Sin Nature: Fact or Fiction?

On February 19, 2013 I posted this status: 

"It is arrogant of us to think we don't need to repent/confess our sin to God every day."

I thought I was long done with online debates. But this status led another brother to respond, and before you knew it the debate was on. Now this debate was short compared to some of my other online debates. Also, it was a civil dialogue and I believe truth was revealed. That's why I am choosing to post this, because so many believers hear so many things that sound right but are biblically and historically inaccurate. It's hard and dangerous for believers. With access to all kinds of information, knowledge appears easier to grasp but so is confusion and distortion. So many believers are without sound biblical knowledge. Even with all this access to information, many believers still lack in sound doctrine/theology and properly interpreting Scripture. Sin has placed a veneer over our eyes from sound biblical teaching. The end times are truly upon us. Holy Spirit we need your help. Please guide us into Your truth and not our own. Give us discernment for falsehood, a desire for Your truth, and the grace and wisdom to know the difference!

This brother, whose name I purposely left out, believes that we can live without sinning here on earth. He rejected the biblical doctrine of our sinful nature. I hope my responses to him will help educate some others about this very thing as well.

__________
His response to my status -- "I disagree. The devil couldn't do worse than sin everyday. Jesus said "Go and sin no more." We may sin again, but it shouldn't be everyday -otherwise we haven't really repented."

Me -- "I can understand why u or another would think that. But let's look at one area, do u honor/revere/esteem God perfectly in your thoughts everyday? Since no one can answer this one question with yes, therefore we fall short of the glory of God and it is arrogant of us to not express that shortcoming to God. Let's not forget that sin is not secluded to that which is manifested in the physical, but also our thoughts and emotions.

My status was not to incur any negative reactions, but rather humble introspection of our utter dependency and submission unto Jesus and confrontation of our pride."

Him -- "Chris, as of yet I'm not, but that gives me no excuse according to Matthew 22:37. I don't think Jesus was joking when He said that in that passage. And how do you know no one can answer the question with "yes"? You have to be omniscient to know that.

No negativity here, just being real with what the Word says bro."

Me -- "I never said nor does my status imply that we have an excuse to sin bcuz we're sinners. Sanctification ensures us that over time we will continue to look more like Christ and better manage our sinful nature. Thus, we have no excuse to not confess our sins. Apostle John, writing to believers, said that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us and we call God a liar, and in confessing our sin Jesus is faithful & just to purify us (1Jn. 1:8-10).

And no I'm not all-knowing, but the Word says no one could answer yes (Eccl. 7:20, Prov. 20:9)."

Him -- "faithful and just to purify us...from all unrighteousness (gotta add that part in there when referencing that passage, its important)." And what about the next verses in 1Jn. 2:1-6? And all of 1Jn. Chapter 3?

Eccl 7:20 is comparable to Rom. 3:23, both of which reference sin in the past tense (which I agree, hence all need Jesus because all sinned). Why else would Solomon end it like in he did in 12:13-14? Regarding Prov. 20:9, only the blood of Jesus can clean our heart and purify us, not ourselves -so that passage makes sense.

Chris, what God has shown me recently is that its not a sin to obey Him. In fact, He requires it! Salvation is conditional upon ones repentance, faith, and walking in obedience until the very end. The "sinful nature" (which I discovered to be invented, coming from gnosticism) only gives people an excuse why they can't fully obey Him with a pure heart as He demands. I won't be offended if you don't believe me, but I would encourage you to check this out when you have the time (and others as well):
http://openairoutreach.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/did-augustine-corrupt-the-church-with-gnostic-doctrine/

Be blessed bro!"

Me -- "Yeah, I didn't add the last part of that verse bcuz its included in the "purify", we're being made clean from something...I.e. unrighteousness.

As for the other verses, they were to simply show that we sin, none of us are perfect. All of our perfection & righteousness is in Christ, not us. God sees us as perfect & righteous bcuz of Christ, not bcuz we're actually perfect & righteous.

And Augustine didn't corrupt the church with gnostic doctrine. Gnosticism was around long b4 Augustine. John was battling that belief in 1Jn (so was Paul when he wrote Colossians). That's why John wrote that we do sin, bcuz the gnostic teachers were teaching that matter was evil and spirit is good and freedom from bondage/control comes through special, higher knowledge (higher than Scripture). So they justified and dismissed their sin (and their continual sinning) bcuz matter is evil. But John spoke against that in the remaining chapters, he taught that while none of us are without sin, born-again believers do not continue on living in sin.

As for our salvation being conditional, there is only one condition God's grace! Yes it is us who respond in faith, but our faith is nothing if not for His grace first. And repentance isn't a condition of our salvation, it's the evidence. Our obedience is an evidence of the Holy Spirit. So yes we repent and we obey to the very end. Yes we have victory in areas of our lives. Yes we are growing & maturing each day, becoming more like Christ. But we still fall short every day bcuz we're not perfect, none of us can live up to God's standards perfectly. Plus, even though we're a new creation, we're still warring with our carnal/sinful nature (Gal. 5:16-17, Rom. 7:15-25). Our perfection is our glorification."

Him -- "I'd rather not prolong the discussion. I just want to highly suggest that you both at least watch the video that's on the site. Even the Early Church didn't believe in the sinful nature as you will see."

Me -- "I respect ur decision to not prolong this discussion. And I will end it here, after I respond to ur false statement.

To say the early church didnt believe in the “sinful nature” is a misnomer, since JESUS and the Apostles themselves (the 1st century church) are where we get the “flesh/carnal/sinful nature” from. Here are a few:

Paul says
1. ...our flesh serves the law of sin & sin is in our members (Rom. 7:21-25)
2...our flesh wars against the Spirit (Gal. 5:17)
3…temptations are common and not to be underestimated (1Cor. 10:13-14)

James says
1…temptations come from our fleshly desires/carnal nature (Jam. 1:13-15)
2…our tongue--which is among our members--is a world of iniquity and it CANNOT be tamed (Jam. 3:2-8)
3…it is a sin to NOT do all the good u know all the time (Jam. 4:17)
4…fleshly desires war in our members (Jam. 4:1)

John says
1…we are not without sin (1Jn. 1:8-10)

Peter says
1…fleshly lusts war against our soul (1Pet. 2:11)

JESUS Himself says
1…what comes out our mouth (our tongue) comes from our heart (our members) (Matt. 15:18)
2…it is “impossible” to “not” be tempted to sin (Lk. 17:1, Matt. 18:7)


Brother, I hope u can see that this teaching about the flesh/carnal/sinful nature finds it’s roots in the NT. They were writing these things in their letters to fellow believers (the 1st century church). It is a biblical reality. If u still don’t see it, then may the Spirit have His way.

Take care..."

8/13/13

Christology: Jesus as God and Man

To claim that Jesus could not also be God because He was a man is an understandable position. But taking the presupposition that God exist, could not God—the Supreme Power—be able to become a man, whom He would have created, if He truly wanted to? Thus, the statement that Jesus, being a man, could not be God would contradict the description of a monotheistic God by supposing that this God is not powerful enough to render Himself as a man. If Jesus is merely a man, then He is merely that. But if Jesus claimed to be God, which He did, and then backs up His claim with cogent evidence, then God just rendered Himself as the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Again, I agree, Jesus was one hundred percent man. The Bible unveils Jesus to us as a man born of a woman. He had human DNA, was laid in a manger as a baby,(1) seen as a young adolescent being instructed by rabbis at his community synagogue,(2) a grown man with a craft, emotions, friends, followers, and so on.(3) He was birthed through a woman’s womb, and died just like every other human. There is no denying His humanity. However, the Bible unveils Jesus as the man born not like all other humans, but of a virgin and with God’s DNA.(4) His miraculous birth is one of many authentications to His deity. He claimed to be the Covenant God of Israel—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.(5) This was a blasphemous claim to the Jews. But He didn’t stop with a claim. He performed miracles, healed diseases, exercised authority over Creation, and defied the laws of nature.(6) Not to mention that while He died like every other human does, He didn’t stay dead. Jesus showed His authority and power even over death when He resurrected three days after His crucifixion.(7) This “man”, was more than a mere man, He was the God-man.

So you ask, “How can Jesus be both a man and the one Supreme Being at the same time?” Friends, this question has puzzled men for centuries. Though, not all men have been baffled by this question as we see in the New Testament. If you ever wanted to know how God would be if He was a human, Jesus Christ is that portrait. Jesus is the fullness of the Great Divine living as fully human.(8) Still, how is this possible? Jesus, being the all-perfect and infinitely wise God, knew exactly how to perfectly be perfectly human and perfectly God. Everything that makes us human (i.e. flesh & bones, breathing air, emotions, free will, personality, etc) He was, bar sin.(9) And everything that makes “God” “God” (i.e. sovereign, omniscience, righteous, holy, benevolent, etc) He was, bar whatever, if any, limitations He sovereignly placed upon Himself.(10) The Creator of the human race—whom was created in the image of the Creator—knew how to be fully human and still fully Creator in unison without compromising either nature. This is how Jesus can be both truly God and truly man at the same time. Moreover, Jesus being both God and man is extremely significant; for only one who is fully God and fully man can completely redeem mankind and once for all satisfy the law of God.(11) God established the law, when broken, to be fulfilled by an unblemished living sacrifice.(12) God cannot sacrifice himself, for God is Spirit.(13) All men fall short of the righteousness of God so no mere man will do.(14) But God-Incarnate can offer Himself as an unblemished living and fully satisfactory sacrifice.(15) Thus, the life and death of Jesus Christ, the God-man, is the only sufficient payment for God’s holy and righteous law.(16)

If one overemphasizes or denies either the deity or humanity of Jesus, they will lead themselves and others either into believing there are two Gods, or one greater and one less than God, or more God less man, or more man less God, and many variations of the sorts. What this does is make Jesus’ sacrifice not completely sufficient because of the imbalance of His humanity or deity, creates the heretical problems for the Trinity, the unity of God, and so on. The Scriptures clearly show that Jesus is fully God and fully man, and early church history affirms this as well. To deny this truth or overemphasize either one is distorting the truth within the Scriptures along with the character and attributes of God.

Reading and learning about my Lord’s humanity gives me hope during famine and stormy seasons because I know He endured the same. Furthermore, it draws me to a more intimate relationship with Him because I know He can experientially relate to my human weaknesses. To know that my God came and put on my humanity just to redeem me causes me to love and live for Him all the more!

_____________________
1. Luke 2:6-7
2. Luke 2:41-52
3. Matthew 12:46-50; 14:13-14, Mark. 6:3, Luke 7:13, John 15:15
4. Luke 1:26-35
5. John 6:35; 8:12, 58; 10:9-11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:5; 18:5-8
6. Luke 5:1-26; 6:17-19; 8:22-25; 9:14-17, Mark 6:45-52
7. Mark 15:25-16:6
8. Colossians 1:15, 19; 2:9
9. Hebrew 2:14-18; 4:14-15
10. Colossians 1:15-18, Philippians 2:6-8
11. Romans 3:21-26, Galatians 4:3-7, Colossians 1:19-20, 1Timothy 2:3-6
12. Hebrew 9:16-22
13. John 4:24
14. Romans 3:9-20, 23
15. Hebrews 9
16. Hebrews 7:20-28; 10:11-12

3/2011

Authority, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of the Bible

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) said “Christianity is the religion of a Book.”(1) As a Christian how can one trust the reliability of the Bible? By addressing it’s authority, inspiration, and inerrancy.
     I’ll start with how the Bible is authoritative. The writers of and/or the main characters in the Bible—i.e. the prophets, the Apostles, Jesus, God, and others—claimed to either be speaking from God, for God, to God, or of God, so when the authoritative statements in the Bible were penned, the authority isn’t from the human authors but God. Maybe you’re thinking, “I can say God told me to write something too. Does that mean what I write is authoritative?” No, not without God confirming that He is the source of your revelation. Once God revealed Himself to and through the people in the Bible with signs, miracles, prophecies foretold and fulfilled, and so on, what the human authors recorded about Him or from Him in the Bible became authoritative because of the testimony of Himself. As a scholar wrote, “Because the Bible points beyond itself to God, it has a conferred authority. Yet the Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God’s self-disclosure.”(2) The Bible is authoritative because of God’s undeniable revelation of Himself throughout it.
     So how can we trust these so-called “human authors”? That is a matter of inspiration. The human authors who penned the Bible were supernaturally led to record just what God wanted them to record for their time and times to come. The Apostle Peter wrote,

“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”(3)

The Apostle Paul said,

“But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”(4)

And in another place Paul recorded, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”(5) Furthermore, Old Testament writers repeatedly stated, “Thus says the LORD” or “The LORD said”, when they spoke or kept record of what was said; indicating they were speaking and writing God’s word not their own. Hence, because of inspiration the Bible has dual authorship, God and humans.
     Does this mean that the Bible is perfect (without flaw) because God inspired it? Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Some of the characteristics of God revealed throughout the Scriptures are He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect. Just from these three characteristics how can a God who inspired what to be written in His book not keep it free from error? That’s logically incompatible. The Bible then is inerrant. Yet, there are those who disagree. They say if there is even one mistake found then it is not inerrant. But that would mean that God’s testimony of Himself is not true, and for centuries they have found no errors but more confirmations. Another disagreement is that this “inerrancy” view came in later centuries and was not adopted by the earlier saints, nor is “inerrancy” taught in the Bible. However, the earliest saints—i.e. the Apostles and the disciples after them (Clement of Rome, Augustine, etc)—acknowledged that (6)“Every Scripture is God-breathed”. And even Jesus Himself said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”(7) As we can see, while there are arguments against this, the arguments for the Bible being inerrant are much more solid. Because God has divinely inspired what was written in the original autographs it bears His character throughout it, one being His perfection.
     If a person who calls themselves a believer plays down the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible, it is difficult to hold on to biblical certainty and conviction. As for me, these three ensure that what I believe stands true and solid, and because of that I can be totally open when reading, studying, and living what is in God’s Word.

----------
1. Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1976), 5.
2. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 153
3. 2Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)
4. 1Corinthians 2:10-13 (New King James Version)
5. 2Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
6. 2Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
7. Matthew 5:18 (English Standard Version)

Salvation: Does Baptism Save?

About a week ago, a brother from my church called me asking for some assistance. His problem was that a new convert in his small group had been targeted by another religious group. The religious group eventually planted its claws in this new convert and he was telling my brother (the small group leader) that he was confused about his salvation. The religious group told him that baptism is a requirement for his salvation, but his small group leader was telling him that is false teaching. The religious group told my brother to meet and discuss this issue with the new convert. So, I and another brother from my church (Lance Evans) started to prepare an outline to specifically defend what the Bible says about salvation and baptism and give it to our brother to use. I wanted to share this outline with everyone (which has been cleaned up and turned into a blog), so we all can see the truth about this matter.

Most Christians are familiar with what apologetics is—the rational defense of our Faith for those outside our Faith. But what do we call it when we have to soundly defend the truths of our Faith from others who claim to be sharing truth from within the same Faith? This “defense within” is called polemics. This outline is a polemical writing meant to defend the truth about salvation from the false teaching of salvation through baptism.
____________________________
1. Putting Acts 2:38 in Context

*Acts 3:19 - Once again Peter addresses a different crowd about salvation and leaves out water baptism, but mentions repentance and faith.
*Acts 8:35-37 - Phillip clearly makes it plain to the Ethiopian Eunuch that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 10:34, 42-27 - Peter clearly makes it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 16:30-33 - Paul and Silas clearly make it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.

In Acts alone we see 2 Apostles and 2 church elders who have taught that believing is what saves and baptism proceeds but is not a necessity for salvation.

2. Putting 1Peter 3:21 in Context
(The same Peter in Acts 2:38 now speaking in his own Letter/Epistle)

*What is Peter not saying? Peter is not saying water baptism saves a person, because that would contradict the point Peter makes in verses 18-20; which is Jesus died for sin to save people from God’s judgment on sin, just as the Ark saved Noah and the 8 souls from the water, the water didn’t save anyone—the water was God’s judgment on the world (Gen. 6).
*The Ark is an Old Testament prefigure of Jesus. And just as the Ark carried them through the water, our Ark—Jesus, after we believe in Him as shown by multiple people in the multiple passages in Acts—leads us to the water in baptism (Rom. 6).
*This point, belief in Jesus first for salvation and then baptism proceeds, goes along with Peter’s introduction in 1Peter 1:17-25. If he showed us in chapter one that it is the blood of Christ and the Word of God that redeems us, why would Peter teach a blatant contradiction in chapter 3 that baptism saves us?

3. The Apostles learned their theology on salvation from the Old Testament & Jesus who affirmed it (i.e. the theology of salvation) in the New Testament.

*Matt. 26:26-28 - Jesus confirming that it’s through His blood where we receive the forgiveness of sins.
*The Old Testament clearly teaches that God required blood (of animals) to provide forgiveness for the people. Hebrews chapter 9 all to 10:18 talks about the blood of Jesus being the fulfillment of that Old Testament requirement for the forgiveness of the sins of those who believe. If the blood of Jesus does this, what need/function is there for baptism? There is nothing left to do! The blood Jesus shed when He died as a sacrifice/atonement for sin has paid it all. God’s wages for sin has been paid in full!
*This clears up what Mark and Matthew penned in the last chapter of their gospels (Mk. 16:16-17, Matt. 28:18-20). These two learned their theology from Jesus and the Old Testament (Mark from Peter and the Old Testament, but Peter learned his from the Old Testament and Jesus). Thus, this understanding is essential because in both we see belief still precedes the act of baptism, and if belief is absent (not baptism, but belief) the person is not saved.

4. Putting Eph. 2:1-9 in Context

*Anything added to the grace of God freely given in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and our faith (our believing) in what God’s grace through Jesus Christ has done, is works! God’s grace and our faith is it for salvation. Baptism is a work! Furthermore, before Apostle Paul nailed this point in chapter 2, he actually introduced his letter to Ephesus by making it clear that it’s through God’s grace in Jesus’ blood and our belief in what God did through Jesus that we have forgiveness and redemption (Eph. 1:7, 13-14, cf. Col. 1:13-14).

5. Putting John 3:3-8 in Context

*The context of the term “water” in John 3:5 is ambiguous (to some extent). It could mean water as in physical birth (flesh v.6), baptism (but that would be a work added to grace and faith which contradicts scripture, so that’s out), or water as the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5-6. The point Jesus is making in John 3:3-8 is the same point he reiterates in John 6:63, the Spirit gives Life (eternal life), the Flesh profits nothing. The water is not what gives life to the person dead in sins and trespasses, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Scripture does not, will not, nor cannot contradict Scripture. Whatever verse/passage is pulled out, it MUST stay in line (agree with) the whole scope of Scripture, not just part. If not, then whatever the interpretation of that verse/passage is should not be taken as biblically sound and thus not accepted, since the whole biblical context doesn’t agree with it. We can conclude with this, water baptism does not save a person. Salvation is through the grace of God in the blood of Jesus and our believing in what He’s done—death/atonement and resurrection. Anything more than this is a false gospel!

1/2011

The Need for Hermeneutics (Part 1 of 2)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Tim. 3:16-17, NKJV)

How do you know what you believe is “the” truth? Is it by faith? Don’t other beliefs say faith is there answer too? How do you know which “Faith” is right? There has to be something that distinguishes one from another, truth from false, right?
     How do you know that what you believe in your belief is true? Is it by faith again? Wouldn’t that mean that anyone can say their opinion of their belief is true? How do you know what is truth in your belief, and can you be sure it is? There has to be something that distinguishes one from another, truth from opinion, right?
     In Christianity everything cannot simply be answered with “faith”. As I just showed, through those series of questions, faith cannot make those distinguishments by itself. There has to be some reasoning, evidence, and methods of distinguishing the “true Faith” from the “false faiths”, and the actual truth within a Faith from the falsehoods, opinions, misinterpretations, or misunderstandings within the same Faith. Christianity is the only belief to have reasoning, evidence, and methods accompanying our faith to show itself as true (i.e. apologetics). However, as for the internal distinguishments (i.e. polemics), it is most divisive. Yet, whatever we do agree on is only because of our understanding of the fundamental who, what, when, where, why, and how’s of our Faith’s origins (i.e. hermeneutics).

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you...” (Lk. 1:1-3, NIV)

     So why have I shared all of this? Because as Christians we have been charged by the Word of God to learn apologetics (a reasoned defense of what and why we believe for those outside our Faith- 1Pet. 3:15), polemics (which is apologetics for false and bad teachings within our Faith- 2Tim. 2:24-26, 1Jn. 4:1), and hermeneutics (the method of how we properly interpret the Bible- 2Tim. 2:15). Though I must note, apologetics requires hermeneutics, polemics requires hermeneutics, and proper application of the Word of God also requires hermeneutics. You cannot sincerely read, study, follow, or teach the Bible without hermeneutics. And here’s why:

If you misunderstand verses and passages in the Bible and you seek not the proper method of interpreting it you will most likely misinterpret scripture, thus you will falsely apply the Bible, and possibly lead others astray. If you interpret the Bible based on your opinion in any capacity you will almost certainly misinterpret scripture, thus falsely apply the Bible, and presumably lead others astray.

Anytime we ask a who, what, when, where, why, or how question about something within the Bible we have just crossed over into hermeneutics. Furthermore, in order for us to apply, when we attempt to apply, and when we do apply anything the Bible tells us to do we have just crossed over into hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a must for every Christian and inseparable for reading, studying, and applying the Bible! You cannot get away from it. Either you will apply biblical hermeneutics (the proper method of interpretation) or you’ll replace it for your opinion and your own interpretation—which will lead you and others in error.

     “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Tim. 2:15, NKJV). The NASB says, “accurately handling the word of truth.” The NIV says, “a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” The actual interpretation of this single verse is exactly where the biblical concept of the method of proper interpretation (hermeneutics) is born. Paul prescriptively charges Timothy to study (be diligent–labor) to show himself approved by God, and as a master workman (or in our time it would be a skilled professional) would accurately, rightly, and correctly handle his tool or craft (just as Paul did at tent making- Acts 18:1-3; 20:31-35), so is Timothy to do so with the Word of Truth!
     For any Christian to know this and willfully choose not to accurately, rightly, and correctly handle the Word of Truth like Paul charged is disobedience and disrespect to God and the distinctive people of a distinctive time He chose to use to write this divine 66 book love letter we now have! Remember how Luke started his gospel, “they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” and “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” If within a couple of decades after Jesus Luke himself “carefully investigated everything from the beginning”, how much more us thousands of years later? For any Christian who now knows this and still believes that they don’t need or have to learn at least basic hermeneutics is in error, selfishness, and pride all to their loss. If this is you, I plead for you to repent from these sinful attitudes or suffer the consequences!

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2Tim. 4:3-4, NKJV)

     My fellow family of God, the only way to keep yourself from falling victim to 2Timothy 4:3-4 (and other scriptures alike) will be to follow the prescription of Paul in 2Timothy 2:15 so to properly follow the rest of Scripture. Just as God has given us the instruments of doctors, medicine, and so on to help us in our infirmities, He has given us hermeneutics (the method of how to properly interpret His Word) as the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to help guide us into all biblical truth (Jn. 16:13). This is to our benefit, and any true child of God is going to want to be led into truth by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14).

___________
“The How for Hermeneutics” (Part 2 of 2)
In Part 2 I will cover what exactly is hermeneutics and some “how to’s” for hermeneutics so all can be equipped and edified.

4/2010

Blog Debate: Is the Word of God literal, spiritual, or both?

I’ve had numerous blog debates. This is one I had in April 2008. I believe it can serve to edify the Body. I’ll be posting other blog debates later on. They are long, but they are worth the read.

Michelle: The stories [in the Bible] are not literal, but symbolic. They have complete Spiritual meaning. We know this is true when we apply the spiritual meaning to our lives - Not the literal. The literal would be silly... I myself can not ‘hear’ the literal any longer...

Me: “The stories are not literal, but symbolic”, by what means? Are you familiar with the historical educational and generational system of the Jews? Because if you were, you would be aware of how and what they took literal and symbolic by way of they’re writing. From Genesis to Esther are considered by Jews as historical (with respect to the Torah). They take the accounts recorded within these books as literal, not symbolic. The Poetic, Wisdom, and Prophetic books contain historical and symbolic language. These you can argue about what to take literal or not, but the first 17 books are considered by the people who God used to present the Bible to us as historical not symbolic. They know better than us of what’s written in it is literal and symbolic. Ask any Jewish rabbi about the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account of Creation and so on, I guarantee you they say it is literal not symbolic.

And what’s so “not so” about a snake talking? In the story of Balaam the donkey spoke. I guess you’ll question that story’s reality as well huh? What about the burning bush, not literal? Mount Sinai, not literal? The Passover, not literal? Jesus in the wilderness with Satan, not literal? The Resurrection, not literal? Pentecost, not literal? His second coming, not literal?

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established IN THE FAITH, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. BEWARE lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:6-8)
___________
IF I based my reverence for God/Jesus Christ on any speck of His professed believers, then I wouldn’t believe in Him either (like those who don’t for this exact reason), because His people do a horrible job of representing Him. We’re all over the board when it comes to explaining Him and His Word. No wonder they think we’re simple or gullible, we can’t even come together on one Book.

------------------
Michelle: I agree there is a very real Jewish history, and Moses account of history. However, the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc. The truths of the Kingdom are hidden in the literal things all around us (trees, relationships, look at all Jesus parables - not litereral, symbolic!). Trees are literal, yet Jesus uses them for our understanding of a deeper truth - This is my point!!!

In what God has shown me TODAY, the Spiritual meaning applies individual for my understanding of how awesome He is... Yes, I believe much of the bible has a literal history, but how does that change me from the inside (the letter?), No, it is the Spirit that gives life!!!

Gods creation is so amazing that whats around us has Spiritual meaning (the changing life, seasons, times, etc.) - The question is do we have Spiritual eyes and ears or carnal?

Me: Hey, I get what you are saying and have no problem with what you stated, but... “the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc.”

How can you not take the existence of Satan (i.e. the Devil, Lucifer, etc.) literally? Again, do you deny Jesus’ wilderness experience with Satan? What about when Jesus said He saw Satan fall from heaven (Lk. 10:18)? Right there He takes care of Satan and heaven as literal. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Now whether Hell is really called hell with fire and brimstone or whatever is not worth going back and forth over. But by saying it’s a problem taking Hell (i.e. “the place where the eternal separation from God is served”) literal, you just rejected a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Streets of gold and such, that’s no big deal if some take it literal and others not. But to say it’s a problem taking Heaven (i.e. the promised New Heaven; also the paradise of being in a place with the presence of the Almighty for eternity) literal, again is rejecting a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. Even Jesus Himself affirms this (Jn. 14:3). How do you explain not taking that literal?

Yes we should be mindful of the literal and the symbolic. Yes we should know what scriptures fall in what category. YET, we should not water down one just to further emphasize the other. That was the problem with the second and third century Church. Paganism crept in and tried to emphasize on the symbolic and ignore (even deny) the scriptures that were literal. What happened as a result of that was “sacramentalism” and a host of other junk that sent the Church into a serious sick symbolic state for 1300 years, right up ‘til the Reformation.

Be careful not to over spiritualize the Bible, just as one needs to be careful not to over literalize the Bible. There are times, places, and things to take literal, and there are times, places, and things to take it symbolic. We have to be very careful teetering on that line and not make what is absolute as relative, and what’s relative as absolute.

Oh and it takes “Spiritual eyes and ears” to be able to receive what is literal, as literal (1Cor. 2:1-5, 13-14).

------------------
Michelle: Just two little things, How can I overspiritualize God, He is Spirit! God has shown me the Spirit gives life, not knowledge! Carnal mind is the enmity...

And I do not ignore scriptures when I study a topic or the bible, I just read them with different glasses now....

It may come to surprize that I do not find it required to read and study the bible to find God - His word is not letters on a paper, but His Word is Chirst in me, and ears to hear His Word for me personally,

God Bless

Me: I didn’t say over spiritualize God, I said don’t over spiritualize the Bible.

Yes the Spirit gives life, but what life is that? Is it not the life that our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds have been opened? Did not Jesus say that eternal life is that they (that would be us) may *know* the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent (Jn. 17:2-3)? God even said my people perish for the lack of *knowledge* (Hos. 3:6). The knowledge God desires is knowing Him. This is not a bad or carnal thing, it is what God wants from us (Hos. 6:6).

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
**But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,**
That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
**For in these I delight**,” says the LORD.” (Jer. 9:23-24)


I agree with your last statement. His word is more than simply words, they are words of Life and words of Truth! Without His word, how would we have known Truth or Life?

-------------------
Michelle: We need to have our own testimony of God and Know Him (not just words on paper), I agree!!! This knowledge comes from our own personal experience and testimonies, not others. (not even those who wrote the bible). To know God is to know love and to deny self absorbant ways. To me God has made this wisdom much easier then the bible scholars have through His Holy Spirit and Word in me. The change is inward, not outward - thats about all in a nutshell, at least the way I have come to know God.

Me: Yeah, we just have to be careful not to water down or give little weight to the Word of God. If the Bible was removed from the planet, a whole lot more of professing believers would fall sway to the ways, ideas, philosophies, and teachings of the world and/or false teachers. It’s bad enough a whole lot are already falling sway now with the Bible available, and that’s because they water it down and/or don’t take it seriously.

The Bible is our guideline/boundary, kind of like the lane dividers on the street that keep us in our respected lanes for our safety. If the lines begin to blur, vanish, or people just stop regarding them, how much more chaos and disorder would our streets be filled with? And how safe would we truly be on the road? That’s how life would be without the Word of God, or even a failed respect for the Bible- ex. what we see today.

Yes there is a personal responsibility to our testimony, but the Bible also plays a part in our development and relationship with God. Again, we wouldn’t truly know who we are believing in if it were not for the Bible. God has presented and preserved the Bible for us for a reason much greater than it just being words on paper.

4/2008