Must I Learn How to Interpret the Bible?

[JWBII]

Hello,

Here is an article that I though some might enjoy. It is edited for length. For full article please look online under the title as it is found various places.


Must I Learn How to Interpret the Bible?
by D. A. Carson


Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation; biblical hermeneutics is the art and science of interpreting the Bible. At the time of the Reformation, debates over interpretation played an enormously important role. These were debates over “interpretation,” not just over “interpretations.” In other words, the Reformers disagreed with their opponents not only over what this or that passage meant, but over the nature of interpretation, the locus of authority in interpretation, the role of the church and of the Spirit in interpretation, and much more.

During the last half century, so many developments have taken place in the realm of hermeneutics that it would take a very long article even to sketch them in lightly. Sad to say, nowadays many scholars are more interested in the challenges of the discipline of hermeneutics than in the interpretation of the Bible—the very Bible that hermeneutics should help us handle more responsibly. On the other hand, rather ironically there are still some people who think that there is something slightly sleazy about interpretation. Without being crass enough to say so, they secretly harbor the opinion that what others offer are interpretations, but what they themselves offer is just what the Bible says.

Carl F. H. Henry is fond of saying that there are two kinds of presuppositionalists: those who admit it and those who don’t. We might adapt his analysis to our topic: There are two kinds of practitioners of hermeneutics: those who admit it and those who don’t. For the fact of the matter is that every time we find something in the Bible (whether it is there or not!), we have interpreted the Bible. There are good interpretations and there are bad interpretations; there are faithful interpretations and there are unfaithful interpretations. But there is no escape from interpretation.

Consider some examples. “Greet one another with a holy kiss”: the French do it, Arab believers do it, but by and large we do not. Are we therefore unbiblical? Jesus tells his disciples that they should wash one another’s feet (John 13:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=John+13%3A14)), yet most of us have never done so. Why do we “disobey” that plain injunction, yet obey his injunction regarding the Lord’s Table (“This do, in remembrance of me”)? If we find reasons to be flexible about the “holy kiss,” how flexible may we be in other domains? May we replace the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper with yams and goat’s milk if we are in a village church in Papua New Guinea? If not, why not? And what about the broader questions circulating among theonomists regarding the continuing legal force of law set down under the Mosaic covenant? Should we as a nation, on the assumption that God graciously grants widespread revival and reformation, pass laws to execute adulterers by stoning? If not, why not? Is the injunction for women to keep silent in the church absolute (1 Cor. 14:33-36 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=1+Cor.+14%3A33-36))? If not, why not? Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again if he is to enter the kingdom; he tells the rich young man that he is to sell all that he has and give it to the poor. Why do we make the former demand absolute for all persons, and apparently fudge a little on the second?

Obviously I have raised enough questions for a dissertation or two. What follows in this article is not a comprehensive key to answering all difficult interpretive questions, but some preliminary guidelines to sorting such matters out. The apostolic number of points that follow—are not put into any order of importance.

(1) As conscientiously as possible, seek the balance of Scripture, and avoid succumbing to historical and theological disjunctions.

(2) Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain parts of the Bible, not least some of Jesus’ preaching, is a rhetorical device, not an absolute. The context must decide where this is the case.

(3) Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.

(4) Carefully examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command.

(5) Carefully observe that the formal universality of proverbs and of proverbial sayings is only rarely an absolute universality. If proverbs are treated as statutes or case law, major interpretive—and pastoral!—errors will inevitably ensue.

(6) The application of some themes and subjects must be handled with special care, not only because of their intrinsic complexity, but also because of essential shifts in social structures between biblical times and our own day.

(7) Determine not only how symbols, customs, metaphors, and models function in Scripture, but also to what else they are tied.

(8) Thoughtfully limit comparisons and analogies by observing near and far contexts.

(9) Many mandates are pastorally limited by the occasion or people being addressed.

(10) Always be careful how you apply narratives.

(11) Remember that you, too, are culturally and theologically located.

(12) Frankly admit that many interpretive decisions are nestled within a large theological system, which in principle we must be willing to modify if the Bible is to have the final word.

One final word: By advancing these dozen points, am I in danger of elevating certain hermeneutical controls above Scripture, controls which themselves serve to domesticate Scripture? Had I time and space, I think I could demonstrate that each of these twelve points is itself mandated by Scripture, whether explicitly or as a function of what Scripture is. It might be a useful exercise to work through the twelve points and think through why this is so. But that would be another essay. (© 1996; updated 2003, Modern Reformation Magazine (May / June Issue, Vol. 5.3). All Rights Reserved.)


Dr. D. A. Carson teaches New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and has more than twenty books to his credit. Among them are Showing the Spirit, Exegetical Fallacies, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, How Long O Lord: Reflections on Suffering and Evil, and Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

I hope you all enjoyed. Now lets go study.

[JWBII]

Hello,

Hello,

Here is an article that I though some might enjoy. It is edited for length. For full article please look online under the title as it is found various places.



I hope you all enjoyed. Now lets go study.

Re: Please read this related paper by CRI. Especially all those who misused the principle in our earlier discussions.

http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAI010.pdf

The point being, as I said then, you have to understand the verse we are talking about BEFORE you can slap another verse to it and say, "Let scripture interpret scripture." Just because a scripture is talking about sin and another passage is talking about sin, it does not mean that they are related verses that interpret one another. That is the FAULTY "chain-reference" method that was popular in the early 1900's. (Which by the way led to the faulty "initial evidence" doctrine.)

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.(ESV)

[coadie]

Hello,



Re: Please read this related paper by CRI. Especially all those who misused the principle in our earlier discussions.

http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAI010.pdf (http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAI010.pdf)

The point being, as I said then, you have to understand the verse we are talking about BEFORE you can slap another verse to it and say, "Let scripture interpret scripture." Just because a scripture is talking about sin and another passage is talking about sin, it does not mean that they are related verses that interpret one another. That is the FAULTY "chain-reference" method that was popular in the early 1900's. (Which by the way led to the faulty "initial evidence" doctrine.)

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.(ESV)
(2) There is only one eternal, almighty and perfect God. Within the Being of this one true God exist three eternally distinct and coequal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the one true God.
(3) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who took upon Himself human flesh through the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He who is true God became true man, uniting two natures in one person forever. Christ lived a perfect, sinless life, died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into Heaven where He now serves as our High Priest, our only Mediator. He will return bodily and visibly to the earth as King of kings and will judge every human being who has ever lived.

You are strongly commited to Hank's doctrines? He is an ordained Calvary Chapel preacher. About at strong against holiness as you get.

Thanks for Hank stuff,. He is doing the same thing by abusing scripture.

You are wrong about the second person of the Trinity stuff. Not in the bible. It is scripture avbuse from the early Romish religions.

[JWBII]

Hello,

(2) There is only one eternal, almighty and perfect God. Within the Being of this one true God exist three eternally distinct and coequal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the one true God.
(3) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who took upon Himself human flesh through the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He who is true God became true man, uniting two natures in one person forever. Christ lived a perfect, sinless life, died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into Heaven where He now serves as our High Priest, our only Mediator. He will return bodily and visibly to the earth as King of kings and will judge every human being who has ever lived.

You are strongly commited to Hank's doctrines? He is an ordained Calvary Chapel preacher. About at strong against holiness as you get.

Thanks for Hank stuff,. He is doing the same thing by abusing scripture.

You are wrong about the second person of the Trinity stuff. Not in the bible. It is scripture avbuse from the early Romish religions.

Re: Thank you for your comments. May God bless you. Pro 26:4.

[coadie]

You come on this thread and infer we don't know how to study the bible. But Hank the Answer man in your link can teach us,.http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2106253/k.BDBB/Home.htm

Of course we read the same bible and see what the Hank man "leaves out".

The first Dr Carson you mention also needs us to teach him a lesson. Seems his annointing has restrictions. He tells us how to study the Word and then I listened to a sermon of his,. The error of ommission. Did Adam not preach to Eve about forbidden fruit?
http://dl.salemweb.net/?mg=773A5C22-6BBA-4E71-9D6B-A6B90D111B5A

What he says is good, but Carson's doctrines for some reason omit speaking in tongues. He must be preaching a Pre Pentecost religion. All scripture is given for doctrine and he dances around it. Must be opposed by his denomination.

His schools statement of faith, spuriously leves out many verses when it list verses about their beliefs regarding the Holy Ghost.

Hank can post endorsements for Greg Boyd the friend of the emerging church, but he also calls speaking in toungues part of a counterfeit revival.

Do your trinitarian friends use acceptible bible study methods?

Why do you all want to delete scripture?

[JWBII]

Hello,

You come on this thread and infer we don't know how to study the bible. But Hank the Answer man in your link can teach us,.http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2106253/k.BDBB/Home.htm

Of course we read the same bible and see what the Hank man "leaves out".

The first Dr Carson you mention also needs us to teach him a lesson. Seems his annointing has restrictions. He tells us how to study the Word and then I listened to a sermon of his,. The error of ommission. Did Adam not preach to Eve about forbidden fruit?
http://dl.salemweb.net/?mg=773A5C22-6BBA-4E71-9D6B-A6B90D111B5A

What he says is good, but Carson's doctrines for some reason omit speaking in tongues. He must be preaching a Pre Pentecost religion. All scripture is given for doctrine and he dances around it. Must be opposed by his denomination.

His schools statement of faith, spuriously leves out many verses when it list verses about their beliefs regarding the Holy Ghost.

Hank can post endorsements for Greg Boyd the friend of the emerging church, but he also calls speaking in toungues part of a counterfeit revival.

Do your trinitarian friends use acceptible bible study methods?

Why do you all want to delete scripture?

Re: May God bless you.

:nt:

[Rulkiewicz]

Hello,



Re: May God bless you.

:nt:


How is that off topic? You posted to links, and someone else commented on them. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they're off topic.

[coadie]

1) As conscientiously as possible, seek the balance of Scripture, and avoid succumbing to historical and theological disjunctions.
this is where they insert the doctrine of the trinity from RCC traditions
(2) Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain parts of the Bible, not least some of Jesus’ preaching, is a rhetorical device, not an absolute. The context must decide where this is the case.
Give us an example.
(3) Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.
So they violate that by using matthew 28:19 as an absoulte that over rules several passages in Acts.
(4) Carefully examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command.
How about Acts 19 being baptized in Jesus name.
(5) Carefully observe that the formal universality of proverbs and of proverbial sayings is only rarely an absolute universality. If proverbs are treated as statutes or case law, major interpretive—and pastoral!—errors will inevitably ensue.

(6) The application of some themes and subjects must be handled with special care, not only because of their intrinsic complexity, but also because of essential shifts in social structures between biblical times and our own day.
So here they claim God shifts according to the culture. Go figure
(7) Determine not only how symbols, customs, metaphors, and models function in Scripture, but also to what else they are tied.
The trinitarians don't apply this when they come over here.
(8) Thoughtfully limit comparisons and analogies by observing near and far contexts.

and on and on.

So why does Carson violate these rules and deny the move of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues?

[JWBII]

Hello,

How is that off topic? You posted to links, and someone else commented on them. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they're off topic.

Re: It has nothing to do with the comments but with the FACT that the comments are directed at ME personally. Secondly, there is a principle of interpretation that was GREATLY misused in another thread. This is a post offered to inform those who took part in that and those that just have a general interest in understanding the bible.

See "Hank" did not write the article and is not the one responsible for what goes in the CRI journal. That person is Elliot Miller. Second the person we are speaking about often cites the Catholic Encyc. but I do not run behind the and try to discredit any and every thing they say simply because of that use of that material. Calvary Chapel has nothingto do with the issue at hand. The school DA CArson teaches at, you guessed it... nothing. The sermon link that was posted, zippo. Trying to induceguilt by association is not the way to have constructive dialog.

Be blessed.

[coadie]

Hello,



Re: It has nothing to do with the comments but with the FACT that the comments are directed at ME personally. Secondly, there is a principle of interpretation that was GREATLY misused in another thread. This is a post offered to inform those who took part in that and those that just have a general interest in understanding the bible.

See "Hank" did not write the article and is not the one responsible for what goes in the CRI journal. That person is Elliot Miller. Second the person we are speaking about often cites the Catholic Encyc. but I do not run behind the and try to discredit any and every thing they say simply because of that use of that material. Calvary Chapel has nothingto do with the issue at hand. The school DA CArson teaches at, you guessed it... nothing. The sermon link that was posted, zippo. Trying to induceguilt by association is not the way to have constructive dialog.

Be blessed.
Then why cling so closely to trinitarian scholars?

Why not the bible?

The writers of the New Testament didn't go for these scholars. Why should we? One God Apostolics go directly to the WORD.

[JWBII]

Hello,

1) As conscientiously as possible, seek the balance of Scripture, and avoid succumbing to historical and theological disjunctions.
this is where they insert the doctrine of the trinity from RCC traditions

Re: Unsupported assertion and therefore worthless.


(2) Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain parts of the Bible, not least some of Jesus’ preaching, is a rhetorical device, not an absolute. The context must decide where this is the case.
Give us an example.

Proverbs 26:4-5. :whistle:


(3) Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.
So they violate that by using matthew 28:19 as an absoulte that over rules several passages in Acts.

Re: Another unsupported assertion. Who is this ubiquitous "they" being talked about. Worthless.

(4) Carefully examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command.
How about Acts 19 being baptized in Jesus name.

Re: What about Acts 19?



(6) The application of some themes and subjects must be handled with special care, not only because of their intrinsic complexity, but also because of essential shifts in social structures between biblical times and our own day.
So here they claim God shifts according to the culture. Go figure

Re: Complete FABRICATION about what was said. He did noyt claim God shifts but trhe the APPLICATION of God's word does. Let us hope that the person responding here simply misunderstood.


(7) Determine not only how symbols, customs, metaphors, and models function in Scripture, but also to what else they are tied.
The trinitarians don't apply this when they come over here.

Re: Another unsupported assertion and therefore worthless.


(8) Thoughtfully limit comparisons and analogies by observing near and far contexts.

and on and on.

So why does Carson violate these rules and deny the move of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues?

Re: If you had actually read Carson, specifically his book "Showing the Spirit" you wouldhave found that he is NOT against speaking in tongues. So again your charge is useless and baseless. Second you have in NOWAY shown that he has not followed these rules simply stated so. Opinions are like noses, everybody has one.

May God bless you.

[JWBII]

Hello,

Then why cling so closely to trinitarian scholars?

Why not the bible?

The writers of the New Testament didn't go for these scholars. Why should we? One God Apostolics go directly to the WORD.

Re: When you quote your KJV, friend, why cling so closely to THOSE trinitarian scholars? You bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so I expect to see all your posts in the original languages from now on. Thank you.

May God bless you.

[coadie]

Hello,



Re: When you quote your KJV, friend, why cling so closely to THOSE trinitarian scholars? You bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so I expect to see all your posts in the original languages from now on. Thank you. I take it you don't read or write in Hebrew, Greek or aramaic.

May God bless you.
The Romish religion twisted the word by taking it into Latin and telling us the priests seem to know what we need to know. Your friend Hank hannefgraf calls us a cult. Seems he point blank tells us this is cult activity.

This is what Carson, yourself call cult activity.
Acts 19


1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7And all the men were about twelve. 8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God
\
We still need to be aware of the scripture you and the rest of the trinitarian adherents want to leave out.

About your snide comment, the King James scholars translated the bible and didn't do a massive interpretation. They also left out the words "trinity" God in three persons and the other man made expressions of the false romiosh religions.

I left the trinie movements because of what they want ignored.

All scripture is given for doctrine.

Acts 19 separates the trinitarian churches from the way the disciples taught.

Do you know why it is so important to add to the bible for the trinitartian churches?

[JWBII]

Hello,

I take it you don't read or write in Hebrew, Greek or aramaic.

Re: By God's grace I am learning.


The Romish religion twisted the word by taking it into Latin and telling us the priests seem to know what we need to know.

Re: That has nothing to do with you reading the trinitarian scholars that translated the KJV.

Your friend Hank hannefgraf calls us a cult.

Re: I do not know "hank" personally. Again he did not write the article nor did he determine that it would or would not go in. He is entitled to his opinion.

Seems he point blank tells us this is cult activity.

This is what Carson, yourself call cult activity.
Acts 19


1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7And all the men were about twelve. 8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God

Re: Please post where I or Carson or "hank" have said this is cultic activity.

We still need to be aware of the scripture you and the rest of the trinitarian adherents want to leave out.


Re: Another unsupported assertion. *sigh*

About your snide comment, the King James scholars translated the bible and didn't do a massive interpretation.


Re: I reject your charge of being snide. It is true. The translators of the KJV were scholars and trinitarians. Why are you using their bible? Also as to your last statement that they did not do "massive interpretation" well that is simply another unsupported assertion.

They also left out the words "trinity" God in three persons and the other man made expressions of the false romiosh religions.


Re: Ok.

I left the trinie movements because of what they want ignored.


Re: I am happy for you.

All scripture is given for doctrine.


Re: Ok.

Acts 19 separates the trinitarian churches from the way the disciples taught.


Re: How so or is that another unsupported assertion.

Do you know why it is so important to add to the bible for the trinitartian churches?

Re: I await you explanation.

[coadie]

Re: Ok.


Quote:
Acts 19 separates the trinitarian churches from the way the disciples taught.
Re: How so or is that another unsupported assertion.

Go back and read Acts 19

If you recall I highlighted this earlier and you missed it. I have to answere the same question 2 times. I of cousrse let the bible answer it for me.

You are off the mark on this thread. The bible in simple reading explains itself. If you want to add toward the Romish doctrines, I understand.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Shall we explain baptism in Jesus name?

[JWBII]

Hello,

Quote:
Acts 19 separates the trinitarian churches from the way the disciples taught.
Re: How so or is that another unsupported assertion.

Go back and read Acts 19

Re: Ok. Done.

If you recall I highlighted this earlier and you missed it.


Re: Did not miss a thing. Waiting for you to prove your assertion. (waiting ......waiting.....waiting......waiting)

I have to answere the same question 2 times. I of cousrse let the bible answer it for me.


Re: Question remains unanswered and the bible is correct, your theology is not.

You are off the mark on this thread. The bible in simple reading explains itself. If you want to add toward the Romish doctrines, I understand.


Re: Another unsupported assertion. *sigh*

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Shall we explain baptism in Jesus name?

Re: I know what the bible means but what do you mean because they are not the same.

[coadie]

JWB

Re: I know what the bible means but what do you mean because they are not the same.

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

The bible means what it says here. I agree with what the bible says in Acts 19.

I take it you have the adacity to say it doesn't mean what it says.

That is why I left yiour trinitarian movement. It claims to have a code that is used like a template to interpret the bible.

Remember Luke wrote all this before the trinie movement was formed. i doubt he would have written it your way under pressure.

[JWBII]

Hello,

JWB

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

The bible means what it says here. I agree with what the bible says in Acts 19.

I take it you have the adacity to say it doesn't mean what it says.

Re: It means EXACTLY what it says and praise God what it says IS NOT onenes theology.


That is why I left yiour trinitarian movement. It claims to have a code that is used like a template to interpret the bible.


Re: Trinitarians have no codes and I am not one.

Remember Luke wrote all this before the trinie movement was formed. i doubt he would have written it your way under pressure.

Re: I am glad he DID NOY write it the way you understand it at all.

[coadie]

Hello,


Oneness is not in the bible.


Re: It means EXACTLY what it says and praise God what it says IS NOT onenes theology.




Re: Trinitarians have no codes and I am not one.

I never said you were a "code".

Re: I am glad he DID NOY write it the way you understand it at all.


Over tha last few years you gjhave been unable or unwilling to attempt to explain why it is so important to divide the Godhead.

By the time you get out of a trinitarian school/seminary, will you be able to witness and answer the question if a prospect asks you how you explain the 3 component/partioioned godhead?


7For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

8Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

No, I will never revert back to your claim that the Son of God is not God.

Hopefully you will be able to explain this one day because you seem to be unable to at this time.

Do you know why you duck that question so many times on the other brand "Cxxx" discussion board?

For several years, you relentlessly repeated what some doctrine is not or how some doctrines only cause you to grunt "incorrect". You never tell us exactly how it is. You need to learn to express that unless you are ashamed to.:clap2:

[JWBII]

Hello,

Over tha last few years you gjhave been unable or unwilling to attempt to explain why it is so important to divide the Godhead.

Re: SInce I have neveer divided the Godhead your remarks are a strawman. Try Again.


By the time you get out of a trinitarian school/seminary, will you be able to witness and answer the question if a prospect asks you how you explain the 3 component/partioioned godhead?


Re: Lets try this again, Strawman.


7For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.


Re: Amen! Jesus is not God the Father.


8Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

No, I will never revert back to your claim that the Son of God is not God.


Re: Never made that claim so you are either misinformed or being untrue or creating a huge strawman. LOL! :icon_danc

Hopefully you will be able to explain this one day because you seem to be unable to at this time.

Re: I do not have to defend a position I do not hold.


Do you know why you duck that question so many times on the other brand "Cxxx" discussion board?


Re: Sorry but you might be on triple x rated websites but I am not.

For several years, you relentlessly repeated what some doctrine is not or how some doctrines only cause you to grunt "incorrect". You never tell us exactly how it is. You need to learn to express that unless you are ashamed to.:clap2:

Re: Wisdom says that Pro 26:4 answers you here friend. I have NEVER seen you answera direct question related to the issues at hand, so there is no need for me get into deep theology with you. When you want to engage, let me know.

[coadie]

Carson and CRI hank Hannegraf are both trinitarians. I take it you support them and their rejection of One God apostolic doctrines.


Using Hanks tactics, how do you explain the school you attend doesn't do foot washing? How do you use the tactics to get around New Testament teachings?

[JWBII]

Hello,

Carson and CRI hank Hannegraf are both trinitarians.

Re: So were the people that translated your bible, both the english and german you like to talk about. Give 'em back to where you got 'em. LOL!


I take it you support them and their rejection of One God apostolic doctrines.


Re: Where oneness is biblical I agree with it. Where oneness is error I stand against it.


Using Hanks tactics, how do you explain the school you attend doesn't do foot washing?


Re: How do you know they do not? Hum?


How do you use the tactics to get around New Testament teachings?

Re: Um friend, the church is NOT Israel. And does your church do it in towels?

[coadie]

Re: Where oneness is biblical I agree with it. Where oneness is error I stand against it.








Re: Um friend, the church is NOT Israel. And does your church do it in towels?[/quote]
We didn't mention the word church or Israel. It is a strawman.



5After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
6Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
11For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

tell us how the seminary implements foot washing.

[JWBII]

Hello,

We didn't mention the word church or Israel. It is a strawman.

Re: You statement implies a theological commitment you have yet to prove, please do so.

5After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
6Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
11For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

tell us how the seminary implements foot washing.

Re: Is the church Israel? Who was Jesus talking to? Do you follow all the commands Jesus gave the disciples? Show me where this is a command for the church to follow?

“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37). Anybody can rip verses outopf context.