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]

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).

[votivesoul]

To try and give an example:

A man reads about Samson in Judges, and sees that Samson desired a Philistine for a wife, and he reads that it was "of the LORD".

Next day, man meets an unsaved woman, is attracted to her and likes her, and remembering how God led Samson to desire a Philistine wife, decides to pursue her on those grounds, and they get married.

When challenged, he points to Judges and the story of Samson and says he merely applied those verses to himself and he's justified for his actions, explaining that if God can break His own word to make Samson marry a non-Israelite, and if God's no respecter of persons, then God can do it again so he married an unsaved woman and God is okay with it.

However...

Context was: Samson was called to be a judge and deliverer of Israel from the Philistines. God had a specific cause and made use of a one-time opportunity so that He could begin to use Samson in his calling to physically annihilate the sworn enemies of God and His people, the very ones the land itself had been vomiting out for decades and more.

Samson, in context, then lost that wife when the Philistines "ploughed with his heifer", eventually fell to ruin, and killed himself while killing a huge number of Philistines in the process.

So, the lesson here is: that man ain't Samson, and God didn't set him up with an unsaved woman as his wife, just because it happened one time in the Bible.

The man destroyed the entire context of the story in order to justify his application of the text.

Thus, there is no "one context, many applications" doctrine of the Bible. There is only "one context, and the application the Bible sets forth for God's people". To divorce the two is a horrendous mistake that leads to all sorts of false doctrine, false or bad praxis, and etc. It's how people over-spiritualize the Scriptures in an effort to make any verse of the Bible mean whatever they want. An example:

Israelites under the law were allowed to own gentile slaves. Stories in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel all show application of that allowance.

Someone reads those passages and over-spiritualizes them, ties them to "Israel of God" in Galatians, and begins to think he has the right to own slaves. One context, but many applications, right?

We are spiritually descended from and heirs of, Abraham, right? Galatians 3 says so. So, can we mate with our wife's hired help, or have a concubine on the side? David had 8 wives, and Jesus is prophetically called "David" in the Prophets and Psalms, and we are made one with Christ, so we are one with "David", so that means we can have up to 8 wives, right?

This is what I mean by making up as many applications as a person or preacher wants, just to sell a doctrine or justify a decision or action, regardless of actual context. I know an ordained UPCI minister and elder who pastors a church who used the story in 1 Samuel 16 about God telling Samuel to take a cow with him and tell the people of Bethlehem he came to perform a sacrifice when he was really there to anoint Saul's replacement, as a justification for fibbing the truth of a matter in order to keep someone else in the dark.

One context, many applications?

The examples can be endless.

Jeremiah 29:11 comes to mind. People love the verse, they quote it, sing about it, put it in art and write it on the front page of their Bible as some kind of special promise God has made to them, when it's not about them at all. The expected end is bringing Judah back into Judea after God exiles them into Babylon for their sins. That's the context, and therefore, the only application is toward those Judeans who went into Babylon. To try and turn that verse into some divine destiny adventure plan is bogus hermeneutics. If we're going to quote that verse and apply it to ourselves, then are we going to disobey God's Word, woefully sin against Him, backslide, get ourselves exiled from the Kingdom of God into some kind of over-spiritualized "Babylon" just so we can receive our "expected end"?

Sure, God does know the thoughts He thinks about us. That much is given. But that's just a fact on principle. There's no application there. But the rest of the verse isn't about us, isn't spoken to us, and has nothing to do with us, so we ought not try to apply to ourselves. It's that simple.

[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.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

To try and give an example:

Jeremiah 29:11 comes to mind. People love the verse, they quote it, sing about it, put it in art and write it on the front page of their Bible as some kind of special promise God has made to them, when it's not about them at all. The expected end is bringing Judah back into Judea after God exiles them into Babylon for their sins. That's the context, and therefore, the only application is toward those Judeans who went into Babylon. To try and turn that verse into some divine destiny adventure plan is bogus hermeneutics. If we're going to quote that verse and apply it to ourselves, then are we going to disobey God's Word, woefully sin against Him, backslide, get ourselves exiled from the Kingdom of God into some kind of over-spiritualized "Babylon" just so we can receive our "expected end"?

Sure, God does know the thoughts He thinks about us. That much is given. But that's just a fact on principle. There's no application there. But the rest of the verse isn't about us, isn't spoken to us, and has nothing to do with us, so we ought not try to apply to ourselves. It's that simple.

Votive Soul, this is a passage that is the "poster child" for taking scripture out of context. It is such a beautiful text and so very poetic that the temptation is just too much. I have often tried to explain to people the proper context of the "plans that God had for them" and how the "prophets" were saying that their captivity would only be for two or three years, when God told Jeremiah that their captivity would last seventy years. I usually get a response that they believe I am in heresy. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on this.

However, before you clarified I was pretty much in agreement with Esaias. I thought you were saying what he thought you said. It just goes to show how easily we can have a misunderstanding when we are dealing only with the printed word, without the aid of voice inflections and body language. I am glad to see your clarification.

We should always strive to properly divide the word of truth, because there are so many ways to interpret poorly. It's often a matter of Exegesis as opposed to Eisgeses.

[Esaias]

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, 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.

Thank you for the clarification. For a moment I thought I might have to go back and edit all my posts I ever made.