Comment On Current Debate

[1Timothy115]

Yes. but little plough boys, as well as shepherds, fishermen & tax collectors have been equipped by the Holy Spirit to become apostles, prophets, evangelists; pastors and teachers. 

1 Cor. 1:²⁶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
²⁸ And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
²⁹ That no flesh should glory in his presence.

​Eph 4:11 "...and some, pastors and teachers;"

" 1 Corinthians 12:28   And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 
  1 Corinthians 12:29   Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? areall workers of miracles? 
  1 Corinthians 12:30   Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? "    

[Covenanter]

How about 

Matthew 16:18-19 
"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We need grammar applied to scripture, otherwise we all would need to rely on a pope. 

Ian:  Grammar alone cannot give an interpretation of that passage. Nor can dictionary definitions. Nor the dictates of a pope. Every individual word is readily understood, but none of the clauses after "Thou art Peter" can be properly understood by grammatical analysis. Spiritual understanding is absolutely necessary, aided by cross references to Acts & the epistles.  

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by Covenanter
Formatting failed - the new system doesn't work properly. @BroMatt

[DaveW]

How about 

Matthew 16:18-19 
"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We need grammar applied to scripture, otherwise we all would need to rely on a pope. 

Ian:  Grammar alone cannot give an interpretation of that passage. Nor can dictionary definitions. Nor the dictates of a pope. Every individual word is readily understood, but none of the clauses after "Thou art Peter" can be properly understood by grammatical analysis. Spiritual understanding is absolutely necessary, aided by cross references to Acts & the epistles.  

 

Ummmmm - actually, if you include the complete relevant passage the grammar works perfectly.

Partial quotes, misquotes, and missapplication of quotes - such as forcing Tyndale's words the way you have above - confuses the subject rather than clarifying it.

Doesn't matter how you twist it, grammar is essential to understanding written language.

[wretched]

The Spirit will never change the meaning of English grammatic context to match a reader's inability to comprehend. God has appointed teachers, preachers to instruct those who cannot.

The Spirit will never change a "yes" to a "no" or a "have" to a "have not" just because we want Him to match a preconceived notion we have bought into. This is the true meaning of "private interpretation". Understand it as it is written or seek the counsel of those that can. Nowhere does God say He will teach us how to read.

Do not run off with notions invented by those who should have sought a teacher but insisted in the flesh to be someone who understands "differently"

Seems every tom, dick and harry wants to pronounce themselves as teachers and prophets and preachers when they have no business doing so. Chief of the boat hit the nails on every head in his last post. VERY few are given by God as Pastors, prophets or teachers.

If you can't figure out what it says yourself, why on earth would you think God wants you to teach it?

Edited April 29, 2015 by wretched

[MountainChristian]

 

​So - what hope is there for the ordinary reader - like Tyndale's plough boy - to understand what he is reading? I seek to teach what the Scriptures actually say.

 

 

I would like to disagree, respectfully. 

​1st off a plow boy isn't a highly educated Scientist. You have written papers that was published. Plow boys do not have scientific papers published. Can someone write published works and not know anything about verbs and nouns? I think you can match Pastor Scott brain cell for brain cell. Scientists are known for being smart.

2nd a plow boy knows that "thy people" mean thy people. He knows the angel is talking to Daniel about his people. He doesn't try to go back and include the gentiles when Abram was a gentile. Secondly when caught a plow boy doesn't try to Include all of Abraham's descendants. 

3rd, the debate isn't over. If you want to prove your points you can in the debate. There isn't 10 voices against you in there, only one. That will make it easier for you to prove your doctrine. 

You requested the debate many times before Brother Matt could get the forum ready. Now that verse 24 didn't go well, you can rebound with the following verses. I look forward to Scott's reply and where you two will go from there. 

You are a teacher at your church and Scott is pastor at his church, those of us listening are plow boys. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by MountainChristian

[1Timothy115]

Ummmmm - actually, if you include the complete relevant passage the grammar works perfectly.

Partial quotes, misquotes, and missapplication of quotes - such as forcing Tyndale's words the way you have above - confuses the subject rather than clarifying it.

Doesn't matter how you twist it, grammar is essential to understanding written language.

​I completed a study on this passage several years back, albeit to refute a Roman Church member's argument. Understanding came from three sources. 1. The Holy Spirit 2. Training from an IFB course I attended 3. Looking through spiritual, trained, eyes at the grammatical construction. If not for all the above I would have had to acquiesce to the pope's interpretation. I would not have understood the entire discourse was concerning Jesus Christ and HIS Church alone. 

 

A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma.rtf

Edited April 29, 2015 by 1Timothy115

[HappyChristian]

Let's all admit this: God is the Creator of all, correct?  He created language. AND He created ORDER.  Language is orderly. Linguists know this: every language has a certain pattern. Not all languages use the same pattern, BUT they do all use the same parts of speech. And ALL of the statements in that particular language follow that same pattern - whether it is an understood part of speech or specific (as the understood subject in English, such as: Go to the store. The understood subject is "you.")

God is also NOT the author of confusion. Were languages not to follow the proper order in which they are constructed, no one would understand what was being said. Because they do follow the order which God set, language is understandable to the language user.

God knew all this, and there is no mistake in the grammar of scripture. The Holy Spirit certainly can and does make things clear to people. And oftentimes He uses people to do so.

I honestly think the argument against grammar is ridiculous. Because without grammar we have no language, just a bunch of gobbledy-gook words.

[Covenanter]

Who is arguing against grammar?

[1Timothy115]

gobbledy-gook 

​I sure do like it when people use this adjective

Although in some cases its a noun

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by 1Timothy115

[ThePilgrim]

​I sure do like it when people use this adjective

Although in some cases its a noun

 

​No matter how I look at it, it is what it is.

[Genevanpreacher]

It's not an argument against grammar, but an argument of the use of grammar to prove a 'view' that is disregarding history.

The things Daniel got explained to him were easily shown in the time of history after the book of Daniel through till Christ came, but nobody wants to observe that because it doesn't follow 'commonly modern day thought on prophecy'.

Nehemiah and Ezra are good books to read after Daniel, [as well as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.] because they show God releasing the Jewish line of Israelites back home to Jerusalem and actually living there again, & looking for the coming of the Messiah. Put that with the explanation to Daniel in chapter 9 and it makes more sense why a few of us here think the way we think about what the words 'say' in the plain reading to the 24-27 verses of Daniel 9. And the rest is fulfilled in the Gospels with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with the 70AD destruction following. (we could touch on the Apocryphal history also but that would be way out of the mainstream modern thoughtline, that most here would cast aside without even considering it.)

If you are gonna use a bunch of 'grammatical' explanations to show something that isn't fulfilled in history, it's not prophecy.

*Added more in green.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Genevanpreacher
To add 3 more books on the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.

[DaveW]

So now we are not arguing against grammar Itself, just in this instance?

This just gets better and better....

 

Grammar can not be invalidated because it doesn't agree with your understanding.

 

Either the grammar is right or it is wrong - where is his grammatical explanation wrong?

Because it is either his explanation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong?

If the Bible is right, AND his explanation is right, then your ideas don't  fit with the Bible.

So show where his grammar is wrong. 

You can't have it both ways - the grammar of the passage CANNOT be at odds with the truth of the passage. 

 

 

[Covenanter]

So now we are not arguing against grammar Itself, just in this instance?

This just gets better and better....

 

Grammar can not be invalidated because it doesn't agree with your understanding.

 

Either the grammar is right or it is wrong - where is his grammatical explanation wrong?

Because it is either his explanation is wrong, or the Bible is wrong?

If the Bible is right, AND his explanation is right, then your ideas don't  fit with the Bible.

So show where his grammar is wrong. 

You can't have it both ways - the grammar of the passage CANNOT be at odds with the truth of the passage. 

 

 

​Read my posts in the debate, with an open Bible to look up the cross refs, & an open mind to consider what I am saying may be Scriptural truth, even if I disagree with what has been accepted by fundamentalists for the last 14 "wks."

[DaveW]

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

There simply is NO ROOM for his analysis to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect.

The Bible passages you refer to either do not apply in the way you suggest, or they do not conflict with the grammar in the way you suggest.

We all agree that the passage say what it says, but the grammar is essential in understanding.

The cross references will not nullify the grammar, but will agree with it.

 

Note: I am not saying his overall conclusions are correct, but those which stem directly from the passage analysed.

[Covenanter]

DaveW,

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

²⁴ Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That statement declares that the 7-fold purposes determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city will be finished in 70x7 years. (We all agree that 70 weeks means 490 years.)

We also agree that Jesus' saving ministry, death, resurrection & ascension are the basis for the fulfilment of the prophecy. Also that the 69th week takes us to the baptism & Holy Spirit anointing of the Lord Jesus. 

Simple grammar then adds the 70th week - of 7 years - from the date of Jesus' baptism to completion of the prophecy. That takes us to about 3 1/2 years after Calvary. 

The disagreement has NOTHING to do with grammar, but EVERYTHING to do with imposed doctrine. 

I believe that the predictions of v. 24 should (grammatically) be expected in the 70 weeks, & the new covenant writers make that very clear. The status of believers in Christ is everlasting righteousness by faith in Christ. See 1 John 3:1-10  & Acts 3:22-26 . Actual sins do not affect that status - we are in effect stumbling along the way in our walk in the Holy Spirit with our Saviour. Isaiah 53:1-12 predicts our Lord's saving work in similar terms to Dan. 9:24

Dispensational doctrine demands a future for national Israel after Jesus returns - post trib, & premil, so denies that the Gospel fulfilment recorded in Acts is the fulfilment of the prophecy. It therefore separates the 70th week from the 69, & sees the promises fulfilled in a future dispensation. That is NOT a grammar argument. However, I see no good logical, Scriptural or grammatical reason why dispensationalists should not agree with me on the completion of the prophecy in the 490 years. (Apart from the prophesied destruction of AD 70 where God graciously allowed 40 years for repentance.)