The Bible Only?

[Genevanpreacher]

I quoted what you actually said...which makes you a false accuser....if we are playing that game.

The truth is, you don't believe that the Holy Spirit , and the written word are enough.
You may not have realized that, before, iron sharpens iron, and it may be painful, but it is what you said, and I addressed your direct quote.

Anishinaabe

 

Is DaveW talkin' bout us?

Hmm. What could be so wrong in just God's word and our mind to receive his instructions?

Wow!

And filthiness? Where'd he get that notion?

[DaveW]

I quoted what you actually said...which makes you a false accuser....if we are playing that game.

The truth is, you don't believe that the Holy Spirit , and the written word are enough.
You may not have realized that, before, iron sharpens iron, and it may be painful, but it is what you said, and I addressed your direct quote.

Anishinaabe

You had better go and change your post to include a quote from me then - it appears to me that GP is the who quoted me - or are you admitting to something here?

[Genevanpreacher]

A slightly different aspect which has spoken around but not directly addressed.

There are those here who seem to be bold in proclaiming that they ONLY use the Bible to study.

That is fine, and it should be our primary source.
And any other material used should be carefully considered in many aspects, of course.

But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY, but can bring a depth and richness to understanding what the Scriptures say.

 

Well, here it is. Just in case you forgot what started it all.

Anyone can compare what you asked, and what we stated. They know by now what you have said and what we have said.

I say, it was a good question, by you, to start a reason to respond to why we believe God can supply all we need to know.

My question is, have you read the bible through?

Roughly how many times?

Do you find it boring or something, that you would feel the need to get other peoples 'opinions' on what something means in the scriptures?

I am not talking about sharing knowledge, I am talking about 'seeing' into the scriptures things that are 'opinions' only and not facts of and from the scriptures.

If you 'study' outside sources other than the bible to clarify the bible that's your right.

But what sense does that make to tell people they can't experience 'truly' what the scriptures are saying and teaching without aids?

I love God's word, and I find it, alone, is RICH in it's own facts, and I love it that God chose the bible, at the right size, to last for my whole life, and the church's whole life.

Why do we need more than what God gave us?

[DaveW]

Well, here it is. Just in case you forgot what started it all.
Anyone can compare what you asked, and what we stated. They know by now what you have said and what we have said.
I say, it was a good question, by you, to start a reason to respond to why we believe God can supply all we need to know.
My question is, have you read the bible through?
Roughly how many times?
Do you find it boring or something, that you would feel the need to get other peoples 'opinions' on what something means in the scriptures?
I am not talking about sharing knowledge, I am talking about 'seeing' into the scriptures things that are 'opinions' only and not facts of and from the scriptures.
If you 'study' outside sources other than the bible to clarify the bible that's your right.
But what sense does that make to tell people they can't experience 'truly' what the scriptures are saying and teaching without aids?
I love God's word, and I find it, alone, is RICH in it's own facts, and I love it that God chose the bible, at the right size, to last for my whole life, and the church's whole life.
Why do we need more than what God gave us?

And that is simply not true.

You understand God's Word in the light of outside information and influence EVERY TIME YOU READ IT.

And that is my point, which is plainly clear.

Show me a definition of snow for instance. You understand what the Bible means by "White as snow" not because the Bible itself explains it, but because the Bible assumes you know what snow looks like. How? From other sources.

Now if you want to continue to misrepresent what I say, then go right ahead, but if you do you will be a liar.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

If Genevan truly believed that one does not need anything but the Scripture, he would not be posting anything but Scripture.

Funny how he makes comments about the Word of God, but is against reading others written commentaries, eh? LOL

[prophet1]

A slightly different aspect which has spoken around but not directly addressed.

There are those here who seem to be bold in proclaiming that they ONLY use the Bible to study.

That is fine, and it should be our primary source.
And any other material used should be carefully considered in many aspects, of course.

But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY, but can bring a depth and richness to understanding what the Scriptures say.

And that is simply not true.

You understand God's Word in the light of outside information and influence EVERY TIME YOU READ IT.

And that is my point, which is plainly clear.

Show me a definition of snow for instance. You understand what the Bible means by "White as snow" not because the Bible itself explains it, but because the Bible assumes you know what snow looks like. How? From other sources.

Now if you want to continue to misrepresent what I say, then go right ahead, but if you do you will be a liar.

"Material" is now to be considered synonymous with 'OBserving nature'?

" But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information."

You wanna try again?

Your OP was about Commentaries, and such like, and we all know it.
Why lie?
Why not own up to the fact that Scripture really is all we need, that it has a built in teacher to God's children?

I see no need in pretending, mid-stream, that you were referring to OBservations of nature, rather than the words and teachings of other men, and specifically, their exposition of Scripture.

Care to back track, or will you carry on the charade?

Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

[prophet1]

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie. It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries. I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me. You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so. Enjoy your continued deceit.

If you are now saying, that by "material", you meant exactly "not written study guides such as commentaries, lexicons, Bible Dictionaries, et al", but rather "the sum of one's personal OBservations", then the post I made wouldn't apply to you, and should not upset you. I don't mind if you don't fit this description, we have all met people who do, and the principle is the point. I'm glad that you don't count yourself in the number of people who have to hang whatever they believe on another man's interpretation of it. Anishinaabe

[Covenanter]

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

[candlelight]

 

Have you actually read what I have written, particularly what you have quoted?

 

Your repeated attacks on me are based on your own prejdices, NOT on what I write. You rarely quote relevant Scripture in your attacks, but accuse me of RCC teaching. Do YOU believe RCC teaching, such as the "Apostles' Creed" ? Not that the "AC" originated with Rome, any more than "partial preterism." Both originated with Scripture.

 

Ian, I will reply to you privately.  I think that is the best way to handle it.

[TheSword]

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

[prophet1]

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

[TheSword]

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

 

Not sure what you're getting at, but Pass.

[Genevanpreacher]

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

 

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

[ThePilgrim]

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry