of the Law/Word, who failed seemingly knowing the scriptures.

Perhaps these words of Jesus can help you better understand this particular case:

John 5:39 “You are searching the Scriptures because you think that you will have everlasting life by means of them; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. 40 And yet you do not want to come to me so that you may have life. 41 I do not accept glory from men, 42 but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you."

Talking about the resurrection, he told the Sadducees:

Matt. 22:29 ...“You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God"

... and he demonstrated next that while some individuals may read the Bible, they often fail to grasp its teachings due to a lack of sound reasoning.

 

[Bob Estey]

I offer that as a rhetorical question, but one worth of consideration.

Seriously--just ask the Priests and Pharisees of Jesus's time when you see them. Some may only be able to wave from across the everlasting gulf, if at all. But surely there are a few present in heaven...like Nicodemus for example perhaps. Or Paul for that matter, who experienced his rude spiritual awakening before becoming "alive and remaining" in the world. And it was Paul who said that the scripture are to be "spiritually discerned."

Being "alive and remaining" became a topic which Paul expounded upon, regarding the return of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Which is a status not necessarily true of all who believe in God and Christ. Certainly, it was not true of many in Israel, even though Jesus had declared God and His words to be spirit, and said "follow Me." And before He was finished, He rebuked the scriptural lawyers, for not entering in to the spiritual, but "hindering" those who were.

As we get closer to our own moment of truth with God, and to the end, is it not clear that as God himself is spirit, so is His word? Just imagine all the errors that are possible if the words were only literary!

I am going to be out of the country for the next couple of weeks, but feel free to chime in. May the Lord richly bless you in Word and in Spirit!

Paul tells us that women can't speak in a church (1 Cor 14:33-36). If you refuse to let women speak in church, you would be scripturally correct, but I don't think you'd be spiritually correct.

 

[ScottA]

Paul tells us that women can't speak in a church (1 Cor 14:33-36). If you refuse to let women speak in church, you would be scripturally correct, but I don't think you'd be spiritually correct.

Yes, in Paul's local context, women were being disruptive and so he spoke to that local issue. Which God then saw fit to include in His eternal word as being applicable in a parable sense to the greater need and guidance of the Church as a whole in its role as Bride (women).

In the local setting to allow the Priests to be heard, and in the greater context of the Church to allow the Spirit to be heard, that whosoever has an ear can here what the Spirit says to the churches.

 

[Jack]

"Is it possible to be SCRIPTURALLY CORRECT AND NOT BE SPIRITUALLY CORRECT?"​

Sounds like an attack on the Christian Bible!

 

[Bob Estey]

Yes, in Paul's local context, women were being disruptive and so he spoke to that local issue. Which God then saw fit to include in His eternal word as being applicable in a parable sense to the greater need and guidance of the Church as a whole in its role as Bride (women).

In the local setting to allow the Priests to be heard, and in the greater context of the Church to allow the Spirit to be heard, that whosoever has an ear can here what the Spirit says to the churches.

Where does it say that women were disruptive?

 

[ScottA]

Where does it say that women were disruptive?

1 Corinthians 14. The whole chapter should be read, but vs 34 is the verse that says to be silent. Which, for women to speak in the congregation was basically against the Law.