No applications from Scripture?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

God can be found when He is sought, but not simply because of Jeremiah 29:13. It's given elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures as a universal truism. If Jeremiah 29:13 was the only place it was written, then it would not be a universal truism for all people for all time.

Conversely, there are verses which indicate God hides Himself behind thick darkness, and cannot be found (e.g. Isaiah 45:15, 1 Kings 8:12, Psalm 97:2). What if we took those verses and taught them the same way, that is, universally true? We'd convince people there's no hope of ever finding God, and we know that's not true. We realize then that such verses have to be understood in light of their context. The same is true then, of Jeremiah 29:13.

So, in other words, verses must be understood not only in their immediate contexts, but also in the context of the entire Bible. Correct?

Which means that applications of Scripture to current situations can and must be made, BUT they must be made in light of the entirety of Scripture, and thus not "taken out of context". Amen?

So, when it comes to Acts 2:38, there is nothing contextually speaking to indicate that it cannot be applied outside of 1st century Jerusalem, Day of Pentecost. It is the universal response to the Gospel.

Actually, the immediate context of the verse is those people, in that time. Just like in the Jeremiah passages. But we have additional Scripture which indicates the passage has additional application to people outside that immediate historical context. Again, just like the Jeremiah passages.

Again, that sounds nice and neat, but that's not the right application of that story, because the context doesn't allow for such an interpretation.

But that kind of thing is done all the time, by believers of every type, from every group. I am against it, and so, I try my absolute best to not be a hypocrite and allow for it in my own understanding or explanations. It unnecessarily obfuscates the meaning of any given text, and makes it hard if not impossible to correctly exegete and teach the Scriptures. It's a hindrance to the Gospel and the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

The example is not an application of the text, but a twisting of the text and a denial of the plain statements of the text, so of course that "application" will be in error.

I understand what you are attempting to prevent (misapplication of Scripture) but I honestly think your statement(s) to the effect that a passage has one historical application only (unless there is some sort of "universal principle" in it) was too broad. And speaking of finding a universal principle in a passage, exactly how does that work? As far as I can see, we can look at a passage to see what it reveals about God's character, and we can examine the rest of Scripture to see if we see that character trait repeated, and can then conclude that the original passage reveals a universal principle.

Can you state your understanding of this subject as a "hermeneutical rule" that Bible students can follow?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No, He did not say that.

Word for word, no. Conceptually yes, I believe so. Jesus made it plain that God's sole desire for marriage is based on the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, and that what God joins together, let no man put asunder.

That is mutually exclusive to "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart" permitted the get.

Jesus said it was Moses who gave Israel that right. He didn't say God did. That's why random divorce, or even divorces that were permitted under Moses became unattainable under Christ. It used to be if a woman merely displeased her husband, he could put her away. Jesus said not any more. God hates putting away right? So why so many permits in the Torah for it, unless, just as Jesus said, the right to do it came from Moses on account of the people's obstinacy toward God's desired plan for marriage given in Genesis?

Clearly, however, you seem to have another take? Care to share? Here or a new thread is fine.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, in other words, verses must be understood not only in their immediate contexts, but also in the context of the entire Bible. Correct?

Which means that applications of Scripture to current situations can and must be made, BUT they must be made in light of the entirety of Scripture, and thus not "taken out of context". Amen?

Just so. Exactly right.

Actually, the immediate context of the verse is those people, in that time. Just like in the Jeremiah passages. But we have additional Scripture which indicates the passage has additional application to people outside that immediate historical context. Again, just like the Jeremiah passages.

Yes, that is the immediate context (those people) but that immediate context contains nothing in it that would limit it historically to only those people. The verses in Jeremiah, however, have that limitation, as already explained.

The example is not an application of the text, but a twisting of the text and a denial of the plain statements of the text, so of course that "application" will be in error.

Yes, the twisting of the text occurs, because the context is misconstrued (diminished, broken). The text indicates the people were without food. To say otherwise is the twisting. However, the historical context of the Gospels shows us a Jesus Who had supernatural power to perform the miraculous. To strip the passage of the miraculous in order to get a merely mundane application is not simply twisting the verse, it's also tossing the context of the person and power of the Son of David described in the text.

I understand what you are attempting to prevent (misapplication of Scripture) but I honestly think your statement(s) to the effect that a passage has one historical application only (unless there is some sort of "universal principle" in it) was too broad. And speaking of finding a universal principle in a passage, exactly how does that work? As far as I can see, we can look at a passage to see what it reveals about God's character, and we can examine the rest of Scripture to see if we see that character trait repeated, and can then conclude that the original passage reveals a universal principle.

Can you state your understanding of this subject as a "hermeneutical rule" that Bible students can follow?

Another time, perhaps. I am not sure how codified and articulated it is in it's current form, that is, how I see it in my own head. It's more a working paradigm or walking thesis of which I believe the theory is absolutely correct and the philosophy sound. But it would be a noble pursuit to write it on tablets so God's people can run...