False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[ATG]

The NT rebirth has not become a reality unless one's sins are remitted:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16

No need for a response. Scripture speaks for itself.

I.e. the newbirth is before water baptism. But, it's just not made real, until your baptismal hands make it real.

1Jo 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

There is no newbirth near-reality by recieving the Spirit Himself, until the Spirit's newbirth can be made really real with the baptism of men's hands.

There is no making the newbirth of the Spirit real, by the water idols of men's hands.

Here's a great example of a newbirth reality only made real, by rising up with men's baptismal hands.

Rev 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

 

[ATG]

You don't seem to understand this passage, and your addition of "whole heartedly" just doesn't fit.

Whole heartedness certainly doesn't fit in Romans 7, until concluding with deliverance from double heartedness.

Which is why God's command of whole hearted repentance, and loving Him with all the heart, does not fit with man's religion of half-hearted repentance, and loving with only half a heart.

Jer 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also…And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

Jerem 3:10
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

Hosea{7:8}
Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned.

Rev 3:15
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

We don't repent for others at all, let alone for all.

That's self-explanatory. Especially if we're only half-heartedly repenting for ourselves. We wouldn't repent enough for our own good, much less that of others.

 

[ATG]

You may not believe it, but Gods Word reveals that all past, present, and future sins of a believer are definitively and legally forgiven at the cross and applied at justification.

We don't believe words not in Scripture, but only those written. Past sins are all forgiven.


The only sins Scripture says are forgiven, are confessed past sins. The only sins Scripture says are not forgiven, are future sins in need of repentance.

All sins (including future ones) were future when Christ died.

Profound.

Legally, the judicial penalty for all the elect's sins was paid once for all on the cross. When a person is joined to Christ by faith, their eternal standing changes from guilty to fully righteous, meaning future sins will never bring back judicial condemnation.

While a believer's legal standing as a child of God never changes, their daily fellowship with God can be hindered by sin. Believers still pray the Lord's Prayer ("forgive us our debts") and confess ongoing sins. This is not to re-secure salvation or reverse eternal condemnation, but to clear the relational barrier and experience the Father's familial cleansing.

Already corrected this enough.

If you have anything new, I'll be glad to look at it.

 

[CS1]

We don't believe words not in Scripture, but only those written. Past sins are all forgiven.


The only sins Scripture says are forgiven, are confessed past sins. The only sins Scripture says are not forgiven, are future sins in need of repentance.

Profound.





Already corrected this enough.

If you have anything new, I'll be glad to look at it.

is no that position somewhat legalism? Jesus said on the Cross " It is Finished." John 19:30.

This speaks of a Debt paid in full one of past, presence and future. By the work of the cross. Salvation comes to those who have repented and placed their faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. All my sin were washed away I did not have to confess each sin but accept that I was a sinner and guilty. Needing Christ to save me. Now that I am saved. The work of the Holy Spirit in me is to bring about holiness unto Lord. There are times I must ask for God to forgive me because I have said or done something that was wrong. Missed the mark. The lost person only has to come under conviction and see their need for Christ and repent of sin. That covers all the sins ones did prior to Salvation.

 

[Inquisitor]

AI I agree and other media outlets have hurt the church to where we are biblically illiterate.

I have not found that to be true.

Your interpretation of the scripture may be amiss.

 

[ATG]

So what compelled you to remove the word "we" and replace it "believers". It's never a good idea to add or remove words from Gods Word.

Self explanatory: Paul is a believer, when he says "If we".

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Journey man said:
"Hebrews 10:26 does not say "there is no further sacrifice for believers that wilfully sin against God".

Now, if you object to inserting believers with no more sacrifice, there must be "no further sacrifice for unbelievers that wilfully sin against God."

But, since unbelievers have not recieved the knowledge of the truth, then the Scripture is continually speaking only us believers, that have recieved the knowledge of the truth. But then, while we can be called believers with Paul at the start, we can't be called unbelievers at the end having no more sacrifice for sins.

Therefore, If we believers wilfully sin, there remaineth no more sacrifice for us, who are no more believers.

The Scripture is concluding, that even as the unbelievers have no sacrifice for sins, so also by wilfully sinning, we believers make ourselves unbelievers having no more sacrifice for sins.

Only we believers that remain obedient to God, have sacrifice for sins remaining with Jesus Christ.

You make a good point, that 'believers' ought not be inserted into the Scripture toward the end, where there remains no more sacrifice for sins. And yet, we cannot insert unbelievers, that had no sacrifice for sins.

And so, we believers can only be spoken of at the first with Paul: If we believers sin wilfully... But we cannot be believers spoken of at the last having no more sacrifice for sins...

Therefore, We believers necessarily make ourslves unbelievers, since we have no more sacrifice for sins, by willingly sinning against God...

Thanks much for the correction, and the resulting insight to the Scripture. (Which no doubt you didn't intend, but then good correction is always good, even if the good result is not always what we intend.)

 

[ATG]

I dedicate this post to Journey-man, whose timely correction, leads to this insight into Heb 10 and Rom 11 taken together.

Heb 10:26 is warning all us obedient Christians, that if we wilfully disobey God, then we too have no remaining sacrifice for sins, the with all children of disobedience: We obedient believers make ourselves unbelievers by disobedience.

The same warning is in Romans 11 for belief being made unbelief by disobedience:

Rom 11:18
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
The believing Jews that disobeyed Jesus Christ on earth, were cut off by unbelief. So also can us believing Christians be likewise cut off by disobedience to Jesus Christ risen from the dead. They were cut off at the cross, we can be cut off from having His sacrifice for sins.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Since the Scripture can only begin with we believers like Paul, and yet the scripture cannot conclude with believers having no sacrifice for sins; Then we must conclude Heb 10 and Rom 11 are the same warning:

If Paul and we believers sin willfully against God, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, for us who make ourselves no more believers toward God. The same as the believing, Jews that made themselves unbelievers by crucifying Jesus Christ, so also us if we crucify Christ afresh to ourselves by our own disobedience:

Heb 6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

We that have recieved the knowledge of the truth, are them that have been enlightened. We that sin fullfully are them that fall away. We that have no more sacrifice for sins, are them that crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh.

The warning to us all is clear: We believers make ourselves unbelievers by disobedience to God, the Jews first and also the Christians.

Romans{1:3}
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Belief is made unbelief by disobedience to the faith of the Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Even as the unbelieving children of disobedience have no sacrfice for sins, even so we believers, if we disobey God with them, are become unbelieving children of disobedience having no more sacrifice for sins.

If we that have faith in Jesus Christ, wilfully sin against the Son, we have no more faith in Jesus Christ. And with all disbeleiving chirldren of disobedience, we also must repent to believe on the Son of God, and have His sacrifice for sins with His obedient sons.

1Jo 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[ATG]

So which commandments did the apostles teach?

Act 1:1
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Any commandments preached by the apostles to us following Acts 1:1, are the commandments of our Lord Jesus given to us to keep.

We can learn the commandments of our Lord by reading those things commanded by the apostles to the churches of God.

We all best do our own reading for ourselves...

 

[CS1]

I have not found that to be true.

Your interpretation of the scripture may be amiss.

you are entitled to your opinion. You saying so has no authority for or against my Biblical understanding. I wish you would have provided a biblical refute to show me my understanding is needing correction. And in your response you did not even provide what I said you disagree with LOL.

 

[Dino246]

Whole heartedness certainly doesn't fit in Romans 7, until concluding with deliverance from double heartedness.

Which is why God's command of whole hearted repentance, and loving Him with all the heart, does not fit with man's religion of half-hearted repentance, and loving with only half a heart.

You like implying others have said things which they have not said. I said nothing whatsoever about "half-hearted repentance", but because I reject your addition to Scripture, you accuse me of doing so. That is a lie on your part.

That's self-explanatory. Especially if we're only half-heartedly repenting for ourselves. We wouldn't repent enough for our own good, much less that of others.

Again you impose your own idea of "half-hearted repentance" to the discussion.

I think you're projecting.

 

[Inquisitor]

Act 1:1
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Any commandments preached by the apostles to us following Acts 1:1, are the commandments of our Lord Jesus given to us to keep.

We can learn the commandments of our Lord by reading those things commanded by the apostles to the churches of God.

We all best do our own reading for ourselves...

May I ask if you obey Exodus 20?

 

[Journey_man]

We don't believe words not in Scripture, but only those written. Past sins are all forgiven.


The only sins Scripture says are forgiven, are confessed past sins. The only sins Scripture says are not forgiven, are future sins in need of repentance.

Profound.





Already corrected this enough.

If you have anything new, I'll be glad to look at it.

The Bible does not use the exact phrase "past, present, and future sins," but it explicitly states that Jesus made a complete and final payment.

Colossians 2:13-14: God forgave all our trespasses, cancelling the record of debt that stood against us.

Hebrews 10:14: By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 9:26: He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

At the moment of saving faith, an elect believer is entirely justified. All sins—including those not yet committed—are legally atoned for because every sin was already "future" when Christ died. God declares the believer not guilty once and for all, meaning a Christian can never be condemned or lose their eternal salvation.

Even though legal guilt is removed, believers must still confess daily sins. This is not to win back judicial pardon or save oneself over again. Instead, it is relational. Sin disrupts our intimate fellowship with God as a Father, and confession restores that warm communion and clears the conscience, much like an apology within a human family.

You haven't corrected anything, all you have offered is your own private opinions, all of which are unbiblical.

 

[Journey_man]

Heb 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Yes, the reprobate also hear the gospel being proclaimed, but that only serves to confirms thei condemnation and it in no way suggests they were ever saved to begin with. So your theology is all messed up.

 

[Journey_man]

Self explanatory: Paul is a believer, when he says "If we".

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Journey man said:
"Hebrews 10:26 does not say "there is no further sacrifice for believers that wilfully sin against God".

Now, if you object to inserting believers with no more sacrifice, there must be "no further sacrifice for unbelievers that wilfully sin against God."

But, since unbelievers have not recieved the knowledge of the truth, then the Scripture is continually speaking only us believers, that have recieved the knowledge of the truth. But then, while we can be called believers with Paul at the start, we can't be called unbelievers at the end having no more sacrifice for sins.

Therefore, If we believers wilfully sin, there remaineth no more sacrifice for us, who are no more believers.

The Scripture is concluding, that even as the unbelievers have no sacrifice for sins, so also by wilfully sinning, we believers make ourselves unbelievers having no more sacrifice for sins.

Only we believers that remain obedient to God, have sacrifice for sins remaining with Jesus Christ.

You make a good point, that 'believers' ought not be inserted into the Scripture toward the end, where there remains no more sacrifice for sins. And yet, we cannot insert unbelievers, that had no sacrifice for sins.

And so, we believers can only be spoken of at the first with Paul: If we believers sin wilfully... But we cannot be believers spoken of at the last having no more sacrifice for sins...

Therefore, We believers necessarily make ourslves unbelievers, since we have no more sacrifice for sins, by willingly sinning against God...

Thanks much for the correction, and the resulting insight to the Scripture. (Which no doubt you didn't intend, but then good correction is always good, even if the good result is not always what we intend.)

You can twist the meaning of Hebrews 10:26 anyway you like, but it is not teaching that a genuinely born-again believer can lose their salvation by committing a wilful sin. Instead, it's a stark warning against apostasy—a total, final, and conscious renunciation of Christ—committed by professing members of the visible church who were never true believers to begin with.

The Greek text indicates a deliberate, ongoing lifestyle of sinning (ekousios hamartanontōn) after coming to the knowledge of the truth. In the context of Hebrews, this specific "wilful sin" is the definitive rejection of Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice in favour of returning to an alternative system like Temple Judaism.

True believers are eternally secure and cannot lose true saving faith. The author of Hebrews addresses the visible covenant community—which includes both true believers and hypocrites. Those who completely fall away demonstrate that their initial profession of faith was external and unregenerate, not rooted in true election.

 

[GWH]

It shouldn't hinder at all.
God always does what He promises when people are willing to obey Him.

No matter how many times you choose to reject it, doesn't change the truth expressed in scripture. And that is, NT believers have their sin remitted when they believe God and obey His command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:38-39

"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:14-16

And so souls are confronted with a choice:

1. Believe that Spirit baptism = Accepting/loving Jesus as Lord is what God commands/desires (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 6:29)
now that the transition from the OT to the NT is complete/fulfilled (Eph. 4:4-6, 1Cor. 12:13, Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5, Col. 2:6, John 8:42),
and thus the outward optional work/rite of water baptism merely portrays the required inner/spiritual reality of Spirit baptism,
just as physical circumcision portrayed spiritual circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29).

or

2. Believe that NT believers have their sin remitted when they believe God and obey His command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

I believe the first option, which is what we Southern Baptists were taught when we were water baptized, although I do not remember the role of the Holy Spirit being emphasized.

 

[Wansvic]

I.e. the newbirth is before water baptism. But, it's just not made real, until your baptismal hands make it real.

1Jo 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

There is no newbirth near-reality by recieving the Spirit Himself, until the Spirit's newbirth can be made really real with the baptism of men's hands.

There is no making the newbirth of the Spirit real, by the water idols of men's hands.

Here's a great example of a newbirth reality only made real, by rising up with men's baptismal hands.

Rev 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

There is a striking thematic parallel between the "straight" way associated with John the Baptist and the "street which is called Straight" to which Saul was sent.

John the Baptist's ministry was described this way: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." — John 1:23, KJV

Then, in Saul's conversion: "Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth." — Acts 9:11, KJV

The parallel:​

John's mission was to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. His message was repentance, and he administered "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). The crooked way of man had to be made straight in preparation for receiving Christ.


Paul's experience follows that pattern personally. He was sincerely religious, but he was traveling in the wrong direction—literally on a road to Damascus for the purpose of persecuting those who called upon Jesus' name (Acts 9:1-2). Jesus stopped him, humbled him, and then sent him into Damascus. Remarkably, the place where Saul awaited God's further instruction was "the street which is called Straight."

There is an especially interesting connection when we follow the story through Acts 19.

John prepared the way by preaching repentance and baptism while pointing people forward to Jesus: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." — Acts 19:4

Paul then took people who had stopped at John's baptism and brought them into what John had been preparing them to receive: "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." — Acts 19:5

So there is a progression:
John: "Make straight the way of the Lord" → repentance → points people toward Jesus.
Saul: Jesus stops him on his way → sends him to Straight Street → Ananias gives him God's command concerning Jesus' name.

Paul: later preaches the same truth to John's disciples → they believe John's testimony concerning Jesus → are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus → receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:4-6).


Another connection. When Ananias found Saul on Straight Street, he eventually gave him the command Paul later recounted: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." — Acts 22:16

That means "make straight the way of the Lord" and "the street which is called Straight" both occur in contexts involving repentance, baptism, and coming into proper relationship with Jesus.


John was preparing a straight way for people to come to Christ. Saul was placed on Straight Street as Christ brought him from his own way into obedience to God's way. Then Saul became Paul and spent the remainder of his ministry directing others down that same path toward Jesus.

So, John was sent to make the Lord's way straight; Saul was sent to a street called Straight so that he could learn the Lord's way. The man who had been traveling the wrong road to persecute those who called upon Jesus' name was stopped by Jesus, redirected to Straight Street, and commanded to wash away his sins calling upon that very name. He then became an apostle who spent his life directing others to the same Jesus.

The geographical name in Acts 9:11 was literal. But within the larger biblical narrative, its placement at precisely this turning point in Saul's life creates a powerful picture: Jesus took a man headed the wrong way and put him on "Straight."

 

[Wansvic]

And so souls are confronted with a choice:

1. Believe that Spirit baptism = Accepting/loving Jesus as Lord is what God commands/desires (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 6:29)
now that the transition from the OT to the NT is complete/fulfilled (Eph. 4:4-6, 1Cor. 12:13, Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5, Col. 2:6, John 8:42),
and thus the outward optional work/rite of water baptism merely portrays the required inner/spiritual reality of Spirit baptism,
just as physical circumcision portrayed spiritual circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29).

or

2. Believe that NT believers have their sin remitted when they believe God and obey His command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

I believe the first option, which is what we Southern Baptists were taught when we were water baptized, although I do not remember the role of the Holy Spirit being emphasized.

Where does Scripture ever announce that water baptism ceased to have the significance given to it by Jesus, Peter, and Paul?

Scripture reveals a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. But that does not establish that the commands given as part of the New Covenant gospel were themselves transitional.

In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction:

Jesus after His resurrection commanded water baptism → Peter commanded it at Pentecost → Peter commanded it for Spirit-filled Gentiles → Paul administered it at Ephesus → Paul explained its relationship to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection → Peter later said “baptism doth also now save us.”


The transition was into this New Covenant message, not away from it.

The fact that Acts records the transition from the Old Covenant to the New does not mean that everything occurring during that transition was temporary. The real question is what the apostles continued to command as part of the New Covenant gospel. Water baptism was commanded by the resurrected Christ (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19), preached at Pentecost for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), commanded even after Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44–48), administered by Paul (Acts 19:5), connected with washing away sins in Paul's own testimony (Acts 22:16), and later explained as burial with Christ and participation in His death (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12).

Scripture never announces a later point at which water baptism became optional or was replaced by Spirit baptism. On the contrary, Acts 10 proves that receiving the Spirit did not eliminate the command to be baptized in water. The transition was from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant gospel—not from commanded water baptism into a later, Spirit-only gospel.

 

[lrs68]

When you repented and became Regenerated God forgave you of the things you repented of. Even though His work on the Cross is good enough for present and future sins, you never repented for them because you hadn't committed them yet. This is why Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer because it's daily and includes a daily act of seeking forgiveness for sins recently committed while also forgiving those who sinned against us.

 

[ATG]

The contextual rule is Christ is supreme whenever he is Speaking. Is there another way over Christ? No. There is nothing in the whole Bible that says there is another way of Salvation apart from Christ. Yes, there are many other verses to support that too you are correct.
Context also takes to account who is speaking. There is nothing Paul said that contradicts Christ. AI I agree and other media outlets have hurt the church to where we are biblically illiterate

Of course there's plenty of false teaching to go around from all manner of sources.

What we agree on is the rule of teaching Scripture correctly as written: The discipline of allowing Scripture to teach itself.

Now an interpretation is one I believe how ever there can be more applications of the text or passage.

True.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This verse is not saying that there are no personal interpretations of Scripture. It's warning against preaching our personal interpretations of Scripture as Scripture itself. There are Scriptures that do have several interpretative applications, from which we can personally choose for ourselves. But we shouldn't then go on and preach our personal choice as the only choice for all Christians.

ex:
Eph 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

The Scripture only forbids drunkenness, not drinking wine. There are 3 interpretive applications for us: Abstain from all wine. Drink wine to enjoy. Drink wine for health. Each of us has liberty to choose as we please by our personal faith.

1Co 10:31
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Rom 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

However, none of us has authority to preach our personal choice as a command to all believers. The usual violation in this case is by Christians preaching against drinking wine and strong drink.

So long as we are living by faith within the law and commandments of our Lord, we have liberty of the law for ourselves.

James{1:22}
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Another common violation is having libery of faith outside the law, as though our faith alone is greater than the law, and we freely can transgress without condemnation. Faith is for liberty within the law, not liverty to violate Christ's rule.

Phl 3:16
Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

 

[Inquisitor]

Of course there's plenty of false teaching to go around from all manner of sources.

What we agree on is the rule of teaching Scripture correctly as written: The discipline of allowing Scripture to teach itself.


True.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This verse is not saying that there are no personal interpretations of Scripture. It's warning against preaching our personal interpretations of Scripture as Scripture itself. There are Scriptures that do have several interpretative applications, from which we can personally choose for ourselves. But we shouldn't then go on and preach our personal choice as the only choice for all Christians.

ex:
Eph 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

The Scripture only forbids drunkenness, not drinking wine. There are 3 interpretive applications for us: Abstain from all wine. Drink wine to enjoy. Drink wine for health. Each of us has liberty to choose as we please by our personal faith.

1Co 10:31
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Rom 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

However, none of us has authority to preach our personal choice as a command to all believers. The usual violation in this case is by Christians preaching against drinking wine and strong drink.

So long as we are living by faith within the law and commandments of our Lord, we have liberty of the law for ourselves.

James{1:22}
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Another common violation is having libery of faith outside the law, as though our faith alone is greater than the law, and we freely can transgress without condemnation. Faith is for liberty within the law, not liverty to violate Christ's rule.

Phl 3:16
Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

You stated, "The Scripture only forbids drunkenness, not drinking wine."

John the Baptist: An angel prophesied to his father, Zacharias, that John "must never drink wine or strong drink" (Luke 1:15),
living a life of strict asceticism.

Samson: Set apart as a Nazarite from birth, Samson was commanded by an angel never to drink wine or strong drink,
nor eat anything made from the grapevine (Judges 13:4, 7)

Hannah: When praying deeply for a child at the tabernacle, she defended herself against accusations of drunkenness
by telling Eli the priest, "I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink" (1 Samuel 1:15).