Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A more Biblical Theology.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The hermeneutic principles described above appear to be more preoccupied with drawing distinctions from CT and defining the role of the Ten Commandments than it is with "grammatical/historical/theological" contextual exegesis. You're also defining a hermeneutic based on a presupposed importance of one doctrine (imputation as declared in the third paragraph). In that sense, I disagree that this is a "back to the Bible" system (which all claim to be, btw). A grammatical/historical hermeneutic begins with how to read and interpret the Bible generally and specifically apart from doctrinal assumptions and seeks to take principles of the Scripture being interpreted in order to form a systematic theology. In fact, this hermeneutic as been around for a while is called the historical-grammatical method (often referred to as literal interpretation), of which DT was produced out of and what .

What you're describing here as NCT appears to be a reverse application of that method which defines a theology and then applies that as a lens to the method. In essence, it is a circular system because it defines a theology and then uses interpretive methods to support and expand that theology. I think it ultimately fails because it begins with a high-level theological presupposition that itself needs more basic definition and is itself an interpretive choice.

When talking about a "back to the Bible" system, I believe you have to actually start with nothing but Bible to define terms, identify boundaries, and set orders of precedence; and I don't think what is described above fits the description. That's my honest assessment anyway.

​Hi

I don't know about the hermeneutic principles used, or how you conclude so much from a short statement, but I see that the Doctrine is more in line with what I see in the Bible, I don't see any major flaws unlike. CT and DT while both these systems have some good doctrine within they both also have major and obvious errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Hello 'The Sword'

I more or less agree with what you said there, I understood you more there than your first post, the 100 students was an exaggeration on my part, it is more likely they might come up with two or three theology systems, and many minor variations.

I do believe that Ambiguity is built into the Bible Deliberately By the Spirit of God.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

I think this verse might be indicating that heresies etc are part of Gods way of yielding his rod and staff, but he doesn’t hit the sheep apart, in the reality we read/hear the words and the manner in which we understand them will determine which field we will ultimately end up in. I think in certain points of scripture the well balanced ambiguity is like looking straight on the edge of the sword which is able to discern the thoughts and motives and to separate the bone from marrow and the soul from the spirit, and the sheep from the goats.

What I don’t mean when I talk about the ambiguity is the result of when men wrest the scriptures and come up with gross errors which are designed by the destroyer to destroy the Church and nullify the power of God.

​Please feel free to call me Matt.

This is where I think where you can get into a lot of interpretive trouble, and where I think the major portion of our disagreement lies. I think you're bringing in an assumption based on people's inability to arrive at identical interpretations and applying to 1 Cor 11:19 out of context. If you take into account the verses before and after you should that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for all of the divisions among them and this is more of a hyperbolic statement of the obvious than it is a statement of fact. Verse 17 is the beginning the of thought/phrase in which Paul states that their gathering together is doing them more harm than good and then verses 18-19 give two explicit reasons for making such a statement. Verse 18 cites the divisions and verse 19 gets more specific and essentially says "with all of this going on, there must be heresies among you as well" (my paraphrase). The "must needs be" in verse 19 is not an imperative, but rather a statement of fact. When considered in light of the whole epistle, which is to answer certain questions and rebuke/correct the Corinthian church, it does not logically follow that Paul would be talking about God-ordained heresies and divisions. Finally, if you consider later in the same letter in 1 Cor 14:33 which says that God is not the author of confusion compounded with the numerous verses saying that Satan is a liar and a deceiver who tries to corrupt sound doctrine, I don't think there's any way you can come to the conclusion that there is any ambiguity to Scripture other than what we each bring to the interpretive table.

​Hi

I don't know about the hermeneutic principles used, or how you conclude so much from a short statement, but I see that the Doctrine is more in line with what I see in the Bible, I don't see any major flaws unlike. CT and DT while both these systems have some good doctrine within they both also have major and obvious errors.

​I was referring to the various statements you listed  in describing NCT in the opening thread. I'll have to go back and look to be specific, but the ones that identify an interpretive framework/lens are the hermeneutical principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Please feel free to call me Matt.

This is where I think where you can get into a lot of interpretive trouble, and where I think the major portion of our disagreement lies. I think you're bringing in an assumption based on people's inability to arrive at identical interpretations and applying to 1 Cor 11:19 out of context. If you take into account the verses before and after you should that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for all of the divisions among them and this is more of a hyperbolic statement of the obvious than it is a statement of fact. Verse 17 is the beginning the of thought/phrase in which Paul states that their gathering together is doing them more harm than good and then verses 18-19 give two explicit reasons for making such a statement. Verse 18 cites the divisions and verse 19 gets more specific and essentially says "with all of this going on, there must be heresies among you as well" (my paraphrase). The "must needs be" in verse 19 is not an imperative, but rather a statement of fact. When considered in light of the whole epistle, which is to answer certain questions and rebuke/correct the Corinthian church, it does not logically follow that Paul would be talking about God-ordained heresies and divisions. Finally, if you consider later in the same letter in 1 Cor 14:33 which says that God is not the author of confusion compounded with the numerous verses saying that Satan is a liar and a deceiver who tries to corrupt sound doctrine, I don't think there's any way you can come to the conclusion that there is any ambiguity to Scripture other than what we each bring to the interpretive table.

​I was referring to the various statements you listed  in describing NCT in the opening thread. I'll have to go back and look to be specific, but the ones that identify an interpretive framework/lens are the hermeneutical principals.

​Hello Matt, the verse in Corinthians is a debatable one, and not the one I am basing my point on, but rather I used it as a possible supporter of what I am saying. sticking with 1Co 11:19 you said >>>verse 19 gets more specific and essentially says "with all of this going on, there must be heresies among you as well" (my paraphrase)<<< how would you interpret the second part of the verse? 1Co 11:19b ...that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.'

Surly if he so desired God could have created a language in which every word and every sentence could only mean one thing, and could not be misunderstood (as may s happen the the bema seat) 

I believe all the words of God are perfect, but God has created us and them in such a way that they 'Appear' to us with ambiguity, [the meaning is unclear to us] and as we are told in the Bible the flaw is with us, and that  ambiguity is by design, or at least it is the way it is found by us, so it would be wrong for 'translators' to remove the uncertainties in the originals if they are able to leave the uncertainties in the English, as it would seem the translators of the AV did (they left them in).

Concerning Satan the deceiver and the doctrines of devils and those who wrest the scripture, God uses them also, and causes all things to work together for the good of those who are called according to his purpose. Here is a few verse about God using the wicked and men of the world. They have no power only what is granted from above...

Ps 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
Ps 17:14 From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.

Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, ... For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As Billy Sunday used to say, I don't know any more about theology than a jackrabbit, but I know the Bible. Maybe we should just read the Bible, consider the contexts, and believe what it says, rather than putting together often confusing exegetical and hermeneutical samoflanges? We try so hard to make everything nice and simple and end up overcomplicating it all. We can have 20 different scholars interpreting prophecy, and have 20 different ideas of what it all means. Let's read and consider what applies, look at fulfilled prophecy and let it edify us., and be prepared for what the Lord does next as best we can. I know I have a different position on the rapture than most here, but I also know that I am a man and the Lord will do as He pleases. Thus, while I will discuss it, if someone desires, I don't want to fight-it doesn't matter that much. Let God be God and fulfill as he will. And so also with everything else. The Bible isn't rocket surgery-its God's word for man-thus we don't all have to be, or follow, scholars and masters of hermeneutics, or hermanmunsters, or whatever. Just read it, study it, pray over it, attend to the assembly and believe what it says.  

​I agree, but I used to wonder how Christians were coming out with so many strange beliefs,  and trying to talk to them was like trying to talk to your nabour through a hedge full of sparrows, I eventually found out it was because they study theology. So a better theology  has got to be a good thing. NCT is a Baptist one, it is similar to Baptists before they joined up with the reformed theology, or so I read, I know it isn't NEW to me in the most part, it just sounds allot more like what the Bible says, than the other two popular theologies. As you can see [above] I have been threatened by Salyn for mentioning it, and she called me a Calvinist, which I'm not. But I see Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology being debated here all the time, so what did I do, risk ending the debate by introducing a more Biblical theology for consideration? I know what the Boreans did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Salyan,

Yea and Amen! Thank you very much for your acute observation and biblical stand.

​Alan, So you don't need to scroll up to see what you just Amend>>>why do you Calvinists insist on interpreting the Bible through the lens of men's teachings? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.) IMO, Reformed theology twists the Scriptures and blasphemes the very character of God. Stop pushing it, Pilgrim.  

I am not a Calvinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok so I've been reading a little more (And no thanks to some of the contributors in this thread I have discovered) unfortunately this seem to be promoted by people who still hold to Monergism. which would seem to be a daughter of Determinism.

Still they have been picking out some good points and if the truth can't be gotten where the truth should dwell, then it will be gotten in the house of the hieratic.

So I gather then that non reformed true Baptists don't have a unifying theology? or am I wrong again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello Dave, I do, but isn't theology really just a word for 'teachings'. The problem with just reading the bible is that it takes about a life time to understand it, and what is the purpose of teachers if not to help others navigate scripture.  So what would be inherently wrong with a Biblical Theology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Hello Matt, the verse in Corinthians is a debatable one, and not the one I am basing my point on, but rather I used it as a possible supporter of what I am saying. sticking with 1Co 11:19 you said >>>verse 19 gets more specific and essentially says "with all of this going on, there must be heresies among you as well" (my paraphrase)<<< how would you interpret the second part of the verse? 1Co 11:19b ...that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.'

Surly if he so desired God could have created a language in which every word and every sentence could only mean one thing, and could not be misunderstood (as may s happen the the bema seat) 

I believe all the words of God are perfect, but God has created us and them in such a way that they 'Appear' to us with ambiguity, [the meaning is unclear to us] and as we are told in the Bible the flaw is with us, and that  ambiguity is by design, or at least it is the way it is found by us, so it would be wrong for 'translators' to remove the uncertainties in the originals if they are able to leave the uncertainties in the English, as it would seem the translators of the AV did (they left them in).

Concerning Satan the deceiver and the doctrines of devils and those who wrest the scripture, God uses them also, and causes all things to work together for the good of those who are called according to his purpose. Here is a few verse about God using the wicked and men of the world. They have no power only what is granted from above...

Ps 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
Ps 17:14 From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.

Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, ... For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation........

​I see what you're saying, but I don't think you come to the conclusion that God intentionally obfuscates His truths in light of the 1 Cor 14:33 passage. In examining Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve had no trouble communicating with God before the Fall and no prophet had any trouble understanding God's call and instructions. I think the only viable conclusion is that the ambiguity and trouble understanding is a result of sin and not design. If God created us to have fellowship with Him, and He deemed us the crowning achievement of His "very good" creation (Gen 1), it does not follow that He would create us with an inherent inability to understand Him when He communicates with/to us.

Regarding your follow-up question on 1 Cor 11:19b, it's a statement of causal effect and not of purpose. Truly, the conjunction "that" can convey either result or purpose depending on the context. Therefore, the understanding of 11:19a determines the meaning of 11:19b. That sounds like stating the obvious, but if your interpretation of 11:19a is correct then it makes sense as a statement of purpose, but if I'm correct it makes better sense as a statement of effect. On that, I maintain my previously statement position and assert the second half of the verse states that the ones who have been tested and approved will rise to the top while those in error will not.

Regarding your final point on God using wicked men and even Satan, that's true and accurate. However, that's a different assertion than saying God intentionally introduces error and misunderstanding. Capitalizing on someone's sin, error, or otherwise ungodly behavior to move a believer to a better understanding of Him is not the same deliberately inserting the same for a purpose. You would have to then maintain that God creates and authorizes sin and confusion, which would go against His holy nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​I see what you're saying, but I don't think you come to the conclusion that God intentionally obfuscates His truths in light of the 1 Cor 14:33 passage. In examining Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve had no trouble communicating with God before the Fall and no prophet had any trouble understanding God's call and instructions. I think the only viable conclusion is that the ambiguity and trouble understanding is a result of sin and not design. If God created us to have fellowship with Him, and He deemed us the crowning achievement of His "very good" creation (Gen 1), it does not follow that He would create us with an inherent inability to understand Him when He communicates with/to us.

Regarding your follow-up question on 1 Cor 11:19b, it's a statement of causal effect and not of purpose. Truly, the conjunction "that" can convey either result or purpose depending on the context. Therefore, the understanding of 11:19a determines the meaning of 11:19b. That sounds like stating the obvious, but if your interpretation of 11:19a is correct then it makes sense as a statement of purpose, but if I'm correct it makes better sense as a statement of effect. On that, I maintain my previously statement position and assert the second half of the verse states that the ones who have been tested and approved will rise to the top while those in error will not.

Hello Matt
If there are other parts of the Bible which teach similarly to what my understanding of 1Cor 11:19 is then it could mean that the way I am looking at it is right, here are a few…

De 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Jer 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
Mr 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive
:

God willing, I will get back to the rest of your statement later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello MattIf there are other parts of the Bible which teach similarly to what my understanding of 1Cor 11:19 is then it could mean that the way I am looking at it is right, here are a few…

De 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Jer 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
Mr 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive
:

God willing, I will get back to the rest of your statement later.

 

​I'm glad you brought those up, because it's an important point that validates what I'm saying. Every one of the passages you're citing is a rebuke on people who have been willfully ignoring what God had to say. Deu 29:4 is referring to all the senseless disobedience during the wilderness years, Jer 5:21 is a typical prophetic passage rebuking the people for self-imposed ignorance, and all of the Gospel passages talk about Jesus speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in parables after they had consciously chosen to ignore the plain truth validated by miracles. Essentially what we see is God coming to a point with His disobedient children ignoring Him that He turns around and says, ok, now it's My turn. What you don't see is obfuscation and ambiguity before sin and disobedience. If that were the case, you would have to believe that God chooses who can and cannot understand His message and using that as the mechanism of Calvinist-style election.

The bottom line is that if everyone has access to salvation if they so choose to believe, then everyone must have the ability to understand the truth which cannot be a controlled-access item. Further, if we're told that the Scriptures are divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:15-17) and to make sure that we're correctly understanding them (1 Tim 2:15), then there is a right and wrong way to understand what God has said and we are accountable for that. If there is purposeful obfuscation of the truth by God, He cannot hold us accountable for knowing the truth and still be a good and just God. I would be like me showing you a box, asking you what's inside, and then punishing you for guessing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

>>>What you don't see is obfuscation and ambiguity before sin and disobedience. If that were the case, you would have to believe that God chooses who can and cannot understand His message and using that as the mechanism of Calvinist-style election.<<<<

​Hello Matt

This is getting to the heart of the matter, before I start rambling about my views on this topic which might be the same as yours, in the light of Scripture, could I ask you, how do you think that one of the elect becomes one of the elect?

1Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I discovered something in the scripture about Election  and the Gospel call recently, it makes the truth even more difficult to explain in a clear and biblical manner, but I guess it isn't a new discovery, but just something I haven't heard about before, gong by my recent track record on here my recent discoveries won't have allot of credit, but I will post some of it here soon though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[I am NOT talking about works salvation]

I don't think everybody can simply 'believe' and be saved, for example, I think it is a gift that has to be granted. (I also know that for the first 20 odd years you could not have convinced me that there was a God or a spirit of any kind)

Lu 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance [ie a change of mind based on being granted sight-born again], and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Lu 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Lu 3:10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
Lu 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Lu 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Lu 3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
Lu 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

There is allot of confusion about the word repentance, so I will point out that the Greek word means a change of mind/heart,

So in this context Repentence = God given Sight

so the gift of 'sight' or 'faith' or 'election' is given to those who bring forth fruit, like fruit unto election.

Scriptural criteria for Gods Election

I used to believe there was a water tight case for UNCONDITIONAL election in the Gospel of John alone, but as usual there was a flaw in my perfect understanding.

Concerning the topic of unconditional Election the first chink of light appeared while reading over what I considered to be a ‘proof text’,  1Pe 1:2, ‘Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.’, I had already realised that foreknowledge and predestination were two distinct things, but being ‘elect… through sanctification’?, Scripture teaches that Sanctification is a process which involves God acting and man responding, it starts that way and continues that way. Here are a few scriptures on sanctification;
[sanctification of the Spirit: this is a separating work of the Spirit, the goal is that God might  separate a people unto Himself, like a sheapherd would use a rod and staff to separate sheep into a pen]

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Ro 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

These are two new covenant verses which clearly show mans part in sanctification, they both concern the Christian purging himself of carnality so he can be a vessel unto honour, notice they both have the word  ‘if’  in them, this is a real if.

I used to read this sort of scripture something along the line of ‘if  God has ordained you to live after the flesh… etc. But these verses show clearly that it is the Christian which has to purge himself but also that he must do it through the Spirit. So by the sanctifying work of the Spirit the Christian has to purify himself 2Ti2:21 Rom 8:13 to keep it simple I’ll call this new testament sanctification, but being ‘elect… through sanctification’, this is the sanctifying work of the spirit before Salvation.

I think that the whole TULIP theology including Unconditional Election is a workable theory, but the question isn’t ‘is it workable’, but does it agree with scripture, all scripture? I also think the Armenian theology makes sense and could work, But so could the basic New Age theory work, where man evolves back to being God, there are many workable theologies and philosophies but do they agree with Scripture?

As a layman who has been reading, studying and failing miserably to follow scripture for over twenty years now, I know that it is so very easy to believe in a wrong building block of theology and let it blind your mind over and over again to the plain truth of the scripture which you are reading

So does the sanctifying work of the spirit start before salvation? And is it instrumental in election, or in other words, does our response to Gods holy spirit have anything to do with Gods electing us? yes and yes before I never noticed most of the verses on this due to my fatalistic flaw which I unwittingly held to, Some Scripture then about Mans part & some about sanctification unto election;

Ps 34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.

blessed are the pure of heart

blessed are the meek

2Ki 22:19 Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the LORD, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, …I also have heard thee, saith the LORD.

Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Joh 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him  …It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

So those who pre salvation [under the law] learn, when taught get light and become of the Elect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...