Interpretation Methods

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Willie T said: ↑
Here is the address to the thread "Apostolic Uniqueness", over on the Baptist Board.

[removed ~ please do not place links to another forum on a post or thread]

BTW, Tony, (*Iconoclast*), where did you EVER get the idea that the Holy Spirit only guided the Apostles into truth... and not us ( your post #44 in that thread.)


"Anthony D'Arienzo:> here is the basis of the O.P.

Iconoclast said: ↑

The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into All Truth, not us.

We are given the Spirit to be able to welcome truth,

but we do not have the same promise the Apostles had.


Several people took part,
lets see the love of JonC in action. Does it teach us anything?
here were his responses. are they on topic or off topic?
Do they edify or bear false witness as I have been claiming?

read these responses as if they were written to you.


JonC says;

For me, I agree with the quote you present (NOT your rebuttal).

ok...this is a debate forum , what do you have to discuss?

All spititual truth to which man may arrive is dependent on the Spirit of God.

Ok. I have clearly said this already

I take it (by virtue of this thread) that you disagree. But Scripture is replete with examples - the natural mind is simply not set on spiritual things.

Not at all. Here JONC starts to bear false witness.
watch the progression. This is what he does all the time.
The natural man is not the topic of the O.P.
He has stated I do not believe this, but I already posted that I do believe this.
Now watch as each post begins to add more false accusations as if they were fact.

My knee jerk answer to those who reject the necessity of the Spirit

Who has "rejected the necessity of the Holy Spirit???? What kind of garbage is this? It gets worse and worse.

is to assume they are among those in the last days who do not truly know Christ.

Now JonC indicates that I do not know Christ????
Several people have gotten annoyed and said, why not just drop this? Are we on a playground?
I think working through this, the magnitude of this posters deluded sinful actions and agenda, which he reverses and claims it is me.
let's see if JonC can top this whopper!

The Pharisees held a human wisdom that was based on Scripture, but they did not discern spiritual things.

Completely off topic

My reasoned response is to suggest that they rely not on human understanding but start relying on God.

Nothing to do with the O.P.

Pharisees possessed a human wisdom based on Scripture. Christians are indwelt by the Spirit. We can understand NOTHING spiritual except it be revealed to us by God.

The OP is about the apostles

I do not want to offend, but I am concerned about anyone....including the author of the OP[/QUOTE].

Here is the Calvinist loving JonC coming to edify someone it looks like he intends to do something for Iconoclast. Let's see what he has in mind

..should he or she place their faith in human understanding absent the Spirit of God.

What??? The OP. is not speaking of human understanding absent the Spirit of God???

JonC is coming from left field here. Is he trying to help, or is he appearing to help but in reality taking cheap slanderous remarks to attack Iconoclast?

Far too often spiritual maturity is gauged by human wisdom (the Gnostic idea that God opens the mind to accept knowledge rather than a total dependence on God for conformity).

This is miles from the O.P. are you kidding JonC, first Pharisees, now gnostics???

Our life in Christ is NOT an independence from God - as if God opened our minds to truth and let us go - but a DEPENDENCE upon Him.

Far too often churches and Christians discount the Spirit. What they fail to realize is the Spirit IS God.

None of this is on topic
none of this was even hinted at by Icon,,,

Actually (to su it up... perhaps in opposition to the OP) -

Clearly a misguided attack on the OP>

No Spirit, no truth.

A Spiritless Christian is no Christian at all. They are just theologically educated fools.

So we go from the O>P to lets attack Iconoclast:









Yes, and that is exactly what I posted, nevertheless, that is not the issue of the OP>

I take it (by virtue of this thread) that you disagree.

Then once again you take it wrong and now get ready to battle a strawman
Here is what I posted in post 5:
Certainly when we are quickened and indwelt by the Spirit we are able to welcome the scriptures as God's truth 1 cor .chapter 2.
Any truth that comes our way is by the Spirit opening us to understand the word of God

JonC...did you not see this post?
If you did see it why do you post what you do?

But Scripture is replete with examples - the natural mind is simply not set on spiritual things

That is why I posted 1 cor 2...did you miss this again?

My knee jerk answer to those who reject the necessity of the Spirit is to assume they are among those in the last days who do not truly know Christ. The Pharisees held a human wisdom that was based on Scripture, but they did not discern spiritual things.[/QUOTE]
This thread is not about anyone who rejects the necessity of the Spirit. Who are you posting about.?
This off-topic post makes no sense

My reasoned response is to suggest that they rely not on human understanding but start relying on God
.

Who are you talking about? Does anyone understand The post of JonC?



Pharisees possessed a human wisdom based on Scripture. Christians are indwelt by the Spirit. We can understand NOTHING spiritual except it be revealed to us by God.


I clearly said that in post 5
I do not want to offend, but I am concerned about anyone....including the author of the OP....should he or she place their faith in human understanding absent the Spirit of God.
Can you support your statement as I am sure no one has a clue what this strawman is.
The author of the OP. understands what Martin was getting at. I have said and shown that is not the case and you persist because maybe you see you have missed the truth once again.

Hey, @Iconoclast , hold up on the "attacks".

I was answering the OP.

 

[Willie T]

If you could understand that the word all ,as.in all truth defines the issue.
You cannot grasp the concept evidently.
That explains why you hold the errors you do.
You are the kind of naive person JonC needs to believe his lies.
This phone adds letters when my fingers drag across the screen sometimes genius. You have a bias to begin with so I will leave you to your error.
JonC will continue to like your error so no need to worry.

I just chalk it up to the same way you probably also read the Bible..... "What's a few letters, more or less?"

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

the love continues;

I am not offering you anecdotal experience. I am answering the OP. We can only know that which is spiritual through the Spirit.

I understand you disagree.

That was not the topic of the OP. it is a lie and false witness. I never said otherwise. Jon C

I am not trying to change your mind. I am not even arguing against the error.[/QUOTE]

What error? I never said anything like you post here
You are trying to undermine me.
You are trying to imply I denied the necessity of the Spirt.
I did not use any language close to what you are saying.
Can anyone begin to the see the evil of JonC???

I am simply saying that Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit.

That has nothing to do with the OP.

He is our Helper. He indwells us (not just the Apostles).[/QUOTE+
no one said otherwise

And He is active - not some sort of door to theology but God Himself.

no one said otherwise

That you argue against this truth speaks volumes.

No...that you lie and commit 9th commandment violations speaks volumes, much more than your pious insincere rhetoric

To attribute your acceptance of ANY spiritual truth to any means except God is wrong.

show where anyone even came close go this....what a dishonest clown

on this very thread he has the nerve to say this;

My best advice, however, is to simply not respond to threads unless it is to address the OP. I think that eliminates many issues and helps not to contribute to the "problem".

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Angelina]

Well I'm not a calvinist supporter either, I lean toward Arminianism. So what ya gonna do... argue with me?? This is a discussion forum. If you can't get along together, please use the ignore feature. People have a right to their own opinions and you don't have to agree with everything they believe but you do have to respect the forum rules and I will ensure that it is respected on this thread....and Yes, I'm back xox ;):)

 

[John Caldwell]

Paul said to Timothy:-
'But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose,
.. faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions,
.... which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra;
...... what persecutions I endured:
........ but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
.......... Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
............ But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of,
.. knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
.... And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
...... which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
........ through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
.. for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
.... That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2 Timothy 3:1-170)

Hello there,

The Bible is the most abused book in the world. In the hands of both scholars and laymen it has suffered the indignity of being used to support all manner of dogmas, beliefs and fancies.

Correct interpretation and Divine understanding is the need of all of us, isn't it? Is there some way of interpreting the Word of God so that human opinion is ruled out and Divine understanding given?’ I believe there is, I believe that God means what He says and has a meaning for everything He says in His Word. If this is not so, then all search is useless and we can never be sure of what He wishes to convey to us.

So, I believe that the Word of God should be taken literally: but that does not mean that figures of speech, symbols, allegory and type are to be ignored or taken literally. These are a study in themselves and need to be considered separately. However behind all figures of speech is 'literality', otherwise they could convey no certain meaning to us at all. The literal meaning of a word is the basic, customary meaning of that word, and therefore to interpret literally is nothing more or less than interpreting words in their normal customary and proper manner, and only in this way can divergences of opinion be eliminated, and the authority of Scripture honoured.

Praise God!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

I completely agree.

I think it is sometimes difficult to know the exact meanings (given the antiquity of the culture and language). But we have to at least try to be objective and seek out what the authors (Author) was communicating to the audience and how it woukd have been received.

I think some people view Scripture as a type of code hidden from the original audience only to be decoded post-Reformation.

The problem with liberal methods (giving words "biblical means" rather than using "literal" meanings) is that it makes Scripture subjective and to bow down to man's theories.

It is difficult (probably impossible) but we have to at least try not to read our presuppositions, philosophies, and theories into Scripture.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Here is a list that shows the love from JonC to his brethren in this thread.

JonC,
[QUOTE]Hey, Iconoclast , hold up on the "attacks".[/QUOTE]

There are attacks going on in this thread?:Cautious Lets see if we can identify the source of these attacks:Redface

Lets see what has come from the keyboard of JonC

1]There was no error on my part. Just so you don't try to wiggle out of your mistake instead of owning up to it -

2]Actually, @Iconoclast , I do understand if you cannot admit you took the first sentence of the quote of the OP and ran with it - taking it out of context. It is difficult sometimes for men to admit their mistake even when it is plainly before them. I do not necessarily understand why, but I understand some are built that way. I suppose it is pride.

3]But don't worry about it. It probably does not need saying that I've twisted nothing (my statement stands). I will not require you to once again consider my words as a whole. It is an issue of character and I do not believe forced values are true values. So stick with your claim, if that is who you are.

4]No matter what @Iconoclast would say there is NO scripture affording men spiritual truth absent the work of the Spirit. Scripture even states this of the lost.

5]I think @Iconoclast may, as you indicate, hold the teachings of some Reformers as on the same level with how Catholics view the pope. But this elevates man.

6]Yes. It is arrogant (perhaps the "original sin") to think that once saved we are no longer dependent on the Spirit of God. If the Apostles were dependent on the Holy Spirit then why on earth would we think we can come to truth independent of God? We are no more saved than were they.

This is an illustration of my caution to @Iconoclast regarding just how far he has drifted.

7]It is easy to dismiss @Iconoclast 's OP, but it needs to be taken seriously because it is a real issue in churches today.

I do not understand why we negate the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. But I have observed that the OP is not alobe in its view of the Holy Spirit.

8]The intellectual movement of which @Iconoclast seems a member denies the present power of God in the life of the believer in favor of a formula or doctrine encompassing all needs of the believer. Scripture, however, presents the beluever not as empowered on his or her own accord bur completely dependent on God.

9]This is the problem when Christians confuse "meat" with "milk". The meat of the word is spiritual and points to a dependence on God.

10]Another issue is "walking in the spirit". How can we say we are walking in the spirit rather than the flesh EXCEPT we are walking in submition to the Spirit of God?

The more I think of it the more I come to see our brother @Iconoclast may have substituted human wisdom for the perfect Word of God.

We cannot claim to be Christian and at the same time abandon the guidance of the Holy Spirit

11]I am talking about the quote. It was mine. I did not quote John 16:13.

I am not offering you anecdotal experience. I am answering the OP. We can only know that which is spiritual through the Spirit.

I understand you disagree. I am not trying to change your mind. I am not even arguing against the error.

I am simply saying that Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit. He is our Helper. He indwells us (not just the Apostles). And He is active - not some sort of door to theology but God Himself.

That you argue against this truth speaks volumes. To attribute your acceptance of ANY spiritual truth to any means except God is wrong.


Now all of these came from the keyboard of our friend JonC.
Do they look like edifying, kind , and neccesary comments?
Or do they stray from the OP. into attacks against the poster...Iconoclast???

JONC has suggested that Iconoclast has:

made a mistake he is trying to wiggle out of,
took a verse out of context and ran with it
cannot admit the alleged mistake because of pride
has character issues
thinks the Spirit does not help believers
is like RC people viewing the pope
elevates man
is arrogant and has drifted from truth
the op negates the work of the Holy Spirit
is part of an intellectual movement that denies the power of the Spirit of God
has substituted the human wisdom for the power of God,
has confused milk of the word with the meat
:Roflmao you have got to admire the ability of certain posters to imagine all kinds of things until we actually see what has taken place. Lets set the record straight:Cautious:Cautious

Can the readers begin to see the source of this slanderous , misguided attack?
Lets investigate these claims in an effort to get the discussion back on track.

 

[John Caldwell]

...:Roflmao you have got to...

IMHO there are some acronyms that do not belong on a Christian forum. More and more often it seems Christians have embraced the provocative and corse (this one is mild compared to some I have seen).

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Angelina,

Well I'm not a calvinist supporter either, I lean toward Arminianism. So what ya gonna do... argue with me??

No, I would attempt to help you examine the teaching if you wanted,
The issue with JonC is not primarily doctrinal but a matter of Christian ethics and integrity. He has portrayed himself as virtuos but makes slanderous personal attacks. I have forgiven him several times but he will not stop his obsessive and abusive stalking.

This is a discussion forum. If you can't get along together, please use the ignore feature. People have a right to their own opinions and you don't have to agree with everything they believe but you do have to respect the forum rules and I will ensure that it is respected on this thread....and Yes, I'm back xox ;):)

look below, I did not type this, JonC did...

[QUOTE="Anthony D'Arienzo, post: 634274, member: 80....:Roflmao you have got to admire the ability of certain posters to imagine all kinds of things until we actually see what has taken place...

IMHO there are some acronyms that do not belong on a Christian forum. More and more often it seems Christians have embraced the provocative and corse (this one is mild compared to some I have seen).[/QUOTE]
I do not use those terms, you are creating posts for me now...what a loser you are.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

IMHO there are some acronyms that do not belong on a Christian forum. More and more often it seems Christians have embraced the provocative and corse (this one is mild compared to some I have seen).

You are not concerned about the 9th commandment violations you post against me?
you need to stop, how many times do I have to tell this to you.

 

[John Caldwell]

Another interesting book is "Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old" by Robert Thomas. In this book Thomas explores what he terms "hermeneutical subjectivism" that began to emerge in the 1970's within evangelical Christianity. It is interesting how, per Thomas, the words used to define hermeneutical methodologies have changed.

One of the most interesting discussion he makes (IMHO) is how the meaning of the word "meaning" has changed. Thomas links much of this with the changing landscape David Wells (one of my favorite authors) discusses in his studies of postmodernism.

I've been in my new home for about a year and a half and am still unpacking books.

 

[farouk]

Another interesting book is "Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old" by Robert Thomas. In this book Thomas explores what he terms "hermeneutical subjectivism" that began to emerge in the 1970's within evangelical Christianity. It is interesting how, per Thomas, the words used to define hermeneutical methodologies have changed.

I've been in my new home for about a year and a half and am still unpacking books.

I know the feeling about knowing where a particular book used to be on a shelf, years ago...:)

 

[John Caldwell]

I know the feeling about knowing where a particular book used to be on a shelf, years ago...:)

I am just starting to appreciate digital books.

 

[farouk]

I am just starting to appreciate digital books.

I haven't got there yet...

 

[farouk]

IMHO there are some acronyms that do not belong on a Christian forum. More and more often it seems Christians have embraced the provocative and corse (this one is mild compared to some I have seen).

Often the desire is to make people think...

 

[John Caldwell]

I haven't got there yet...

Digital has its down side.

A couple of Sundays ago I was teaching. My lesson (and Bible) was on a tablet that was charged but woukd not open. I ended up using a Bible app on my phone and the lesson went well but I sure learned my lesson. :)

 

[John Caldwell]

Often the desire is to make people think...

I have to look the acronyms up. I know "IMHO", but that's about it. I saw the one in Anthony's post but did not know what he meant until I did a search. I suspect it was an emoj. that did not translate with his copy-paste method. But it still has no place on a Christian forum. We are responsible for what we post.

 

[marks]

Digital has its down side.

A couple of Sundays ago I was teaching. My lesson (and Bible) was on a tablet that was charged but woukd not open. I ended up using a Bible app on my phone and the lesson went well but I sure learned my lesson. :)

Paper notes, and a bound Bible, always!

:)

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Paper notes, and a bound Bible, always!

:)

Much love!

My feelings entirely... :)

 

[marks]

Can the readers begin to see the source of this slanderous , misguided attack?
Lets investigate these claims in an effort to get the discussion back on track.

Do you truly with to know my thoughts on this?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I have to look the acronyms up. I know "IMHO", but that's about it. I saw the one in Anthony's post but did not know what he meant until I did a search. I suspect it was an emoj. that did not translate with his copy-paste method. But it still has no place on a Christian forum. We are responsible for what we post.

it was an emoji, as I do not use those phrases. at least you did not type it in