Jump to content

Photo

The Bible Only?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#21 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:59 PM

I Corinthians 3:10- According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

 

You can make all the claims you want that you have nor ever will learn from the writings of other men but in reality we all have. Even if it hasn't been directly. No man is an island.



#22 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:25 PM

I Corinthians 3:10- According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

You can make all the claims you want that you have nor ever will learn from the writings of other men but in reality we all have. Even if it hasn't been directly. No man is an island.

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.

Edited by DaveW, 07 April 2014 - 08:26 PM.


#23 wretched

wretched

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
238
Excellent
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:29 PM

In my studies of Eph 6 and the armour of God, one source that piqued my curiosity was in fact a childhood comic book series.
They had descriptions of Roman soldiers and their armour - done of course in a humourous way.
Many years later, after I was saved, when I read in the Bible about the armour of God it occurred to me that it must have been Roman armour. I had always assumed the comic was just made up silliness, but in fact the comic book was very accurate in this respect - but with a funny twist.

When I investigated, I discovered some amazing things about the passage.
None of it changes the passage, but it strengthens the passage unbelievably.
Years later when I preached the book of Ephesians we had an ethnic Roman attending. Because of his heritage, he had made a study of Roman history. He came to me afterwards and confirmed that what I had said about the armour was historically correct.

It is a wonderful study to do.

 

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Asterix and Obliex? I read those comix as a child in Europe. My mother was from Luxembourg



#24 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:41 PM

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Asterix and Obliex? I read those comix as a child in Europe. My mother was from Luxembourg


Ummmmmmm.......


Yes.... (embarrased smiley here).

One time reading Ephesians and the opening pages of them came to mind - you know, where they described the shield formations - tortoise, phalanx, a few others - and then "hare", where they were all running away in disarray? :lol: :lol:

Turns out that some of those formations were true. This led me to investigate further and the details of the Roman battle shield have amazing implications when applied to the shield of faith.
That led me to investigate the Roman forms of the other articles.

Amazing study.......

#25 wretched

wretched

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
238
Excellent
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 April 2014 - 09:07 PM

Aint that something. Good, clean comix. Nothing like them in the states.



#26 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 07 April 2014 - 09:16 PM

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.

How is it a misuse of scripture? Part of building on that foundation comes from pastors/teachers and both pastors and teachers many times write commentaries and books.

 

And where did I say to follow a man? (Although the bible says God has appointed spiritual RULERS in our lives that we are to SUBMIT to).

 

Why are you being so contentious as usually?


Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 07 April 2014 - 09:26 PM.


#27 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
1,917
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 07 April 2014 - 09:40 PM

I will consider my pride as you accused me before changing the post.

Would you care to consider the context of my comments.

#28 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 07 April 2014 - 09:53 PM

I will consider my pride as you accused me before changing the post.

Would you care to consider the context of my comments.

Yes, I changed my post before you responded. It's good to do that when you typed things you may regret typing. But the one I have up I'll stick with.

 

No how is that a misuse of scripture?



#29 Bro K

Bro K

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
221
Excellent
  • LocationGate City VA

Posted 08 April 2014 - 09:02 AM

I would suggest a "study Bible" rather than a commentary. I started with the Bible Society "Jubilee Bible" which had lots of maps, dates & diagrams simply to clarify the text. I moved on to a Bible with cross references, so one could build up an understanding from parallel passages & OT sources of NT quotations, etc.

 

Commentaries do have their uses, but I only use them now to explain details of the text, rather than interpret it. e.g. Scofield is particularly bad because it imposes one interpretation system on the text.

I've come across more than one individual who has their own 'interpretation system'.



#30 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:42 AM

I would suggest a "study Bible" rather than a commentary. I started with the Bible Society "Jubilee Bible" which had lots of maps, dates & diagrams simply to clarify the text. I moved on to a Bible with cross references, so one could build up an understanding from parallel passages & OT sources of NT quotations, etc.

 

Commentaries do have their uses, but I only use them now to explain details of the text, rather than interpret it. e.g. Scofield is particularly bad because it imposes one interpretation system on the text.

 

ASOD:

You should have said, "Scofield is bad because he still believes God's promises still belong to the nation of Israel".

Sorry - I stand corrected :) But I doubt if he still believes that, for whether in heaven or hell (& I hope heaven) he knows the truth. 

 

But no - it is his doctrinaire imposed interpretation - whether it's right or wrong. Note this distortion of Scripture:

 

Gen. 12

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8 . Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Genesis 12:1 to Exodus 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" ; Galatians 3:19-29 ; 4:1-7 . Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.

So how do we read the account of Joseph, & God's providential care of his people leading them to Egypt?



#31 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,518 posts
1,983
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:45 AM

Sorry - I stand corrected :) But I doubt if he still believes that, for whether in heaven or hell (& I hope heaven) he knows the truth. 

 

But no - it is his doctrinaire imposed interpretation - whether it's right or wrong. Note this distortion of Scripture:

So how do we read the account of Joseph, & God's providential care of his people leading them to Egypt?

I agree-that's pretty crazy. Its clear that God led them into Egypt, that it was HIs will, to protect them and allow them to safely grow into a nation-the Lord even told Abram that they would be there 400 years in Egypt.  Now, the law WAS added because of transgression-I believe it was given to them because of their stubborn refusal to follow the Lord, and the law IS against grace, but once it was given they hardly "rashly' accepted it-it was God's command that they abide by it, which of course, they didn't very well. But it was still clearly given FOR Israel, no one else.



#32 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:29 PM

I don't see what the problem with the note is. They did eventually lose their blessings in Egypt (unless 400 years of rigorous slavery is considered a blessing) but the covenant remained as evident by the fact that they were removed back into the land of Canaan. Just because God moved them temporarily to Egypt (like he did his own Son) doesn't mean they were to remain there forever like apparently they took it. The Jews are to reside in Canaan to receive the blessings. 

 

Anyways, technically, Israel did not become a nation until they received the law. 

 

So there is nothing wrong with the Scofield note. Quite accurate actually.

 

Covenantor, I don't know why this should upset you anyways. You believe Israel is no longer under the providential care of God or any of the covenants and blessings. You believe they all have been revoke from them (the cursings still belong to them though). In fact, you would side with the PLO when it came to whom should reside in Palestine. This is a sad, long tradition withing Europe because of Replacement Theology.



#33 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:05 PM

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.

ensamples of others is what we are to follow, not words and comments, but their chaste and virtuous lifestyle.

 

 Php 3:17 ¶ Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.  we are to follow the example of life of others whom we can mark as having righteous and holy lives. as we see in the context Php 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

1Cor 4:14 ¶ I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

 

1Cor 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.  But the context of Paul's asking us to be followers of him is found in chapter 10.

 

The Now in 1Cor 11:2 changes the subject.
 


Edited by AVBibleBeliever, 09 April 2014 - 03:07 PM.


#34 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:42 PM

Thank you Mike - we have to read commentaries with a Berean attitude.

I don't see what the problem with the note is. They did eventually lose their blessings in Egypt (unless 400 years of rigorous slavery is considered a blessing) but the covenant remained as evident by the fact that they were removed back into the land of Canaan. Just because God moved them temporarily to Egypt (like he did his own Son) doesn't mean they were to remain there forever like apparently they took it. The Jews are to reside in Canaan to receive the blessings. 

Not 400 years of slavery - Joseph was ruler of Egypt for 70 years - we don't know when the oppression began. The people prospered there long enough to grow into a perceived threat to Egypt - the land was filled with them ... the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.

 

Anyways, technically, Israel did not become a nation until they received the law. 

Not so - And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation. (Gen. 46).

 

So there is nothing wrong with the Scofield note. Quite accurate actually.

I recommend reading without any notes, then you will have a basic knowledge of Scripture before imposing an interpretation on it.

 

Covenantor, I don't know why this should upset you anyways. You believe Israel is no longer under the providential care of God or any of the covenants and blessings. You believe they all have been revoke from them (the cursings still belong to them though). In fact, you would side with the PLO when it came to whom should reside in Palestine. This is a sad, long tradition withing Europe because of Replacement Theology.

You obviously have never read what I have written - even a moderator defended me on this point when I was attacked. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ & superceded by the new covenant in Jesus blood. Covenant blessings are freely available to the Jews, many thousands of whom welcomed them on the day of Pentecost, &the years following. A symbolic 144,000 were delivered before the city was destroyed. The curses fell only on the generation that rejected its Messiah - see 1 Thes. 2 the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Antisemitism & persecution cannot be justified by any valid reading of Scripture. All nations are welcomed by the Gospel & become one great family of the redeemed.

 

Was Moses antisemitic when he warned:  

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

A warning repeated by Peter in Acts 3.

 

Do I side with the PLO? No - they worked all sorts of terrorism in the last century & that seriously harmed their just grievance that they were being forced from their homes & lands by Israeli settlers, most of whom were not victims of persecution but were encouraged to settle there. But I cannot find anything in the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles that even suggests that Jews should become a Jewish nation in the promised land. The blessings in Jesus are infinitely greater than the earthly blessings promised to the Patriarchs.

 

I do side with the Palestinian people, most of whom want to live in peace with Jews & Christians & not be forced from the land they have occupied for generations.    

 

 

 



#35 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,019 posts
474
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 10 April 2014 - 12:42 AM

I remind you of what Scofield actually wrote - a direct contradiction of Scripture:

 

Gen. 12

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8 . Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Genesis 12:1 to Exodus 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" ; Galatians 3:19-29 ; 4:1-7 . Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.

God loving care for Israel - as promised to Abraham - did not end with their "rash acceptance of the Law" because the Law was not given as a condition receipt of the unconditional promises, but was for the orderly condition of the nation in the promised land. Both Joshua & Solomon understood that the promises were indeed realised to the people. Solomon certainly know there was more, as Stephen declared - & suffered for the truth.

 

The promises were perfectly fulfilled in Christ, when all who responded to the Gospel of Jesus were truly & eternally saved. Many tens, hundreds of  thousands in Apostolic times & who knows how many down the ages, who with all families of the earth be blessed. (Gen. 12, 22, Gal. 3, etc)

 

That Law that Israel "rashly accepted" is a restatement of the promises - wonderful promises - that Peter applies to the church. Never forget that the church comprises both Jew & Gentile as one people of God in Christ, inheriting all the promises to Abraham & the Patriarchs.

 

1 Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.



#36 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:03 AM

Covenanter wrote:

"You obviously have never read what I have written - even a moderator defended me on this point when I was attacked. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ & superceded by the new covenant in Jesus blood. Covenant blessings are freely available to the Jews, many thousands of whom welcomed them on the day of Pentecost, &the years following. A symbolic 144,000 were delivered before the city was destroyed. The curses fell only on the generation that rejected its Messiah - see 1 Thes. 2 the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Antisemitism & persecution cannot be justified by any valid reading of Scripture. All nations are welcomed by the Gospel & become one great family of the redeemed."

"Symbolic?"  Since when is the Bible, symbolic?  When we read and study the Bible, it is literal.  The Bible is to be taken literally.  This sounds like RCC theology.  The 144,000 Jews are in the Book of Revelation.  These virgin Jewish evangelists, come from the 12 tribes of Israel, and will preach the gospel to the lost in the Great Tribulation.

Why is this heresy allowed on an IFB site?  This is preterist theology and comes from the RCC.  It has reared it's ugly head in Protestant churches, and should not be allowed on Online Baptist.  Why is this not addressed by a moderator? 



#37 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:26 AM

One could ask the same question with regards to someone holding most end times views. It's only been within the past hundred to hundred-fifty years or so that the pre-mil view has gained a following, especially here in America. Prior to that some form of post-mil was the most commonly held view and it was that view most early Americans held to.

 

Baptists have and continue to hold various end times views; there is no one end times view that Baptists have always adhered to or hold to now.

 

While there can be room to argue what is or isn't symbolic, the Bible does use symbolism. When Scripture says Jesus is the door, we pretty much agree that's symbolic, that Jesus isn't a literal door.

 

Some Protestant churches hold a pre-mil view, but most here wouldn't suggest we ban discussion of the pre-mil view because some Protestants preach that.

 

The best approach to end times views is to examine them by Scripture.



#38 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:30 AM

One could ask the same question with regards to someone holding most end times views. It's only been within the past hundred to hundred-fifty years or so that the pre-mil view has gained a following, especially here in America. Prior to that some form of post-mil was the most commonly held view and it was that view most early Americans held to.

 

Baptists have and continue to hold various end times views; there is no one end times view that Baptists have always adhered to or hold to now.

 

While there can be room to argue what is or isn't symbolic, the Bible does use symbolism. When Scripture says Jesus is the door, we pretty much agree that's symbolic, that Jesus isn't a literal door.

 

Some Protestant churches hold a pre-mil view, but most here wouldn't suggest we ban discussion of the pre-mil view because some Protestants preach that.

 

The best approach to end times views is to examine them by Scripture.

John, why is it that you constantly try to play "peacemaker" on Online Baptist?  My post was directed to Covenanter and the moderators on this site.  It was not directed to you?



#39 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:34 AM

What does Scripture say about peacemakers?

 

OB is a discussion forum.



#40 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:41 AM

What does Scripture say about peacemakers?

 

OB is a discussion forum.

 

I know what the scripture says, John.  However, you seem to post in every thread on OB.  You are not a moderator.  You are doing the job of a mod, but I would rather have the discussion with Covenanter and a moderator.  Can you understand that?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500