Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Forbidden fruit in Egypt? | Deut 1:39 | CarlosDF | 204210 | ||
Oh, I do tend to confuse. A product of dyslexia and ADHD, but healing abounds, does it not? Yes, you have answered in a interesting and consequential way. I believe as well, there is no need for the tree as such to not be in the garden (or paradise) now, as we speak. We enter by the blood, and live by the new life, which is dead to sin. The tree itself is of no consequence, yet does represent some principal. That fundamental principal cropping up in the scriptures in many ways. But I find it interesting that there is no other 'simple' reference. Now, as to those who left Egypt. I did not pull the verse out of a hat, simply because the Hebrew is the same, and is the only other place where that combination occurs. That would be speculation, and lead to mysticism (I jest). However, Egypt is cursed by God, represents the cursed world, yes? And the promised land, ah, a veritable paradise... Once you have eaten the fruit, the result is death. Yet only one can lead into the promise who experienced the life in cursed Egypt. The others who enter were but children in Egypt, or born in the new free life while wandering the wilderness, and Caleb of course, but that is another picture. Oh dear, pictures, pictures, forgive me my friend. Yes, simplicity and sense, balm of peace. I seek no deeper meaning than the simple framework revealed by the Spirit. However, in interpretation, the simple explanation may not be the life giving word. Conversely, that does not make the spiritual revelation complicated. By solid logic, your quoted rule, 'when the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense', can just as easily be that which closes your eyes to the light, and covers your ears to the living word. You have decided in that, or others, what is good sense. And then decided, "to seek no other sense." A path of orders and structures, but does it lead to life always? Please, in no way think I question the Spirit's prompting within you in such postulation. My regard has deepened, and know that God has used you as a goad for me already, my appreciation be made known. So, tell me, with a heart of complete dedication, that Joshua is no picture of the Messiah. It is a challenge as we only have Stephans discourse, yet that is of His will in Christ if the eyes of the heart be open. Bless you my brother, may your heart be strengthened, I value your replies. May your measure of eternal life be poured out upon the saints you meet with, to His Glory. |
||||||
2 | Forbidden fruit in Egypt? | Deut 1:39 | DocTrinsograce | 204262 | ||
Dear Carlos, You're doing it again. You're seeing allegory when we are not authorized by Scripture itself to do so. That's presuming on the Word itself! Your presupposition that a component must "represent some principal" (sic) -- I think you meant principle -- is fundamentally opposed to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. You cannot -- indeed, must not! (Jeremiah 14:14) -- put words into God's mouth! That should frighten anyone into choosing the doctrines they teach with enormous care (2 Peter 2:1-3). It is erroneous and misleading to suggest that such moralizing, spiritualizing, and allegorizing is "more light." To imply that this is some sort of divine illumination of the Holy Spirit is utterly specious, for it was He who has made clear these doctrines, explicitly to help us to avoid error, flights of fancy, deceit of the human heart, heresy, and apostasy (Ephesians 4:14). Doing otherwise is not accepting "more light," it is choosing darkness. Perhaps there is a Study Quadriga Forum out there somewhere. A place where the forum hosts might encourage such approaches, and where the participants would be tolerant of such a hermeneutic. Meanwhile, son, I'd be remiss not to encourage you to learn what sola Scriptura means. Then you'll know what Lockman expects of you -- and what you promised to help promulgate -- on this forum. "The Medieval exegetes, following Origen, regarded the 'literal' sense of Scripture as unimportant and unedifying. They attributed to each biblical statement three further senses, or levels of meaning, each of which was in a broad sense allegorical: the 'moral' or 'tropological' (from which one learned rules of conduct), the 'allegorical' proper (from which one learned articles of faith), and the 'anagogical' (from which one learned of the invisible realities of heaven). Thus, it was held that the term 'Jerusalem' in Scripture, while denoting 'literally' a city in Palestine, also referred 'morally' to civil society, 'allegorically' to the Church, and 'anagogically' to heaven, every time that it occurred. Only the three allegorical senses, the Medievals held, were worth a theologian's study; the literal record had no value save as a vehicle of figurative meaning. Medieval exegesis was thus exclusively mystical, not historical at all; biblical facts were made simply a jumping-off ground for theological fancies, and thus spiritualized away. Against this the Reformers protested, insisting that the literal, or intended, sense of Scripture was the sole guide to God's meaning. They were at pains to point out, however, that 'literalism' of this sort, so far from precluding the recognition of figures of speech where Scripture employs them, actually demands it. William Tyndale's statement of their position may be quoted as typical: 'Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.'" --James I. Packer In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Forbidden fruit in Egypt? | Deut 1:39 | CarlosDF | 204287 | ||
The first principal of principles is the Living God, yes? Funny how there are a few dyslexia words that slip by the spell check. I most humbly submit to you this, if you do not find any life in what I write (questions, answers, notes), I will gladly snap this pen by your judgment. I sought the Lord for a response to your note, it is not what I expected, but I give it to you in faith: "Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love: The fellowship of kindred minds Is like to that above. When we are called to part, It gives us inward pain; But we shall still be joined in heart, And hope to meet again." Fawcett May abundant Grace be a balm to the heart of loss. Be strong, and let your heart take courage for our hope is in the Eternal. |
||||||