Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115089 | ||
Rowdy: My response to your note will be as brief and to the point as I can make it. I fully appreciate your penchant for philosophy, for I have been through that phase in my own life and happily survived it! But Scripture and man's philosophies rarely if ever make good partners. Scripture is God's revealed truth to man. Philosophy is man's speculation about truth. The diligent study of God's word does not thwart the desire of man to know truth; on the contrary, it presents him with it, in its purest and noblest form. There is no genuine, eternal truth to be found aside from the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ: He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) ...... Yes, there is some merit in the teaching methods of the gadfly of Athens, Socrates, who taught by what is commonly called the Socratic Method, which is the practice of the fine art of asking provocative questions in an effort to goad the student to think for himself, to define the words he uses, to examine his life and his beliefs to the end that he may come to know and understand himself and his world better. This method of learning, while it finds ready application in secular matters, may not be entirely useless in spiritual matters, but the way in which a disciple of Christ should approach God's word involves, I think, a great deal more. Prayer, for example, was not a requisite in Socrates' method, but it is in the Christian's approach to Scripture. Nor was saving faith a requiste of being a disciple of Socrates, but it certainly is for disciples of Christ. One might believe certain teachings of Socrates and disbelieve others and still be called a disciple of Socrates. Jesus Christ gives His disciples no such option. ...... I would now like to speak to the question of maintaining a middle-of-the-road position on religion and the Bible. My first observation is that standing in the middle of the road is a most dangerous place to be. Moreover, that is not what Scripture teaches. Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me." (Matthew 12:30). Jesus calls for total commitment, for taking a firm stand. He left no room for middle of the roaders, nor intended to. ...... Finally, on the subject of providing precise (chapter and verse) scriptural references to support one's theological positions on biblical topics. No one is born with a knowledge of Scripture. It is something that is learned over a period of time by much prayer, discipline, dedication, toil and sweat. If a disciple of Christ does not know the word, he should get busy right now and learn it! He should commit portions of Scripture to memory. (see Psalm 119:11). In our day and time, with the abundance of concordances and various other study helps, there is no excuse for not being able to back up with Scripture what one posts on this Forum. It is far harder to engage in exacting and thorough scriptural research than it is to post ideas and opinions that happen to pop into one's head, but it is infinitely more valuable and rewarding both to the poster and his readers. ..... Now, having spoken frankly, I do not speak meanly of you or to you, but I speak in loving concern for this Forum and what it stands for. It is a study of the eternal word of God; not philosophical dissertations, not human speculations or the myriad opinions that flesh is heir to. It is designed to be a Forum in which the Bible is the text and posts are expositions and exegeses on that text. Anything beyond that leads us off course. ..... I admire your fresh spirit and your obvious zeal for life. And, most of all, I admire your charitable attitude toward others on the Forum, even those with whom you disagree and who have disagreed with you. That you will take this post of mine to heart and accept it in the spirit of loving reproof in which it is being offered is my earnest prayer. May God bless you and yours always. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 115111 | ||
Hank and Rowdy Since I weighed in earlier on this subject and having received a little flak for it, let me run my mouth (actually fingers) again and see what other trouble I can get myself into. The most important thing Hank said was, "Scripture is God's revealed truth to man." However if man does not take that truth in context and apply it to life as it is found in the overall philosophy of the Bible it becomes a falsehood. A verse alone does not doctrine make, it is not until that verse or concept is held to the light of the whole Bible is the real doctrine of a verse is seen. In the past we have seen many come to this forum with their list of favorite proof texts and say since the Bible says this here and that there this doctrine, is correct. They do this while overlooking that fact the overall flow of the Bible invalidates their position. "But I have a verse", they protest. "Are you saying the bible is not true?" they scream. I like Kay Arthur's little diddy on this, "A verse outside of context becomes pretext" What I'm saying in all of this if you have a verse to support what your saying great. But I would rather see a person respond without a verse as long as that response agrees with biblical truths, than see a person respond with ten verses all used in a way that violates basic Biblical truths. There now how much trouble am I in? EdB |
||||||
3 | Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115148 | ||
EdB: "How much trouble am I in?" Now, Ed, you know I wouldn't touch that line with a ten-foot pole! :-) Let's discuss principles, not troubles. ...... As I read your post, a tale of two preachers came to mind. Several years ago my wife and I were members of a liberal church with a liberal preacher. Week after week we sat in the pew seeking to be fed, but we always went away as hungry as when we came. The preacher never quoted any Scripture. None. He dispensed little pallid 20-minute homilies from the pulpit about how nice it is to love one another and enjoy Christian fellowship. One could call these limp talks brief excursion into "Bible philosophy" I suppose. The pastor never gave a "thus says the Lord" for anything he said. No mention of sin, judgment, the Cross, redemption, atonement, repentence, regeneration, or hell. Not any of that. And not any Scripture. But -- and here's the kicker -- he didn't DISAGREE with biblical truths. He simply ignored them in the interests of not offending anyone. He developed a broad, sweeping "Bible philosophy" style that was as limp as a wet noodle. It had no meat. It had no substance. It was not the kind of message that Paul envisaged when he told young Timony to preach the word. ...... Eventually we changed churches. The pastor of the church to which we now belong is a man who does preach the word in season and out of season. He cites Scripture upon Scripture every time he comes to the pulpit. He gives a reason for the hope that lies in him, he cites a "thus says the Lord" as his authority for his faith and practice. He keeps the worshipers busy "searching the Scriptures" to see whether those things they are being taught are so. ..... So, we have a tale of two preachers. Given a choice, which had you rather sit under -- a Bible philosopher (whatever that means) or a preacher of the gospel of Christ? ..... No, Ed, I disagree with your premise. I believe you are in error here. Please think about this: I've never advocated on this Forum "proof texting" in the sense you use it. Major doctrines should be derived from much more biblical evidence than an isolated verse or two. But this does not invalidate the proper quoting of verses -- one or a hundred -- that clearly teach biblical truth, for all of them do. The error lies not in the text, but in faulty interpretation. One can draw erroneous conclusions from a single verse of Scripture. But one can draw erroneous conclusions from the entire Bible too. The person who makes broad, sweeping statements, who subscribes to "Bible philosophy" in place of the exact words of Scripture, is every bit as prone to error and bad teaching -- I should think he is even more so -- than the person who comes to the table with his "proof texts." Proof texting can be annoying when Scripture is twisted in an effort to prove an unbiblical doctrine. ...... But let's suppose someone comes and makes a broad, "philosophical" statement to the effect that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and fable. How are you going to rebut him? What else can you do but cite the passages of Scripture that clearly attest to His resurrection? Are you not, in a certain sense, "proof texting" him? It carries little weight to respond in kind, i.e., to assert (without giving any scriptural references) that Christ did so rise from the dead. Your "philosophy" carries no more weight than his does. ...... I hear these "Bible philosophers" spout off their opinions frequently. Theses opinions are usually preceded by some phrase such as 'the Bible teaches this' or 'it says in the Bible that." A couple of weeks ago someone who had suffered a civil wrong and who had sufficient grounds to file suit for redress, said to me, "I don't plan to sue, because the Bible says its wrong." That was his "Bible philosophy." How are we to know whether this man was right or wrong unless we get more specific and find out whether the Bible forbids legal redress for wrongs inflicted? And how are we to know what the Bible teaches unless we produce a biblical text for it?. ...... I've rambled long enough, Ed. I maintain that it is impossible to engage in Bible study unless one studies the Bible. It is important to synthesize Scripture for an over view. But it is also important to analyze Scripture verse by verse. Each verse is true, each verse is vital, each verse has a relationship to the whole. Each brick has its own peculiar relationship to the whole structure, and it is wise to keep that relationship in mind while examining each brick, each verse of Scripture. But it is still important to examine each brick very carefully. One doesn't do that when he engages in broad sweeping statements, when he posts his opinions and conclusions which, he claims, is "Bible philosophy." --Hank | ||||||
4 | Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 115153 | ||
Hank Wow! And Wow! again. Boy did my last post on this subject fail that miserably? Let me say it this way. Scripture taken out of context or used as a proof test that does not stand the litmus test of the whole Bible is wrongly handling the word of God and we have been charged to correctly handle God’s word. Expressing a biblical truth but not providing a scripture may not be the inductive of correct Bible study but it is not wrong. In preaching your absolutely right God’s promise was “His Words” would not return void, God said nothing about our Words. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. If we want to see people saved and lives changed the Word of God has to be spoken. What I was trying to say is just because we have a verse does not mean what we are implying with that verse is correct. And expressing a Biblical truth but neglecting to include the accompanying verse is not philosophizing nor is it merely offering an opinion. The other day someone asked a question and said provide a verse to prove this is right or wrong. Hank the Biblical answer was not found in any verse. To answer that question you would have to offer an opinion based on sound Biblical exegesis. I think the main point I may have neglected to reinforce in my other post was this comment “SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS”. There are we now in the same boat or do I still need my vest? EdB |
||||||