No applications from Scripture?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

As far as the standard argument of there being many applications, that's nonsense. There is not a single verse of Scripture given to anyone anywhere that authorizes us to take a verse of the Bible out of its context to make it apply some other way than the way it was originally intended when it was inspired and written.

I am not sure I understand what is being claimed here. It seems contrary to the very purpose of Scripture to suggest that we are not to apply Scripture to our own situations?

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-12)

Is this not a perfect example, where Paul took historical events from the Old Testament Sinai Wilderness experience, and found application to the believers of his own day in Corinth? And did he not say "all these things ... were written for our admonition..."? Did he not specifically say "all these things happened unto them for ensamples"? Does this not mean that the history of Israel was a Providentially provided real-life and real-time example of spiritual principles at work that are to be studied, pondered, and learned from by the church?

Please explain what you meant when you said it is nonsense that there are "many applications of scripture"???

[1ofthechosen]

I placed this on another thread for Votive but I'll copy and paste it here. Because what you have quoted is exactly what I was questioning.

"That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard individuals say "theres no spiritual principals and illustrations in the scripture." All I can say is they are all through it, and the Spirit bears witness. Matter of fact He's the one that shows them to me! No different then how He showed Paul that Isaiah 28:11-12 was a picture of the Holy Spirit baptism. Some people still today, (mainly those who don't believe in the Holy Spirit infilling) say that is about the heathen nations that brought them into captivity. But Paul goes and places the context on it In the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:20-22. Who showed Paul that? The same one that shows me principal's and illustrations, of types and shadows all throughout the word of God."

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I am not sure I understand what is being claimed here. It seems contrary to the very purpose of Scripture to suggest that we are not to apply Scripture to our own situations?

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-12)

Is this not a perfect example, where Paul took historical events from the Old Testament Sinai Wilderness experience, and found application to the believers of his own day in Corinth? And did he not say "all these things ... were written for our admonition..."? Did he not specifically say "all these things happened unto them for ensamples"? Does this not mean that the history of Israel was a Providentially provided real-life and real-time example of spiritual principles at work that are to be studied, pondered, and learned from by the church?

Please explain what you meant when you said it is nonsense that there are "many applications of scripture"???

It's funny I found this link at the bottom of the page, he posted on this very subject.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=51854

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

It's funny I found this link at the bottom of the page, he posted on this very subject.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=51854

You missed it. In that thread, I asked regarding "universal applications" from the Word, meaning applications that can be made across the board. I then asked about if there were any contextual applications from the 1st century that have no bearing on today, meaning because the applications related to that era only, they cannot be used for today.

That is nothing like admitting there is only one context with many applications.

Plus, I was asking questions to gain insight and understanding, not making statements dealing out insight and understanding.

Also, I was asking about what it means for bishops to be blameless, which is pretty open ended, meaning many things may fall under such a category, meaning many things might apply, but note! I never decided to ruin the context, which is what it means to be a bishop, what God and the Holy Scriptures require, and how that's to be played out in the context of a New Testament church.

Context remains intact, so a discussion of possible applications remains in order.

Hence: You missed it.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You missed it. In that thread, I asked regarding "universal applications" from the Word, meaning applications that can be made across the board. I then asked about if there were any contextual applications from the 1st century that have no bearing on today, meaning because the applications related to that era only, they cannot be used for today.

That is nothing like admitting there is only one context with many applications.

Plus, I was asking questions to gain insight and understanding, not making statements dealing out insight and understanding.

Also, I was asking about what it means for bishops to be blameless, which is pretty open ended, meaning many things may fall under such a category, meaning many things might apply, but note! I never decided to ruin the context, which is what it means to be a bishop, what God and the Holy Scriptures require, and how that's to be played out in the context of a New Testament church.

Context remains intact, so a discussion of possible applications remains in order.

Hence: You missed it.

What I was saying is you were asking if there were universal applications to these scriptures. It was more the question I was pointing out, Nothing else!

I just wanted to bring that the forefront, because I know Brother Esaias explains things well. As well as you, Brother Votive. Its hard to engage you, because I don't use the right wording always.

So I know I would be able to get a understanding of what you were meaning, by what brother Esaias laid out.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

What I was saying is you were asking if there were universal applications to these scriptures. It was more the question I was pointing out, Nothing else!

I just wanted to bring that the forefront, because I know Brother Esaias explains things well. As well as you, Brother Votive. Its hard to engage you, because I don't use the right wording always.

So I know I would be able to get a understanding of what you were meaning, by what brother Esaias laid out.

It's probably just as much me as you, or anyone. I try to be as specific and concise as I can be, and only intentionally write with exactitude what I mean to say. I have a low tolerance for ambiguity. I try never to infer anything, and am almost always never coy when I post. So, I likewise find myself reading what others write in the same light, when that's not always the case.

[votivesoul]

Hi, Esaias

My quote was said in reference to the idea that a preacher could take a verse of Scripture, know it's context, then apply it in many ways, even to the point of taking it out of context to do so. So, for example, not removing ancient landmarks can mean not telling a saint from another assembly to disobey the standards that his pastor teaches, instead of it only referring to property lines and geographical landmarks so people could determine their location.

So, in that regard, there are not "many applications", wherever context must be destroyed in order for the application to apply.

Can and should we apply the Holy Scriptures to our lives? Yes, absolutely, but not to the point of ruining context. That being the case, as I see it, of course, to say that there is even one verse of Scripture that allows us to break context in order to generate multiple applications, is nonsense.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Hi, Esaias

My quote was said in reference to the idea that a preacher could take a verse of Scripture, know it's context, then apply it in many ways. So, for example, not removing ancient landmarks can mean not telling a saint from another assembly to disobey the standards that his pastor teaches, instead of it only referring to property lines and geographical landmarks so people could determine their location.

So, in that regard, there are not "many applications", wherever context must be destroyed in order for the application to apply.

Can and should we apply the Holy Scriptures to our lives? Yes, absolutely, but not to the point of ruining context. That being the case, as I see it, of course, to say that there is even one verse of Scripture that allows us to break context in order to generate multiple applications, is nonsense.

Paul wrote about Israel being baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea, just as you quoted. That event is typological to salvation, an experience that can be had through application of the Gospel as found in the Scriptures. In such light, no context is being broken in order to generate numerous applications that have nothing to do with the actual passage of Scripture (like removing ancient landmarks having to do with rebelling against 21st century Oneness Pentecostal standards).

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

In such light, no context is being broken in order to generate numerous applications that have nothing to do with the actual passage of Scripture (like removing ancient landmarks having to do with rebelling against 21st century Oneness Pentecostal standards).

Ok you make it sound like that, as If it's some fly by night church. But is this not what Paul is doing in both 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 when he says " Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Or when he references it again in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 when he again says "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

The context of this had nothing to do with people. Although there was clearly a application there for that. Which is the same as with Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen." Deuteronomy 19:14 "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." Which Solomon clearly uses in Proverbs 22:28-29 brother is this only about a landmark, you answer it "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. [29] Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."

And for icing on the cake read Hosea 5. What does the Most High God say about Judah in verse 10? "The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water." This one clearly shows to the same context with what Elder White said in his message. So not only was he using a application from scripture correctly, God Himself said almost the samething using the same context.

Paul lived this way as to not move ancient customs I can show it clearly by many texts from the book of Acts. He took vows with the Jews, he even circumcised Timothy, just for the Jews said he was trying to share the gospel with. He didn't even come against the pagan cultures i.e. the Romans, and the Greeks. The only way he did is if it was against God, and immoral. Acts 25:7-8 "And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all."

There has been customs at all times, and the Apostolic church is not the only one even today with customs. While they maybe the only ones that enforce it, that doesn't change the fact it's not a foreign practice. As if the Apostolic church in the 21st century invented something brand new.

Do you at least see what I'm saying?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok you make it sound like that, as If it's some fly by night church. But is this not what Paul is doing in both 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 when he says " Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Or when he references it again in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 when he again says "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

The context of this had nothing to do with people. Although there was clearly a application there for that. Which is the same as with Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen." Deuteronomy 19:14 "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." Which Solomon clearly uses in Proverbs 22:28-29 brother is this only about a landmark, you answer it "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. [29] Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."

And for icing on the cake read Hosea 5. What does the Most High God say about Judah in verse 10? "The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water." This one clearly shows to the same context with what Elder White said in his message. So not only was he using a application from scripture correctly, God Himself said almost the samething using the same context.

Paul lived this way as to not move ancient customs I can show it clearly by many texts from the book of Acts. He took vows with the Jews, he even circumcised Timothy, just for the Jews said he was trying to share the gospel with. He didn't even come against the pagan cultures i.e. the Romans, and the Greeks. The only way he did is if it was against God, and immoral. Acts 25:7-8 "And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all."

There has been customs at all times, and the Apostolic church is not the only one even today with customs. While they maybe the only ones that enforce it, that doesn't change the fact it's not a foreign practice. As if the Apostolic church in the 21st century invented something brand new.

Do you at least see what I'm saying?

I see it, but see this:

Paul was something neither your or me or anyone else ever was or will be again. His writings are Sacred Scripture, currently forever settled in heaven. They are binding on the Church of the Living God.

Therefore, while under that inspiration, for him to quote from Deuteronomy and make use of the text the way he did was not out of line.

Now, if another bonafide Apostle to the Gentiles who received direct revelation of the Gospel without anyone teaching it to him, who is inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen infallible Scripture, shows up some day, then we can talk.

Jesus took the divorce permission from the Torah and said that it was written by Moses, and was not inspired by God. Anyone else in the world get to do that?

So, let's not be too quick to say that because Paul or one of the other writers of Holy Scripture did it, we get to, too. Because that is also destroying context, that is, the context of who they were and why they were chosen by God to transcribe His Word.