Should we study an “ism” or just God’s word?

[RedTent]

God cannot be bound up in the religion of ideology, behavior, procedures or institutions. It is difficult enough to see the whole of God without getting caught up in one small aspect of God. That is the trouble with all our minds and the mind of all the people behind the “ism” of Christian understanding, no matter how brilliant. God is all of creation, all of science, all of the principles that operate our world. We are asked to be part of God. WOW! I refuse to be identified with any physical church or ism, only with the label Christian, even though I have a physical church home. I feel it limits my understanding, I want to open up understanding, and get past the “seeing darkly” scripture tells us about as best I can.

I understand how studying history opens up our understanding of God, as we see how God's principles work in our world. Much of scripture is simply God using history to explain. It shows how our actions bring about certain results based on God principles that are part of our world’s creation. History also shows the part God's mercy and grace plays.

I think many in the church have cut themselves off from understanding by concentrating on the NT instead of all scripture. There was a huge change in the world those years Christ came physically and went to the cross, but Christ was from the beginning and the principles surrounding His resurrection applied before He came. There was a change in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but the Holy Spirit was also here from the beginning. It is in the whole of scripture including the OT that we can better comprehend the wholeness of God, not in the “ism”. I think studying these instead of God from a more complete perspective is valuable time wasted.

I often feel in tune with Willie as he marched with a band. Everyone in the band was out of step but Willie. So I am anxious to hear your response.

 

[oldhermit]

Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological theories. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications.

At one time I owend a rather extensive study library. I had books on everything. Over the years I became so insensed with how many of these writers treated scripture that I gave all of that library away including all of the commentaries I had. I determined that if I was to learn what the Bible taught, I was going to have to study the Bible and not books about the Bible. I do not concern myself with how history or cultoue interprets scripture. History and culture are not revelation. The only books I kept were those that help me in my linguestic research such as Greek Lexicons, all of my Greek manuscripts, some Historical research books such as Josephus, my Youngs Anylitical Concordance, and a set of Greek word studies. I do not read any other typs of Bible related materials. If I am to learn what the Bible has to say, this is going to requiore a good understanding of the original languages on my part. I could not possibly care less what Monotheism or Unitarianism, or Tritheism, or Trinitarianism, or ANY OTHER 'ISM' teaches. I do not care what they believe or teach. I am interesten in only one thing - What does the Bible have to say.

Every time I open my Bible to study anything, the first thing I do is try to suspend for the moment everything I think I know about that text. I always start from scratch. What is the Bible saying? I never dodge any implication simply because it does not seem to fit some predetermined concept I may have. Through this, I have had to change my views on a number of passages over the years. Sometimes this can be rather disconcerting to discover I have been wrong about something. But, the integrity of scripture MUST be honored, no mater where it takes me.

 

[oldhermit]

The amount of influence scripture has over a person is determined by how he avails himself to the text, not how he avails the text to himself. Let me explain it this way.

The agent patient relationship between scripture and the mind of man defines the nature of the intended influence that scripture is to have upon the mind of the reader. A divinely determined relationship exists between the minds of all men and the biblical text. How man responds to this text will be determined by the position in which man perceives himself within this relationship. As the patient in this relationship man is the one upon whom the text is intended to act. As the patient, man is never permitted to assume the position of control. He is always rendered subject to the will and authority of an agency that is outside of himself. The patient position is the only position in which man is authorized to occupy in his relationship to the Word of God. As agent, the Word of God assumes the role of control and authority acting upon the mind of the individual. The scripture must be allowed its agential place over human intelligence. Human intelligence must always give over to the intelligence of God. The way man sees reality must always give way to an inspired representation of reality. Scripture must always be allowed to overtake human reason. What this means for man in this relationship is that man must always submit himself to the grammatical structure of the text so that his mind can be influenced ONLY by the text. When man surrenders himself to the role of patient he is then able to be transformed in his thought, speech and behavior. When we approach scripture, we must not attempt to bring anything of our own intelligence onto the text to bring the Word of God under the control of human reason. Human intelligence can never be allowed to serve as the starting point for our understanding of scripture.

It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. It has also been a matter of practice for the intellectuals to give more credence to how history records the use of the language found in the text than to allow the text itself to
define its own use of language. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human compilation of historical events. For example, it does not matter how the Greeks used the word logos within their culture. We should never be concerned with the historian's opinion on the first century cultural use of this word in secular literature. These things simply have no bearing upon how the Holy Spirit is using this word in John chapter one for example. The Holy Spirit takes human language out of the historical and cultural context and elevates it to reveal the mind of God. When we bring human intelligence to bear upon the language of revelation this serves only to minimize the text and to distort the message. We will never be able to understand what God has revealed of Himself by imposing human intelligence upon the text. Higher criticism has insisted upon using human intelligence as the agent to understand something that is completely outside of man and his familiar world. How absurd is this?

Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.

 

[squidget]

the bible is truly a living source of GODs word, many will profess this statement today but like you pointed out RedTent they have focused on the N,T alone or have swung the other way and focused on O,T.
rightly so must misinterpreted many say that because until the ascension of JESUS there was just O,T law they try to live in that.
old hermit says this
Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.
i love it its so true and JESUS puts it in that the traditions of men make the word of GOD of no effect, we are entering a period of time where people donot want to know (as in the application from the learning) what the bible says how they must live but more and more seek ways even if it means out of context use of scripture to back up their life philosophy. there is so much emphasis on ones "personal walk with CHRIST" that it now is used as a tool to justify one unrighteous behaviour and not the training and admonishing that a person receives from GOD.
the expression "dont worry its ok its all covered by the blood" ive heard on more than one occasion out of peoples mouths these were "good christian people" that were at church every week did what their pastor taught them ect ect yet never opened the bible for themselves to get to know GOD

 

[RedTent]

What wonderful responses. You are bringing out that it is not only studying God’s word, but how we study it.

The bible is truly a living source of GODs word, many will profess this statement today but like you pointed out RedTent they have focused on the N,T alone or have swung the other way and focused on O,T.

Our focus needs to be on God, the whole of God.

Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture

.
Scripture is God’s word, it always comes first.

These are just some of the points brought out. I am learning, thanks brothers.

 

[oldhermit]

The Church has had an unfortunate legacy of using the historical critical method in her practice of scripture reading. We have routinely chosen to start with human intelligence to create some type of synthesis between the human historical experience and the text of scripture. We start with current human experience and then try to work back in time searching for a point of causation that seems to fit what we understand of the universe. We then formulate theories that seem to best fit the facts at hand and then we rationalize scenarios that satisfy what we will accept as a rational view of how scripture fits into our human experience. We have an insatiable desire to maintain control over the text both logically and psychologically . We want to hold on to a comfortable reading of the text that fits our view of reality. And we have felt confident that such a method of scripture reading can foster a valid interpretation of what we largely see as a historical document. The problem with this method is that human intelligence does not have the capacity to start with itself to synthesize our physical existence with revelation. Biblically speaking, the synthetic approach ultimately ends in idolatry and separation from God, as in the case of those in Romans chapter one. These had synthesized their will and desires to such a deteriorated and depraved state that God could only give them over to their own passions and to their destruction.
This approach to scripture has left the Church crippled and vulnerable in our schools, in the work place, in our families and in our own personal relationships with those outside the Church and even within the Church herself. We are afraid of reprisal from the world. We fear critical accusations of dogmatism, fanaticism, and intolerance. We have failed to speak out against sin. We have sold out to complacency and apathy concerning a revealed standard of ethical conduct. We have allowed the world to redefine moral biblical values. We have embraced sexual promiscuity at every level, even in the Church, and have dared not challenge this behavior even among our own members. Within the community, the Church has been content to simply live and let live. We have renounced any responsibility of rebutting society and have allowed the world to define for us the role that the Church should accept within the world community. We have elected to be merely tolerated socially at the expense of our spiritual integrity rather than to bear the pressure of persecution or even disapproval. We have baptized worldly value systems and doctrines into the Church and held them up on the same par with scripture and have simply taken for granted that God will give a nod of approval to them. The Pharisees of the first century have done nothing of which we are not also guilty and equally so! Our only protection against the synthetic method is rebuttal. If the Church is to ever regain her dignity before God as well as the world, we must learn to punctuate our dependence upon the synthetic method of synthesis and cultivate a reading of the text that will enable us to bring the intelligence of God to bear on our proper role in the world. We cannot destroy the strongholds of human based philosophy and synthesis unless we learn to generalize Biblical truths. A human value system cannot be rebutted and overturned except through a representational reading of scripture. We must allow scripture to define the Christian's place in society. Scripture must be regarded as the inspired revelation of behavior within the framework of our homes, schools, jobs, relationships and in every area of our lives. The Church cannot allow the influence of the world to define what the Church is to be, how she is to think and how she is to speak.

 

[phil36]

So what exactly are you trying to say oldhermit? Have not some good insights come from historical criticsim and it various methologies..?

 

[oldhermit]

I'm not suggesting that these things are completely without value. I am suggesting these things should never be our starting point for understanding scriptire. Truth comes not from histoy or culture, it comes from the language of the text. This must be allowed to overturn all other considerations.
The question of how the Bible should be read and interpreted is one that has been wrestled back and forth among Bible students and scholars alike. Even scholars who have had the noblest intentions at heart have struggled with how this book is to be handled. How we understand this book determines how we understand our roles in the universe. For centuries now it has been determined that the Bible should be handled as a historical phenomenon. Since the Bible has been handled in such a secular manor, we have come to rely upon secular historical sources to offer their contributions to the text. Through exegesis, we have tried to give history and culture the final word on the meaning of scripture and to define its place within human history. The science of exegesis takes into consideration all of the historical and cultural evidence we can martial and attempts to explain the text based upon the compilation of the evidence. This is actually just another form of intertextuality. If we take this approach to scripture, it would follow that we could never understand anything about the text that could not be supported and collaborated by what evidence we are able to piece together. Our understanding of the text would then be limited to our ability to collect and correctly interpret this evidence. In the exercise of exegesis, our understanding of the text is determined by how well we understand ancient times and cultures. The farther removed we are from the time and culture in which it was written the less we would be able to understand it. Our ability to understand the text correctly then would diminish with the passing of time, not increase.
With exegesis, truth is determined by the historical context rather than the language of the text. For many who have tried to make sense of the text by the use of exegesis this has been a source of frustration. Some have even concluded on this basis that truth is unknowable. Since revealed truth is not determined by history, this should not be a surprising legacy for the use of the exegetical approach to scripture. The language of the text was not conditioned by the cultures of the time. It was received from the mind of the Holy Spirit who stands outside of human history and culture. If history is allowed to be the canon of determining truth then we root spiritual truth in the temporal rather than in the eternal. This makes the historian the sole proprietor of what can be considered as truth.
It is a mistake to think that we can ever get into the mind of the individuals who put scripture into written form. Even if we were able by some means to manage such a feat this will not tell us what was in the mind of the author. Contrary to what Gordon Fee claims, the Bible is not both human and divine. The Bible is exclusively a divine document and was written independently of human intellectual contribution. Man can no more lay claim to any contribution to the biblical text than my computer can to the creation of this post. Man was simply the tool through which the Holy Spirit recorded scripture in written form. Since the Bible is solely of divine origin, we cannot discern truth by trying to delve into what was possibly in the mind of the apostle Paul when he wrote the book of Romans. The apostle Paul is not responsible for the contents of that or any other letter of scripture pinned by his hand.
Scripture was not intended to speak to the common sense of human reasoning. The Bible cannot be understood by bringing human intelligence to bear upon the text. The language of the text must be allowed to influence and transform the thinking of the reader. It is not reasonable from human experience to believe that dead people live again, or that virgins can conceive a child without human intervention, or that three million people can survive in the desert of Sinai for forty years where there were no material resources for food or water. Scripture is not written to appeal to our sense of reason. Instead, it challenges us to defy reason on almost every page and to learn to see things from the vantage point of God. Scripture does not call men to reason but to faith.

 

[ed12]

Hi Guys,
Who is more pleasing to God. The one who claims substantial knowledge of God or the one who loves and worships God and loves his neighbour. How much "knowledge" of God is necessary to walk in sacrificial love? Where should our focus be, on knowledge or on love, (not the hippy kind) Which would be more pleasing to God. Spend 4 hours studying scripture, go and care for someone in need. Where is the balance? Everywhere you go you find people studying scripture as if at the end of their life there will be some examination of scripture. Surely the examination will be on how we lived, doing God's work which is loving His creation. Surely if you walk in love seeking to do good, Jesus will come and teach you. Jesus is our teacher, our flesh also an instrument of instruction and the world our classroom. Our greatest blessing is to be "kept" and "blessed" by God. Numbers 6:22-27
I have an NIV concordance. Faith has 16 Old Testament references and 254 New Testament references.
love in Jesus
ed12

 

[ed12]

Hi again Guys,
Oops, forget to mention, The Pharisees who studied scripture very closely did not recognize Jesus because Jesus did not meet their understanding of scripture. Had they been less sure of their understanding then surely they would have recognized Jesus. To us it is probably impossible not to have recognized Jesus. Non students understood because they had no preconceived ideas. Their minds were open. This too will happen to us in 'ism's" . Our preconceived understandig will inhibit our understanding in these end times.
love in Jesus
ed12

 

[Bea22]

Yes, all the knowledge of the scriptures is just that until it becomes a reality. I heard of someone - in real life - who when he was a boy, used to read cartoons and one had in it a boy drawing a turkey on the wall and it got closer and closer until it stepped out of the drawing and the boy hit it over the head.
So the little boy reading the cartoon thought he could do the same. He came from a poor family and he was hungry at the time, so he drew a turkey on the wall and stepped behind the corner, waiting to see if the turkey would step out of the drawing so he could hit it over the head and eat it.

Needless to say, he waited for some time...

The point is, we can have all the knowledge in the world, and know everything. And there will always be someone who knows more than us. So do we study to know more and more?
What good is it, if we don't understand it as a reality? It's just like a picture on the wall. Dead. It doesn't help us. Until our understanding is quickened by the Holy Spirit, Who makes it alive and a reality to us by becoming personal to us,.. it is dead, or useless. Until we go through experiences to see that YES, He is a very present help in time of need... what will it profit us to say it and not know what we are talking about?
One who has all the head knowledge and yet cannot love His neighbour, shows His knowledge is just that. But it isn't a reality. It isn't understood like it should be, in the heart.
Having said that, we all make mistakes. We don't love people like we should, we get angry, we have trouble loving our enemies etc. It's God who makes it a reality so that what we are talking about is lived out within us in fulfillment. Not so we can get the glory for how loving we are, and what nice people we are. But that all glory will go to Him because... in actual fact, we are just as angry as the next person, or sinful, or lustful, etc etc.

People need to realise - and not forget - that we are works in progress. We are not completed yet. It is not to despair because we aren't like we should be. It is not to judge because others aren't like they should be. It is a process, and takes time. Until God can see His own reflection in us, we have to be beaten a bit more, and experience things firsthand a bit more.

One day, there will be a moment when what you have been talking about, maybe for many, many years, will make you say "Oh, now I see it!".
That's when it's moved from head knowledge to the heart.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi Guys,
Who is more pleasing to God. The one who claims substantial knowledge of God or the one who loves and worships God and loves his neighbour. How much "knowledge" of God is necessary to walk in sacrificial love? Where should our focus be, on knowledge or on love, (not the hippy kind) Which would be more pleasing to God. Spend 4 hours studying scripture, go and care for someone in need. Where is the balance? Everywhere you go you find people studying scripture as if at the end of their life there will be some examination of scripture. Surely the examination will be on how we lived, doing God's work which is loving His creation. Surely if you walk in love seeking to do good, Jesus will come and teach you. Jesus is our teacher, our flesh also an instrument of instruction and the world our classroom. Our greatest blessing is to be "kept" and "blessed" by God. Numbers 6:22-27
I have an NIV concordance. Faith has 16 Old Testament references and 254 New Testament references.
love in Jesus
ed12

The purpose of this study is help us develop a reading of the text that will enable better understand the truth that comes from the mind of God. This was Paul's admonition in Col. 1:9-12.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi again Guys,
Oops, forget to mention, The Pharisees who studied scripture very closely did not recognize Jesus because Jesus did not meet their understanding of scripture. Had they been less sure of their understanding then surely they would have recognized Jesus. To us it is probably impossible not to have recognized Jesus. Non students understood because they had no preconceived ideas. Their minds were open. This too will happen to us in 'ism's" . Our preconceived understandig will inhibit our understanding in these end times.
love in Jesus
ed12

Yes, the Pharisees studdied the Law constantly but could never come to the understanding of truth. Jesus even told them that they knew neither God nor the scriptures. The reason the never understood the scriptures was because they approached the text using human intellegence as the starting point of exegesis. One need only read the Mishna to see that this is true. Because of their approach to the text, they became bound to traditions that were never part of the Law and Jesus offered a very strong condemnation for this.

 

[phil36]

Knowledge of doctrine etc is good, but only if you apply it to your life...Doctrine is just a word that describes what the bible teaches etc. We can have all knowledge but if thats all we have and do not apply it personally then we are just like clanging cymbals.

If anyone is interested, you should read 'Dug Down Deep' by Joshua Harris.

 

[RedTent]

phil36; Knowledge of doctrine etc is good, but only if you apply it to your life...Doctrine is just a word that describes what the bible teaches etc. We can have all knowledge but if thats all we have and do not apply it personally then we are just like clanging cymbals.

If anyone is interested, you should read 'Dug Down Deep' by Joshua Harris.

Sometimes we can look at the world as God arranges it for a glimpse of our spiritual world. We accept God as our Father, God accepts us as His child. We each have a place in this family. Some simply love their Father, but don’t pay that much attention to what He says. Some are quite disobedient. Some decide they will show Him they will be the best son, but don’t really love Him. Some fallow Him everywhere and learn as much from Him as they can.

I agree with you that it is our actions that best show our love, but it seems to me that paying close attention to the Father, learning from Him as much as you can, is really a necessary part of acting the part of a loving son.

 

[squidget]

its the study of the word of GOD that must be our guide in our actions for me the book of James best in a broad sence describes it for me. to sum it up its our every action must be learned from GODs word and placing that word as the first authority we seek for our learning to operate in this world.

 

[tribesman]

No study of God's word is unbiased. We need just to make sure we have the right tools and consult the best sources.

 

[oldhermit]

No study of God's word is unbiased. We need just to make sure we have the right tools and consult the best sources.

I would tend to agree on the surface. However what one may regard as the "right tools" and the "best sources" is also quite subjective. For example, I really enjpy studying Civil War history. Since I was not there to see these events first hand the only thing I can rely on is the historians who research the facts of that era. These historians then intrepret the evidences that are available to them and draw conclusions based on their understanding of that evidences. The problem of reliability is rooted in the historians ability to gather the right evidence of the period and accurately intrepret the evidence. I think you would agree that sometimes the conclusions of the historian can be quite biased. So, If I am reading a history of the Civil War by some historian, am I reading history? No. I am only reading some historian's interpretation of history.

When we approach scripture, which is the most reliable source of the truth? Is it the historian or the anthropologist or the archeologist or the culturalist, OR is it the language of the text itself? Personally, I want to keep the influences of these tertiary sources to a minimum. When I go into a text, I want my mind to be virgen teritoty.

But, you are certainly right. No study of God's word can ever be completely unbiased. The simple reason is that we are all procducts of a social structure no mater how primative or how advanced. We have all been influenced by our upbringing. Being able to refuse this outside influence is a learned dicipline. I have been doing it for may years and the more I do it the better at I become. But, you are right. This is something we ever completely master, but it is something we can learn to do quite effectively.

 

[ed12]

The purpose of this study is help us develop a reading of the text that will enable better understand the truth that comes from the mind of God. This was Paul's admonition in Col. 1:9-12.

Hi oldhermit,
I agree but as understanding comes then we move to Col1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. The greater the knowledge the greater the works, the more fruit. God does not grow knowledge for knowledge's sake,but for a loving purpose to aid others.
walk in love
ed

 

[rainacorn]

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. I try to avoid needing the Bible to BE something so that it has the opportunity to BECOME something. If I force my personal views of the world onto the text, I am robbing myself of the chance to receive a revelation from the Lord, personally.

Doctrine isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can easily become a crutch. We don't have to wait for a revelation if we can just read about a revelation some other person had and adopt it as our own. Ease of belief can sometimes lead us astray, and these great thinkers and writers have a great talent for forming clear arguments. 'Makes sense to me' is all you need to abandon exploration on your own.

You don't need to be a theologian to love and obey the Lord, but those of us who enjoy peeling back layers and digging into the Word really have to watch ourselves constantly to be sure we haven't suddenly started NEEDING this interpretation or the next to be true.