Should we teach others to rebel against Standards?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

We do have the right to preach against unrighteousness and sin. There is no question about that. The fact that not everything is mentioned in scripture does not mean leave it alone. Some things are obviously wrong and dont belong in the life of someone who is a christian. But I do agree that some people will challenge things that are not spelled out in black and white.

I think we can agree with that. But those things line up with things that are lawful but not expedient. They are not always "sin". For example, it's lawful to eat fast food, but it isn't expedient. Especially if one already has a weight problem. Cigarettes aren't mentioned in Scripture, but they are clearly not expedient in that they can cause cancer and numerous other health problems. We do well to be smoke free.

I think what we have is a number of people who are tired of the psychological and spiritual abuse of being dangled over Hell for every little conceivable thing, when the Scriptures don't always address every possible thing. Balanced teaching that is more true to Scripture could emphasize that while Scripture doesn't address a given thing, it isn't expedient, edifying, or glorifying to Christ.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think we can agree with that. But those things line up with things that are lawful but not expedient. They are not always "sin". For example, it's lawful to eat fast food, but it isn't expedient. Especially if one already has a weight problem. Cigarettes aren't mentioned in Scripture, but they are clearly not expedient in that they can cause cancer and numerous other health problems. We do well to be smoke free.

I think what we have is a number of people who are tired of the psychological and spiritual abuse of being dangled over Hell for every little conceivable thing, when the Scriptures don't always address every possible thing. Balanced teaching that is more true to Scripture could emphasize that while Scripture doesn't address a given thing, it isn't expedient, edifying, or glorifying to Christ.

agreed.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

correct me if im wrong but it appears that you only see a history lesson in the scriptures. This is what it sounds like to me. You must be able to receive valuable principles and lessons that apply to your life even from the old test.

Do you think Paul took the scripture out of context when he used the Red Sea crossing as a type of baptism? exodus says nothing of the sort.

Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.

I agree with what your saying here. That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard imdividuals say "no 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) that 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.

What Godsdrummer said in comment to this, at the end was absolutely ridiculous. So ridiculous I have no time to comment more!

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I agree with what your saying here. That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard imdividuals say "no 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) that 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.

What Godsdrummer said in comment to this, at the end was absolutely ridiculous. So ridiculous I have no time to comment more!

Godsdrummer is a former Apostolic minister, and I think now attends a non denominational church.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Godsdrummer is a former Apostolic minister, and I think now attends a non denominational church.

It must be a liberal one even at that.

To have made a complete statement that said "we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.(while this was only in bold, but I take it he was pointing this out on purpose.)
Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you."

That's like those people in California making a law that outlaws "“advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
Sexual orientation change efforts are defined in the bill as “practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
SMH

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

It must be a liberal one even at that.

To have made a complete statement that said "we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.(while this was only in bold, but I take it he was pointing this out on purpose.)
Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you."

That's like those people in California making a law that outlaws "“advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
Sexual orientation change efforts are defined in the bill as “practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
SMH

Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you.

If you are going to quote me quote me right. That is the problem is that you can't see anything that is not black and white. And it is your black and white, everyone else Must be wrong.

While we are at it, this has become more therapy for me to just type, because I was very sick last year and lost a lot of my skill of typing and putting words together. If you want to find out what I believe I have put many post together in years gone by you can just do some research on this forum and check them out.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

correct me if im wrong but it appears that you only see a history lesson in the scriptures. This is what it sounds like to me. You must be able to receive valuable principles and lessons that apply to your life even from the old test.

Do you think Paul took the scripture out of context when he used the Red Sea crossing as a type of baptism? exodus says nothing of the sort.

Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.

It starts with the history. That has to come first. The primary extant hermeneutic is called the Historical-Grammatical Method. Without the history and the context that comes with and from that history, the Bible is never going to make correct sense.

And yes, "valuable principles and lessons that apply" do exist. But that's not the argument I have been making. Look again at what I originally wrote. I am arguing against taking a verse of Scripture, divorcing it from it's context, so you can create as many applications as you see fit (not you personally, just "you" generically).

I am not against availing yourself of every application that is available based on the context. But the context has to be there and it has to be maintained as the primary element. If a verse or passage of Scripture is about one thing, you can't go and make it say something else so you can derive a personally desired application.

An example. Granted what I'm about to write was said as a joke, but it fits here to make my point. Year ago, a visiting, over-weight preacher said "Well, I've finally realized I mostly belong to the Lord". People didn't understand at first what he meant. He then said "The Bible says 'the fat belongs to the Lord', and since I'm mostly fat, I mostly belong to the LORD".

People chuckled. Whatever. But what if he had meant it and was serious. Is that what "the fat belongs to the LORD" means and is referring to? NOT AT ALL. So, except in humor, there is no way such a use of that verse applies to what the visiting preacher said.

I know an evangelist whose first name is Mark. At youth rallies he would insist the audience needed to recognize that God said in His Word that he was "perfect". He'd then quote "Mark the perfect man..." from Psalm 37:37.

Again, a lame attempt at humor. But what if he had been serious?

This is the issue I am addressing. I submit to you that you will learn more valuable lessons when you approach the text of the Bible this way. Because you will learn the correct lesson that text is teaching, based on its context, instead of the one that gets invented because it makes for good sermon fodder.

__________________________________________________ __________

As far as being "baptized into Moses..." Paul did not destroy the context or apply the text in a way that it should not have been applied. Just because the word "baptism" isn't present in Exodus doesn't mean the concept of baptism was not present, because it was, and is.

__________________________________________________ __________

Finally,

Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.

While tobacco is not given by name, the chief addictive chemical in tobacco, that is, nicotine, is, along with other drugs, covered by the Holy Scriptures as prohibited, even though we don't see the word "drugs" in the Bible, the concept of narcotics is.

And as far as pornography goes, what are the Greek words for fornication, fornicator, whoremonger, and etc.? They all come from the Greek root porne.

In fact, in 1822, a German linguist named Jakob Grimm, author of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, is credited with what became known as Grimm’s Law, a statement, that, among other things, proves that Latin and Greek words beginning with the letter “p”, in Germanic languages, such as English, are rendered with an “f”, both in written and spoken form.

In this way, pater, a Greek word, becomes father in English. Also in this way, the Greek word porne, the root of the word pornography, becomes forn-ication, (or all various, illicit, immoral sexual acts, i.e. Scripturally prohibited sexual deviancy) when translated into English, meaning the same exact thing as its Greek counterpart.

We can then very much render the word fornication as "pornication", for example. So, pornography is very much addressed by the Holy Scriptures.

For more, you can check out a couple of blogs I wrote on the subject, if you like:

https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...little-secret/

https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...cret-addendum/

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

While tobacco is not given by name, the chief addictive chemical in tobacco, that is, nicotine, is, along with other drugs, covered by the Holy Scriptures as prohibited, even though we don't see the word "drugs" in the Bible, the concept of narcotics is.

All drugs? Are you against the use of any form of medicine whatsoever?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I agree with what your saying here. That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard imdividuals say "no 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) that 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.

What Godsdrummer said in comment to this, at the end was absolutely ridiculous. So ridiculous I have no time to comment more!

All Biblical typology is self-contained to the Bible. There is no such thing as extra-Biblical, Biblical typologies. So, anything extra-Biblical automatically becomes "private interpretation".

Additionally, a poor understanding of Biblical typology ends up engendering "private" interpretations. An example is above, in your quote.

You wrote that Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to give us a picture of Holy Spirit baptism. That's not true. Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to bolster his teaching on the particular charismata "diverse kinds of tongues". When God uses someone to speak in a diverse tongue, it is just as Isaiah wrote, that God is speaking to people. Further, Paul goes on to explain that "tongues are a sign...for them that believe not..." that is, for unbelievers.

In Isaiah 28, God was sending the Assyrians upon Israel as a judgment for their sins. These warriors from far away spoke with other tongues, that is, with languages the people of Israel did not comprehend. The people of Israel were being judged by God as "unbelievers" in Him, and the sign to them that God was giving them was that men of other tongues were going to speak to them, but in reality, it was God doing the talking.

So, when an unbeliever hears someone speak with another (an-other) tongue, with God being the one really doing the speaking, it is the rest and the refreshing, but the people, the unbelievers will not hear. So what then does Isaiah say regarding the Word of the Lord? It is given to Israel in small increments (like a "stammering tongue" can only speak in small increments of sound), as a means whereby Israel might "go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Isaiah 28:13).

Similarly, when the unbeliever hears God speak to them through a diverse tongue charismata, it is a sign to them that people of a strange tongue (like the Assyrians and Israel) are going to sit in judgment against them for resisting the rest and refreshing that could have been theirs had they not remained in unbelief.

So, because you have not correctly grasped the typology, you erred in your understanding of how Paul applied the verse from Isaiah, incorrectly therefore assuming that Paul took the verse out of context to make it say something it did not, when it fact, it reads exactly as Paul indicated, and fulfilled the exact same purpose for when it was originally written, thus completely preserving the context of Isaiah while making use of it in 1 Corinthians 14.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

All drugs? Are you against the use of any form of medicine whatsoever?

No. I mean drugs in the sense of narcotics, that are taken and/or used illegally. I was merely adopting the context (hint-hint) in which Apostolic1ness made use of the term "drugs" in order to address his point.

Since he did not mean preaching against all and everything that might be labeled a "drug", but only those narcotics which are sinful for us to use, I honored what he wrote and applied his text correctly (see how this works???).

Now, had I taken what he wrote, and applied it to all "drugs" even down to an aspirin, then I would have taken what he wrote out of context in order to make my own application of his text however I saw fit, which is the very thing we are addressing, that I am saying is a no-no.