Which Trumps Which?

[LifeHiscost]

it would seem to me that praying is essential before reading the Bible. And while I think it is good to ask for the Holy Spirit to be *present* when scripture is read, it seems like it would be even better to specifically ask for Spirit-led insight and understanding, for clarification, for ... discernment ... when explicitly STUDYING the scriptures.

Just imho...

That conclusion, even if your humble opinion, is a key to the kingdom. Welcome to the brotherhood, maybe a little late for me to acknowledge.

" I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19 AMP

Blessings!!

[David Koot]

I wish to propose that there are two axioms which are most fundamental to accurate study of the Word. These axioms have to do with the nature of language and communication, and with methodology. I believe that accepting and applying these axioms may cut the Gordian knot. On the other hand, if they are not followed, but rather the 'Holy Spirit' or impressions are relied on instead, then confusion and false doctrine may result.

Here are the axioms:

1) Language is the medium of communication. The denotive meaning of words is the basis for understanding the message communicated.

2) A Biblical teaching should be understood and stand on its own merits.

While these may seem rather basic, from my observation, a number of major doctrinal issues derive from failure to follow them. Those doctrinal issues include the rapture, the second chance, the restoration of literal Israel, universalism, immortality of the soul, eternal torment, Sunday sacredness and others. In each case, either Bible passages are not taken as they read, and/or the understanding/interpretation of certain Bible passages is is made to fit into a doctrinal construct. For example, the belief about the restoration of literal Israel relies upon the belief in eternal security. Thus, the prophecies about the restoration of Israel are understood in light of that construct. The doctrinal construct becomes the ultimate authority, rather than the Bible as it reads.

This is challenging to verbalize. Are these ideas making sense?

[LifeHiscost]

I wish to propose that there are two axioms which are most fundamental to accurate study of the Word. These axioms have to do with the nature of language and communication, and with methodology. I believe that accepting and applying these axioms may cut the Gordian knot. On the other hand, if they are not followed, but rather the 'Holy Spirit' or impressions are relied on instead, then confusion and false doctrine may result.

Here are the axioms:

1) Language is the medium of communication. The denotive meaning of words is the basis for understanding the message communicated.

2) A Biblical teaching should be understood and stand on its own merits.

While these may seem rather basic, from my observation, a number of major doctrinal issues derive from failure to follow them. Those doctrinal issues include the rapture, the second chance, the restoration of literal Israel, universalism, immortality of the soul, eternal torment, Sunday sacredness and others. In each case, either Bible passages are not taken as they read, and/or the understanding/interpretation of certain Bible passages is is made to fit into a doctrinal construct. For example, the belief about the restoration of literal Israel relies upon the belief in eternal security. Thus, the prophecies about the restoration of Israel are understood in light of that construct. The doctrinal construct becomes the ultimate authority, rather than the Bible as it reads.

This is challenging to verbalize. Are these ideas making sense?

I find the major points quite plausible. In one respect I find it falls short of the necessary freedom God wishes to communicate with His children. For one thing it puts God in a box that if accepted would limit all He wishes to give to His servants except that which comes in the box as outlined by this limited presumably tried and tested avenue, therefore limiting anything new that God would desire for His children to learn.

It would seem to me that if the communication one receives is thought to do no violence to the Word (all of the Word), something all false doctrine does, then earnest consideration of its' content for lifestyle change would allow God to use whatever method He chose to meet the individual need.

How many earnest Christians would have chosen, or seen years of slavery as a method of deliverance for an enslaved nation of God's children. Yet that is the method God chose through the person of Joseph.

When we try to put God in our perceived formula, to satisfy the needs of all of His chosen, albeit they see that formula as based upon the Word, we end up denying the very Word we claim to believe.

"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

1 Corinthians 1:25 KJV

"..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"

1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:" Joel 2:28 KJV

Blessings!!

[David Koot]

For one thing it puts God in a box that if accepted would limit all He wishes to give to His servants except that which comes in the box as outlined by this limited presumably tried and tested avenue, therefore limiting anything new that God would desire for His children to learn.

[Clio]

Did someone here do that David? I haven't seen it thus.

[Woody]

When we read the Bible ... ALL we can do is to try to interpret what the words say. If we are impressed after praying about it ... then that is what we go by. You can prove anything from scripture. The Jews knew the Bible and what good did it do them.

So ... I would place more value on what I read and how I feel impressed to believe than I would from what someone TOLD me that scripture says. It MAY say that for THEM. But it does not say that for me. I have to go by how I am impressed. And I would hope that when I share my faith ... that I don't do it as stating fact but as stating my personal conviction. I would never condemn anyones faith. That is there's. I would not criticize it. But, at times I hope it is OK to share MY faith. If others see merit in that view or interpretation then great but it is also OK for them to see and interpret scripture differently than I.

[LifeHiscost]

Absolutely. If someone receives an impression or a message believed to be from God, then the first step, I should think, would be to test it by the Word. The Word is the objective standard by which we would test impressions, ideas and experience. The problem which I was addressing in the post is when someone places those impressions or 'messages' on the same level as the Word, so that the impressions and 'messages' become the basis for understanding the Word.

Except, perhaps, for some of my own misguided attempts to know the mystery of godliness, Dave, I believe we're both on the same page. And when it is realized that the foot of the cross is the level playing field we all need to aspire to before delivering the Bread of Life, there are probably many who are sometimes seduced by false doctrines that for whatever reason, managed to confuse, Jesus has a couple of promises that, when applied to the wanderers life, may hold a great deal of hope.

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34 KJV

"And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." Jeremiah 24:7 KJV

Blessings!!

[LifeHiscost]

I hope it is OK to share MY faith. If others see merit in that view or interpretation then great but it is also OK for them to see and interpret scripture differently than I.

"First you must understand this. The words from the prophets in the holy writings did not come from their own minds." 2 Pet 1:20 Worldwide English

I would be interested in what you believe that to be saying, Redwood, and if you believe what it says.

Regards!!

[Woody]

I am sure that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. But I also believe that not all interpretation is inspired by God.

[David Koot]

Did someone here do that David?

Indeed. Perhaps not by intent, for I certainly wouldn't know someone's intent, but that has been the result in some cases.

[David Koot]

So ... I would place more value on what I read and how I feel impressed to believe than I would from what someone TOLD me that scripture says.

[David Koot]

ALL we can do is to try to interpret what the words say. If we are impressed after praying about it ... then that is what we go by.

[Woody]

David ... I will put my theory to the test.

We seem to disagree. WE are both sincere Christian.

So ... I respect your faith and I would hope you respect my faith. FOR you personally ( and faith is personal ) I believe that you are correct. But, for me and my experience ... I am correct.

No ... there is no truth except what is truth for you personally. Truth for the church keeps changing. So there is no absolute truth that We can understand. WE will know TRUTH ... ONLY when we get to heaven. The truth we KNOW now is only a drop in the bucket. If knowledge and truth was required to get to heaven there would be alot of us that Love the Lord with all of our hearts that are going to HELL. God knows the heart . And it is the Heart that God judges ... not our knowledge.

If I believed otherwise ... I would have to believe that all those legalists in the church when I was growing up are doomed. But ... I do not. I believe that knowledge does not save us. It is the acceptance of Jesus as our Savior that saves us.

So ... David .... It is my PERSONAL belief that you can plug in whatever belief you want ... Sabbath ... eternal torment ... and I would say ... it is OK for that person to believe in whatever they believe because our knowledge will not save us.

I would state that I would HOPE they would be open to a study of the scriptures on any given topic but that is not required for salvation because we as Christian and SDAs are not in agreement in our interpretations of scripture.

Now ... as far as me serving as a Pastor ... yes I did. But, I do not have an MDIV as my wife. So ... I may have lots to learn from those who do like you. But, I have to judge what you say with my interpretation of scripture and my personal experience as inspired by God. This is why I like CA. I can get a variety of opinions and faith experiences. I love and respect each one. And I grow from hearing them. I want to continue to move my faith in different directions not remain static with my narrow view. So ... I benefit from your perspectives. They keep me growing. I may not appear to be changing but I slowly am because of all of you here.

I praise God for each of you. To answer your question David ... NO my opinions are not superior to any others. My interpretations are not 100% from God. But, they are all I have. I have to make the decision for myself after hearing all of your input against what I know of scripture. My decision is not for you. It is ONLY for me.

REDWOOD

[David Koot]

Aha! A neo-existentialist?

[Woody]

You can call me whatever names you want. I will let my words stand. God Bless you David.

REDWOOD

[David Koot]

No name-calling intended. Trying to understand the point of view.

[Tom Wetmore]

... If knowledge and truth was required to get to heaven there would be alot of us that Love the Lord with all of our hearts that are going to HELL. God knows the heart . And it is the Heart that God judges ... not our knowledge...

For this we will all be eternally grateful! Otherwise it would be as I have often said, "By that standard most of us must be too dumb to save." Usually those on that track are too often bent toward perfectionism which drives them to seek perfect knowledge, getting The truth exactly correct, which is a supreme challenge even for the Mensa crowd.

Tom

[Woody]

Thank you for your comment Tom. I was wondering if you could explain to us less educated ... what does Mensa mean?

[Tom Wetmore]

Mensa is a membership organization of people with very high IQ - the top 2% of the population.

Tom

[David Koot]

I have found it! I have found it! The description! Verbalizing it earlier on this thread proved challenging. However, after reviewing recent posts, it has more clearly taken shape, and I believe may be identified and described. The key I found was in the definition of 'existensialism.' Wasn't too impressed with the OED definition. Webster's Unabridged had much more detail. Here it is:

"a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices."

So, two ways to approach the discovery of truth are defined and contrasted. The specific application here is Biblical truth, as opposed to other forms of truth. 'Truth' may have many applications and contexts. There would seem to be a place for subjective truth, which pertains to an individual. HOWEVER, we here are focusing on BIBLE truth. Within the several species of Bible truth, specifically, we are focusing on DOCTRINAL truth in the Bible. That is the narrow focus of this inquiry. What are contrasted, are two ways which have been propounded for discovering DOCTRINAL BIBLE truth.

The Reformation model of discovering Bible truth is EMPIRICAL. In that model, truth transcends the individual student, and is not individual- dependent or observer-dependent as the term is. Truth is the same, regardless of whomever may be seeking it. And, any student, anywhere in the world, may achieve similar results by following similar procedures in doctrinal study of the Word.

The OTHER way of discovering doctrinal Bible truth which has been presented on this thread, is EXISTENTIAL. That is, truth is determined, to an extent, by the observer!!! In this model, truth is relative, and may vary with the student. Thus, AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THIS THREAD, for one student, the Bible teaches eternal torment, whereas for another student, the Bible does not teach eternal torment. Under this approch, EITHER OR BOTH ARE OKAY!!! Does it matter, according to this model, whether or not there is, IN FACT, eternal torment? Evidently not!

Now I see more clearly the reason devotees of this model take offense at the empirical approach. By definition, the existential model places primary importance upon the individual, while the empirical model minimizes the importance of the individual. The existentialists decide and develop their own brand of 'truth,' whereas the Reformation model focuses on discovering objective Bible truth which transcends the individual. Two diametrically-opposed and antagonistic models of finding truth.

Which model is preferable for the last days? Upon reflection, I believe that the existential model is the one which Eve followed in her decision to eat the fruit of the tree. The bottom-line for that model is, 'We can decide for ourselves what truth is.' That, I submit, is directly opposed to the plain teaching of Scripture. In the final test of our faith, when the mark of the beast is applied, the testing truth will be objective--the seventh-day Sabbath. That is larger than the individual, and is true for anyone, anywhere in the world. Are there other applications, apart from doctrinal Bible truth, which would lend themselves to a more existential approach? Something to think about.

Well, that is for starters. I feel pleased to have gotten a more clear picture of the issue.

Dave

[Clio]

That is not the model I follow when coming to an understanding of the Word. I follow the Biblical instructions.

I start each day with prayer, asking for discernment, wisdom, and the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit according to the words of Jesus in John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Then I seek out the compendium of what the Bible has to say on the topic, everywhere in it's pages according to Isaiah 28:9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts. For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little.

And then as understanding grows, I begin to look for the third step in understanding truth. I look for the witnesses. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut. 17:6 and This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. II Corinthians 13:1

This basically eliminates any single text being ultimate proof of anything. Especially something that is not specifically called out in the text. This process means that a single text in Revelation cannot be used to identify the SDA church as "the" remnant church because it doesn't fit with all else that the Bible has to say on the subject.

[Woody]

Thank you Dave ... I found all that very interesting and informative. Now ... Since I am this horrible beast that you call an Existentialist. Let me make a few comments ...

You say the following :

...............................................................

" EXISTENTIAL. That is, truth is determined, to an extent, by the observer!!! In this model, truth is relative, and may vary with the student. Thus, AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THIS THREAD, for one student, the Bible teaches eternal torment, whereas for another student, the Bible does not teach eternal torment. Under this approch, EITHER OR BOTH ARE OKAY!!! Does it matter, according to this model, whether or not there is, IN FACT, eternal torment? Evidently not!"

................................................................

I will still stand by my comments in the following mode ... I believe that we individually have the responsibility to study and to come by our own conclusions. I have to believe as I believe. I can not turn that responsibility over to you dave to be my moral compass. My belief is my belief. It is very personal. All of our beliefs are different and personal.

Someone can believe in eternal torment or Sunday keeping and still have salvation. All I am saying is that our knowledge will not save us. SO ... I accept and love my neighbor as my Christian brother even though he is a Catholic. I happen to believe that he is a better Christian than many SDAs I know. And I fully expect to see him in heaven. I've shared with him my love of the Sabbath and he has tried to start keeping Sunday in the same manner which is a new blessing for him.

Dave ... All the knowledge of the Bible you can imagine will NOT save you. As I have been saying in all the previous posts of mine. I do not take any thing away from the Bible. I study and encourage others to discover the truths ... but let us not become as the Jews. The SDA church has become so focused on study that they miss out on Love. They also just like the Jews ... try exacting more and more traditions and non Biblical demands on their members. It has become a club. And as you know ... unlike the early church ... the only way into this club is by a 51% vote of those attending church that day. And by passing a behavioral test to see if you measure up.

Is there TRUTH ... YES. When will we as a people know the TRUTH ... When Jesus comes. That will be the only time we will have the complete truth.

Should we study to show thyself approved unto GOD ... ? YES.

Should we love and accept those that do not know the "truth" as we do" ? Yes. We should love them and not act or think we are superior because we think we know more of the "Truth".

Dave ... I personally do not like being put into a box or label. That is why I didn't like being called a name. But, it has been a learning process so for that I thank you.

REDWOOD

[Woody]

My Dear Friend Dave ...

Since I must be placed on this earth to "Torment" you ... I will give it another shot.

I need to ask you a question . Do you feel you have the Gospel Truth on the issue of Torment?

Do you believe that sinful beings will escape being tormented?

How many days will they be tormented through burning? How much burning of flesh will a loving God allow? 5 days of burning? Perhaps 10 days? How many do you think Dave?

Do you feel you know the truth about these subjects?

Let me give you a quote from Ellen White to help ...

But before I quote this let me say that His ways are Not OUR ways and we will not always understand His ways.

"" I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed all the sense of suffering remained."" EW 294

So ... Some will burn for a long time. It does not clearly say how long that will be but there will be TORMENT.

REDWOOD

[David Koot]

The SDA church has become so focused on study that they miss out on Love . . . And by passing a behavioral test to see if you measure up.

[David Koot]

there will be TORMENT.

REDWOOD

Without a doubt. The issue I was addressing was the doctrine of 'eternal torment.'