Question about Scriptural Interpretation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
10,711
2,653
113
#41
Do you believe that the scriptures contradict one another? They should all harmonize. There is a deliverance (salvation) that we can obtain by our works. It is not an eternal deliverance, but a deliverance we can have here in this world by obeying God's commandments. We know that eternal deliverance is not by the works of man, but by God's grace. Most of God's children can not understand the difference in the two.
Scripture can contradict one another in YOUR mind. But scripture itself doesn't contradict itself.

That's why I gave the example that I did in the order that I did. So you could see yourself thinking one way and then when you read the same verbiage presented a different way you see that what you might have originally thought was probably wrong.


There is a salvation we can obtain by our works? Why would you call it salvation if you can do it yourself? Salvation implies a Saviour. Deliverance implies a Deliverer. Especially in Christianity.
 
Mar 14, 2011
72,923
16,147
113
#42
Oh noes. My King Jimmy let me down? Seriously??

Is the words "keeps on" in the greek?
Sins not. Ie, continues in sin.

What the passage is saying is that a child of God can not or will not go back to living the weay he ws before he was saved (a sinner by practice) whoever lives like they always have, has never seen or known God..
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,449
2,924
113
#43
I would say that doctrine should only be affirmed when it is clearly stated in Scripture. This "supported by the overall message of the Bible" allows a person to bring in whatever doctrine they think is that "overall message".

If one verse says something clearly and is interpreted correctly and clearly in the context that is enough for me. That is sound doctrine. There is not any verse in the Bible that if interpreted correctly will be incorrect or will conflict with another verse.

I would argue that the correct approach is to study a text to determine Biblical doctrine. I think the other approach is dangerous. That is: Do not use overall Biblical doctrine to determine the meaning of a text.
We are simply using two different terms here for the same thing .. Scripture and the Overall message of the Bible.. which is Scripture right..
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,726
1,064
113
#44
We are simply using two different terms here for the same thing .. Scripture and the Overall message of the Bible.. which is Scripture right..
Obviously terms depend on how one defines them and then how they are used in context . . . so it is possible they are the same thing to you . . .

but to me they are very, very, different when used in the context of Scriptural interpretation -- here is why . . .

If I say I believe what Scripture says, that is a definitive statement. It must be backed up by definitive Scriptures that clearly say this truth. If a person says, "I believe in the "overall message of the Bible" - that is a vague statement that allows the person to discount Scriptures that do not agree with this "overall message syndrome".

Here is the problem: When discussing the exegetical meaning of a verse, a person that brings to the discussion their own set of presumptions about the overall meaning of the Bible will then interpret the verse according to that presumption. Excuses like this will be given: You dare not interpret one verse contrary to the overall teaching of the Bible: or do not interpret one verse in isolation. I say that if you just interpret exegetically and deeply there will never be a conflict between verses.

One sometimes hears that there are (for example) 30 verses in the Bible that teach one truth, but only 10 verses that teach the opposite view of the issue. Hence the 10 verses are not to be interpreted literally - they do not mean what they say . . . etc. etc. Hogwash!
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,726
1,064
113
#45
Sins not. Ie, continues in sin.

What the passage is saying is that a child of God can not or will not go back to living the weay he ws before he was saved (a sinner by practice) whoever lives like they always have, has never seen or known God..
Clear case in point of what I was saying in post #44. I John 3:9 says simply that the one who has been born out of God will not keep on sinning. But if one has the overall understanding of OSAS and uses that in interpretation of Scripture then you will interpret every verse in Scripture according to that theology.

This is not a thread to argue OSAS or non-OSAS (please! :D).

My point is that either an OSAS or non-OSAS person needs to interpret Scripture simply for what it says, and not add to every verse one's "overall understanding of Scripture".

Of course, if a person wants to interpret Scripture from a preconceived list of doctrines, that is OK. I do not agree, but each person is allowed their own opinion. :)
 
Mar 14, 2011
72,923
16,147
113
#46
Clear case in point of what I was saying in post #44. I John 3:9 says simply that the one who has been born out of God will not keep on sinning. But if one has the overall understanding of OSAS and uses that in interpretation of Scripture then you will interpret every verse in Scripture according to that theology.

This is not a thread to argue OSAS or non-OSAS (please! :D).

My point is that either an OSAS or non-OSAS person needs to interpret Scripture simply for what it says, and not add to every verse one's "overall understanding of Scripture".

Of course, if a person wants to interpret Scripture from a preconceived list of doctrines, that is OK. I do not agree, but each person is allowed their own opinion. :)
I just stated what the passage said,

The passage says a man born of God cannot live a life of sin. Whoever lives in sin has never seen or known god

Lets not try to change the meanng to fit our belief lets just take the word as spoken.
 
Mar 14, 2011
72,923
16,147
113
#47
By the way if I may add.

We do not use this verse to interpret other verses. Or see how it fits.. We interpret them as written, THEN make sure those verses and this verse is in agreement, and not contradictory.

Thats called using the bible to interpret the bible. Not our belief system to interpret specific passages.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#48
Which is best, or which is correct?

Does one study a particular text to determine what is overall Biblical doctrine?
OR
Does one use overall Biblical doctrine to determine the meaning of a particular text?

One way to do it I suppose, is kinda "skim" through the entire O.T. to the places where God is "directly quoted." When ya tire of that? (cuz He's directly quoted, quite a bit) Go to the N.T. (prolly red letter edition), and read where Christ is directly quoted.
Then? Repeat......And repeat. And, you'll start getting the general idea of what Jesus, and He who sent Jesus, expects from His sheep and children.

This "approach", funnily reminds me of a movie, I can't remember the name of. Where the leader of some gang, or something, takes this boy up the stairs of this old time western bar. Knocks on the door. The "lady(?)" answers, and he tells her: "I'm giving you a boy!" "Send me back a man!" Spiritually speaking, of course!
It's just that's what it feels like when studying "letters from home", so to speak. (y)(y)
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,523
113
#49
Search as for silver or gold using the nuggets to buy truth and not sell it. Learn to look for the spiritual understanding hid in parable. Avoid literalizing.
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,524
2,599
113
#51
Sins not. Ie, continues in sin.

What the passage is saying is that a child of God can not or will not go back to living the weay he ws before he was saved (a sinner by practice) whoever lives like they always have, has never seen or known God..
Thanks. Thats exactly what I believe.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#52
Although, it's called by many names these days, such as "heart of hearts" "inner man" etc. etc. They all are referring to the "spiritual man." Of which actually there are 2! The outer spirit, or flesh man (adam), and inner spirit of the spiritual man (Ha-Adam). This Ha-Adam, is the "spiritual line" of God's Holy Priesthood! Ya? That's right! The same line that Christ comes from!
What you'll find in the O.T., is how this same "Holy Priesthood", became deifiled to the point that Jehovah, wouldn't have anything to do with 'em any longer.
What you'll find in the N.T., is how the words of Christ, and the Apostles, and Disciples, will "quicken", or make alive, the Ha-Adam, that has spiritually atrophied within these flesh bodies! "Being dead!" "Ye are now made alive."
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,726
1,064
113
#53
Search as for silver or gold using the nuggets to buy truth and not sell it. Learn to look for the spiritual understanding hid in parable. Avoid literalizing.
What do you mean by "avoid literalizing"?
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,726
1,064
113
#54
I just stated what the passage said,

The passage says a man born of God cannot live a life of sin. Whoever lives in sin has never seen or known god
Lets not try to change the meanng to fit our belief lets just take the word as spoken.
What you wrote above I agree with because that is what the text says. Though I might say the word "cannot" might be a stretch because the text simply states the fact: the one born out of God does not keep on sinning. To say he "cannot" is a little different.

But previously you had written: "a child of God can not or will not go back to living the weay he ws before he was saved". From the "cannot" sin it is an easy jump to assume that thus he will not go back to living the way he was before he was saved - but the text does not say that: it is an assumption you make. Whether your assumption is right or wrong is not the topic here.

Of course, I know, I am a stickler for sticking to what the text says . . . and you surely do not have to agree with me!
 
Mar 14, 2011
72,923
16,147
113
#57
What you wrote above I agree with because that is what the text says. Though I might say the word "cannot" might be a stretch because the text simply states the fact: the one born out of God does not keep on sinning. To say he "cannot" is a little different.
Lets take a look at this

1. He does not keep sinning. Does that mean he can NEVER go back to sin? Well if he can, then it would be a lie to say he does not Sin one would have to say he MAY not..or he does not, but later may sin again.

2. We also look at the second the one who is sinning has never seen or known God. Thus, if the first person went back to sinning He would of at one time known God (when a child of God) and now not know him. So the term never is wrong, it should say MAY never have known him, or at the least, Does not know him at this time, but may have known him in the past, or better yet, He forgot who he was.

notice the missing words which would have to be there to change the meaning.

This is called deductive reasoning within the text to determine what it is and what it is not saying, and what it can not be saying.

But previously you had written: "a child of God can not or will not go back to living the weay he ws before he was saved". From the "cannot" sin it is an easy jump to assume that thus he will not go back to living the way he was before he was saved - but the text does not say that: it is an assumption you make. Whether your assumption is right or wrong is not the topic here.

Of course, I know, I am a stickler for sticking to what the text says . . . and you surely do not have to agree with me!
And I stand by what I said based on the reasoning of the text.

Can it mean they COULD go back to sinning? According to the text. I see no possibly way it can, Using BOTH of the equations helps us to come to that conclusion.
 
Mar 14, 2011
72,923
16,147
113
#58
Dangerous in what way? Comparing that seen the temporal to that not seen the eternal?
Dangerous as in looking for all things as a symbol, and never taking God literally. if we do this, I can basically make any text say anything I want it to.

This is also how the roman church was able to bring its religion into existence, by making a symbol of all things..

there are times to look for a passage and how does this affect me,, (the spiritual meaning) but there are times that we must take literal things to be literal.
 

Bingo

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2019
3,725
2,773
113
#59
"From this side of the 'glass'....is it not of Great Importance, to know precisely the profound
difference of 'Delivered from...or Saved from.........the great debate is without end.........
for each shall live with the consequences of ones own precarious understanding...no more...no less."
'Praise God'
 

Attachments

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,726
1,064
113
#60
Lets take a look at this

1. He does not keep sinning. Does that mean he can NEVER go back to sin? Well if he can, then it would be a lie to say he does not Sin one would have to say he MAY not..or he does not, but later may sin again.

2. We also look at the second the one who is sinning has never seen or known God. Thus, if the first person went back to sinning He would of at one time known God (when a child of God) and now not know him. So the term never is wrong, it should say MAY never have known him, or at the least, Does not know him at this time, but may have known him in the past, or better yet, He forgot who he was.

notice the missing words which would have to be there to change the meaning.

This is called deductive reasoning within the text to determine what it is and what it is not saying, and what it can not be saying.



And I stand by what I said based on the reasoning of the text.

Can it mean they COULD go back to sinning? According to the text. I see no possibly way it can, Using BOTH of the equations helps us to come to that conclusion.
We have different ways of approaching text:

I prefer to just simply look at what it says and not make conclusions from reasoning.

From your entry above it is clear you enjoy using deductive reasoning to come to conclusions about the text.