Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should the community history be consider | Heb 1:1 | cuddle | 180804 | ||
When trying to understand a certain passage of Scripture, should the history of the times be taken into consideration? | ||||||
2 | Should the community history be consider | Heb 1:1 | DocTrinsograce | 180805 | ||
Dear Cuddle, Lockman's work -- even the creation of this Forum! -- is predicated on the belief in a doctrine known as the "Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture." That phrase simply states the belief that God directed the writing of every single word in the original autographs of the Bible, using and guiding the whole aspect of the life, mind, and times of the writer. We see this idea throughout the teachings of Christ and the apostles (see Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 17; Revelation 22:18-19; etc.). Paul bases an entire theological argument (Galatians 3:16) on whether a word in Genesis was plural or not! Consequently, for proper interpretation, the grammatical aspects of any given passage is crucial. Furthermore, the history and culture in which a text was written is equally important. Each Biblical text has a meaning that is "single, definite, and fixed." That is the meaning we are after! Remember, however, that although there are no private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20), but all Scripture is given to every believer for knowledge, reproof, correction, and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), there are many, many possible applications. Those applications are the result of applying the truth of God -- as rendered by sound interpretation -- to our present individual circumstances. I'm reminded of a quote I've cited previously on the forum, by the late Francis Schafer. "Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible's own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history..." I hope this information is helpful to you in your continued study of the Word! In the mean time, let's keep in mind our dependency on the Holy Spirit to assist in this effort. We can express that dependence by frequent prayer for ourselves and our brethren in Christ as each of us pour over the treasure of the Word of God! In Him, Doc PS If you would like to read some very definitive and helpful principles right along these lines, I'd encourage you to study the statements at the following web sites: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html (particularly this one) |
||||||
3 | Should the community history be consider | Heb 1:1 | cuddle | 180810 | ||
This Question is rooted in a previous question I asked about the ability of women to teach in the Body of Christ. A very simple example of what I am curious about would be John 17. When Mary returns to tell the news of the risen Lord, is it a stretch to say that she was the first to deliver the resurrection message of Christ to a Body of Believers? This is not to imply she was usurping authority over man, merely she was teaching, stating fact, that at that moment was unknown to these men in authority within the Body. This question is one of sincerity. I have read several commentaries and articles concerning this very verse. I will humbly admit in some of my findings the language was beyond my understanding. So whoever reply(s) to this post, please be use language as if you were explaining to a child. I want to be able to use what I learn in setting to an un-churched audience. In His Service, Cuddle |
||||||
4 | Should the community history be consider | Heb 1:1 | DocTrinsograce | 180813 | ||
Hi, Cuddle! The Bible is the proper place to find out what we are to believe (doctrine) and what we are to do (practice). So you are right to seek in it guidance for your question. I believe someone else, recently, touched on this very topic in the same way you have done. The event you refer to are found in Matthew 28:7 and Mark 16:7. These passages relate the story of how the women -- the two Mary's and Salome, per Mark 16:1 -- were instructed by the angel to carry the news to Christ's disciples (and especially Peter) that He had risen. Cuddle, the type of passage we are talking about is what is called narrative. Narrative explains what happened, when, and to whom. Think of it as history. As a general rule we do not build doctrine or practice from narrative. (We would never, for example, say that we should get water by striking a rock (Numbers 20;11); that we should sacrifice an animal in thanksgiving to God (Leviticus 7:15); that we should pay our taxes by looking for money inside a fish (Matthew 17:27); etc. Those are a few examples off of the top of my head, but I think you can think of many more.) Also, even if we could assert that women were commissioned to teach from these passages , what sort of commission would we see from Luke 13:32? :-) I believe that what the women were asked to do was not teaching. It was simply carrying a message. A momentous one, to be sure! But it would be unwarranted, even if it were not for the reasons given above, for us to place so much significance on this event. One of my professors calls this, "Placing more weight on a text than it can bear." We do have didactic passages -- that is, passages given for instruction to the church -- about women and teaching. Those are in the epistles. If we are to build doctrine and practice on anything, we should build them from there. God has taken care to tell us what to believe and what to do. In Him, Doc |
||||||