Against modernist hermeneutics

[bibleprotector]

The Higher Critcs did not INVENT a grammatical-historical approach. They gave it a name and perverted it.

And yet we find their "perverted" approach being followed by various to the present. What I mean is common among those who reject Higher Criticism etc., to have still the influence of their thinking (or rather the same bases as their thinking) in their theology. That is to say, that rationalistic ideology has invaded far and wide.

You are admitting to use a name as coined by Higher Critics and while you know their view was perverse, yet you do not admit or recognise their thinking influencing into your own.

Practically, the way you execute your Bible interpretation is derived from their influences.

 

[bibleprotector]

Charismatic error concerning eternal security.

Charismatics are not the only Arminianists.

 

[prophet]

Charismatic error concerning eternal security.

Charismatics are not the only Arminianists.

Someone said that they were?

Do you suffer from ADD?

We are discussing the Promise of Jesus, that we that are regenerated are under no condemnation.

Our works will be tried.

But they never justified us anyway.

There is no punishment, only lack of reward, for those works that are found to be wood, hay, stubble.

I'm not against you, my friend, I'm for you.
We've been lied to, but the Truth makes us free.

Of course, Arminians would lose all their sermons, if they had to toss out the ones aimed at the sins of their uncondemnable brethren.

Bob Jones would've become a Mute.

 

[FSSL]

You are admitting to use a name as coined by Higher Critics and while you know their view was perverse, yet you do not admit or recognise their thinking influencing into your own.

Practically, the way you execute your Bible interpretation is derived from their influences.

Why do you dodge the point? Why can you (we) use the term "Creationist" which is coined by Darwin and I cannot use "grammatical-historical"? Ranting about your strawman is hardly convincing.

My Bible interpretation above is different from yours. That does not mean that I am influenced by the Higher Critics. All it means is that I do not find Jesus condemning the COLD. You are comfortable with that inconsistency. I am not.

Prophet and I have many disagreements, yet we both are uncomfortable with foisting alien thoughts on Rev 3.15.

 

[Ransom]

See my above reply.

What about it? It doesn't address my post at all.

Also, I could easily have predicted that you would be on the other side also in this.

How nice for you. I don't choose my positions based on how easily you can predict them. I will always be on the "other side" of apostasy and heterodoxy.

 

[Ransom]

Based on the actual teachings of the passage, since hot = zealous, then cold would be being against Christ, while lukewarm would mean half way between those two positions.

Jesus doesn't say that when he says "hot," he means "zealous." That is merely your assumption.

But we are not limited to just the passage, but also to the conference of scripture. Again, when he says he wishes them to be hot or cold, it is the same as Elijah wishing them to follow Baal. That is, to be fully committed one way or the other. It does not actually meant that God wanted them to be cold.

And where does Rev. 3 allude to the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal? Where does 1 Kings 18 say that the followers of Baal and the followers of YHWH were either "hot" or "cold"? Nowhere. All you have done is taken two Bible texts, smacked them together and declared, "This is that." You merely assign your arbitrary, personal opinions authority that they do not merit.

 

[Ransom]

Because it is invented by German Higher Critics, e.g. Karl Kiel and then by Schleiermacher, etc.

Please note: If you didn't know that the earliest church fathers, as well as the Protestant Reformers, were "German Higher Critics," mark that down in your church history textbooks. You have been enlightened!

 

[bibleprotector]

Please note: If you didn't know that the earliest church fathers, as well as the Protestant Reformers, were "German Higher Critics," mark that down in your church history textbooks. You have been enlightened!

You admit to promoting historical revisionism, even by altering textbooks!

 

[FSSL]

Do you need some quotes?

 

[bibleprotector]

Why do you dodge the point? Why can you (we) use the term "Creationist" which is coined by Darwin and I cannot use "grammatical-historical"? Ranting about your strawman is hardly convincing.

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Jas 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

To believe in creation is to believe in creation. But when it comes to what the Higher Critics meant by "grammatical-historical", and yet you are not agreeing with the Higher Critics, why would you use a terminology that identifies with them? Worse than that, in your interpretative methodology, you have accepted their influences. The leaven of their ideology comes through, even if you reject aspects of their beliefs (e.g. source document hypotheses).

No one is banning your use of "grammatical-historical", but it is telling because even though you claim to reject the Higher Critics, you are actually advocating some of their thought process. You want to read the Bible like "what do the Greek words really mean" and "what does it mean to the first century near eastern mindset", and likewise for the way the OT is read.

My Bible interpretation above is different from yours. That does not mean that I am influenced by the Higher Critics.

Being different does not mean necessarily being influenced by Higher Critics, of course, but in this case, what you are arguing is directly based on the same source and manner of their reasoning, i.e. that the words of the Bible have meaning locked in Greek and that the Bible must be understood by taking a first century near eastern mindset. This is an unbelief approach, which says that the Holy Ghost does not communicate properly to today.

All it means is that I do not find Jesus condemning the COLD. You are comfortable with that inconsistency. I am not.

You are trying to say that because there is no explicit statement that "cold is bad" that therefore such a conclusion cannot be drawn. Yet this is how all Bible doctrines are formed, we find various passages, various statements, which build to form doctrines. The doctrines of the Trinity, Water Baptism, etc., are all formed from bringing together various passages. Thus, when dealing with the cold, we interpret in light of the implications both within the passage, i.e. that He commands zeal, and also in comparison to Elijah's statement on Carmel.

Prophet and I have many disagreements, yet we both are uncomfortable with foisting alien thoughts on Rev 3.15.

That is editorialising, because you well know that many Protestant interpreters have said the same thing that I am repeating, and you are not accusing those multitudes of "foisting" their individual, private or "alien" thoughts ... no, the real issue here is the conflict between the ideologies of your view (as based on an unbelieving influenced, modern imposition hermeneutic) and my view (as based on a believing, Protestant tradition received interpretation).

On a spectrum, you are falling half way between the traditional believing view and the rationalist view. Your view is the lukewarm one between my hot and the Higher Critics' cold.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Charismatic error concerning eternal security.

Charismatics are not the only Arminianists.

Well you finally said something we can agree on.

Sure took you long enough.

 

[prophet]

What is clear, in Rev 3, is that God is using a metaphor of being served a  tea, that is enjoyable iced (cold), OR hot, but when He takes a sip, blechhh!!!, He wants to spit it out, it is neither ENJOYABLE temp, but rather a middle ground that is disgusting.

How we get from that, that cold isn't enjoyable either, I have no idea.

 

[bibleprotector]

How we get from that, that cold isn't enjoyable either, I have no idea.

That's eisogesis (the very thing your side accuses believers of doing), because water is never even mentioned in the passage.

 

[Ransom]

You admit to promoting historical revisionism, even by altering textbooks!

You admit to wearing frilly pink women's underwear.

 

[Ransom]

That's eisogesis (the very thing your side accuses believers of doing), because water is never even mentioned in the passage.

Hot and cold weren't mentioned in 1 Kings 18 either, but that didn't stop you.

Your inconsistency is proof positive of a failed argument.

 

[bibleprotector]

Hot and cold weren't mentioned in 1 Kings 18 either, but that didn't stop you.

I never said hot and cold were mentioned there. What I said, as you know, is that the choice is between two, a dichotomy, a polarisation, you cannot take middle ground. That's the point. He said they should worship Baal, but He wasn't saying that was God's actual goodwill. So likewise, it is not God's goodwill for people to be cold.

 

[prophet]

How we get from that, that cold isn't enjoyable either, I have no idea.

That's eisogesis (the very thing your side accuses believers of doing), because water is never even mentioned in the passage.

No one drinks water hot.

I didn't mention water.

I am a believer.

You aren't making sense.

God used a *gasp*!!!! : metaphor.

First we have to grasp the earthly meaning, Nicodemus.
Somethings, like Tea, or Coffee, are enjoyable HOT OR COLD, but taste terrible, and lose nutritional value when they SIT AND BECOME ROOM TEMPERATURE.

The picture  ,here,  is the loss of usefulness after stagnation.

This church has stagnated in works.

Zeal is the catalyst that moves one from stagnation to action.

Hence, zeal is the cure to their apathy.

The factor being ignored, is God's express Will.

"I would that ye were...cold..."

English lesson:  Compound predicate adjective in this phrase.
The comparative conjunctions "either/ or", make the 2 things being compared equal.

So, unless some other factor is introduced, that subjugates cold to hot, we can rightly say that "cold" is " God's Will", from this passage.

Since there is no other factor, ....any interpretation that places hot unequal to cold is extra-biblical, and simply not substantial.

There is a contrast in this metaphor.
On one side is both hot and cold, equals.
On the other, lukewarm.

To contrast cold with hot, using only the English words in this passage, which I am wont to do, is to expose a lack of understanding of English grammar rules, and also a spiritual deafness, since He guides us into all truth.

I could care less what every Protestant who ever wrongly interpreted this said, they aren't the Oracle of God.

If we trample the earthly meaning, Nicodemus, how can we ever grasp the Heavenly?

 

[FSSL]

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

So... studying the grammar of the text.... studying the historical context... has the appearance of evil?

Correct me if I am wrong... but how do you get to this?

On a spectrum, you are falling half way between the traditional believing view and the rationalist view. Your view is the lukewarm one between my hot and the Higher Critics' cold.

Hey... just a thought. You said that COLD=OUT. Are you saying that Higher Critics are unbelievers? I am sure some of them are, but you are implying that they, categorically are OUT.

Here lies the problem... because you have foisted definitions on these categories and you are unable to use them consistently.

Yes. Interpreters who have done the same are wrong.

 

[FSSL]

If we trample the earthly meaning, Nicodemus, how can we ever grasp the Heavenly?

BINGO!!!

If you get the meaning wrong, which the Holy Spirit gave you in the first place, what is He to do with that?

 

[prophet]

If we trample the earthly meaning, Nicodemus, how can we ever grasp the Heavenly?

BINGO!!!

If you get the meaning wrong, which the Holy Spirit gave you in the first place, what is He to do with that?

Apparently, even Jesus was frustrated by Nicodemus' lack of understanding. 
He couldn't explain that the evidence of who He Is was there, because the educator he was talking to was unable to pick up on a simple illustration using nature.
He couldn't get past the spirit/ wind metaphor, to show the next logical step, that these signs were not of some "good master", but the movement of God Himself.

I feel His pain, right now.