Against modernist hermeneutics

[bibleprotector]

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?

You are striving to stand for something which is, as confessed by yourself, coined and promoted by Higher Critics.

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.

Yes, of course Higher Critics are out, they were never in.

(Later Jesus says he is on the outside of the door. Knowing your methods, you will then try to make the spewed out folks with Jesus on the outside knocking.)

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

The definition of the cold is entirely consistent, it means to be against, it means to have no connection. It means apostasy, it means Baal worship, it means the side of the infidels and atheists.

It is your method of interpretation which foists definitions onto the Scripture which are but private interpretations, modernist explaining away, and rank unbelief.

The authority of my view is not merely because lots of Protestants agree with it, but because my view is based on the context of the passage and the conference of Scripture, unlike yours, which is based on treating the text in a wooden way, reading the Bible like any other book, forcing modern meanings onto Greek words, and trying to read the Bible as though we are unable to comprehend it today, by taking on an imaginary first century near eastern mindset. This all is the dilution and confusion and misunderstanding of the Scripture.

Your view is not fully the Rationalists', Infidels' and German Critics', but it is waxing nearer to those icy thoughts all the time.

 

[prophet]

You know full well I am an anti mv guy, and we'll discuss it til the clouds part.

But, the backlash against the status quo in interpretation, wasn't a bad thing.

Surely, if Laodocea was stagnant, less than a century from their plant, how much more was Protestant Interpretive methods stagnant, in the middle 19th Century.

There would be no JW's, SDA,  etc., were it not for glaring interpretive errors that Satan could use his servants to point out, as they lead sheep away from the Shepherd.

This is why I pull my hair out over my fellow IFB, and KJO.

How can we convince any of our postion, when we cant admit the simplest error, when it is pointed out?

Do we study to show ourselves approved into God?

Or do we seek to justify ourselves before our fellow Man?

How can historical context not be a part of understanding a biography?


Do we fear the charismatics so much, that we will not admit that God still reveals His Will to Man, it  just doesnt  get canonized anymore?

How much prophecy has disappeared already?  99%?

So we twist the more sure Word of prophecy, to cover our inadequacies at interpreting His constant direct Revelation.

Relax, everyone!  All may prophesy.
Just don't expect your sermonette to be the 67th book of the Bible.

 

[FSSL]

... to be against, it means to have no connection. It means apostasy, it means Baal worship, it means the side of the infidels and atheists.

Your interpretation says that you believe that Jesus wants people "to be against, have no connection, apostasize, worship Baal and remain on the side of the infidels and atheists."

You do realize that Higher Critics ALSO interpreted this passage the same way you do...

 

[bgwilkinson]

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?

You are striving to stand for something which is, as confessed by yourself, coined and promoted by Higher Critics.

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.

Yes, of course Higher Critics are out, they were never in.

(Later Jesus says he is on the outside of the door. Knowing your methods, you will then try to make the spewed out folks with Jesus on the outside knocking.)

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

The definition of the cold is entirely consistent, it means to be against, it means to have no connection. It means apostasy, it means Baal worship, it means the side of the infidels and atheists.

It is your method of interpretation which foists definitions onto the Scripture which are but private interpretations, modernist explaining away, and rank unbelief.

The authority of my view is not merely because lots of Protestants agree with it, but because my view is based on the context of the passage and the conference of Scripture, unlike yours, which is based on treating the text in a wooden way, reading the Bible like any other book, forcing modern meanings onto Greek words, and trying to read the Bible as though we are unable to comprehend it today, by taking on an imaginary first century near eastern mindset. This all is the dilution and confusion and misunderstanding of the Scripture.

Your view is not fully the Rationalists', Infidels' and German Critics', but it is waxing nearer to those icy thoughts all the time.

I have not noticed anyone on this forum mention "The Higher Criticism" as much as the Bible  protector. Can I assume he is a former devotee as he seems to be spouting off about it continuously?

I speak for myself only. I categorically reject "The Higher Criticism", I do however embrace the lower criticism as those did in the 16th century and latter such as Erasmus, Estienne or Griesbach.

Bible protector you have wrongly assumed the embrace of "The Higher Criticism" on this forum.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip> It is the English which is the absolute authority. <snip>

What in the world does that mean? Authority regarding what and over whom? Who granted this authority? When did this happen? Is there some sort of certificate somewhere? Has anyone told the rest of the world?

 

[bgwilkinson]

<snip> It is the English which is the absolute authority. <snip>

What in the world does that mean? Authority regarding what and over whom? Who granted this authority? When did this happen? Is there some sort of certificate somewhere? Has anyone told the rest of the world?

I believe bibleprotector is the person who has declared his own critical edition of the KJV is the only True and authentic Word of God.

He has authorized himself to be the only ultimate authenticator of what is and what is not the Word of God.

He must have a certificate of absolute authenticity somewhere in his possession with his own seal and signature attesting to the absolute supremacy of his own self published critical edition of the KJV.

Anyone taking the time to read this thread would be impressed by the veracity of the previous three points.

IMHO of course.

 

[bibleprotector]

... to be against, it means to have no connection. It means apostasy, it means Baal worship, it means the side of the infidels and atheists.

Your interpretation says that you believe that Jesus wants people "to be against, have no connection, apostasize, worship Baal and remain on the side of the infidels and atheists."

You do realize that Higher Critics ALSO interpreted this passage the same way you do...

Do you realise that Elijah told the Israelites to serve Baal? Do you realise that according to a proper sovereignty view, God has some enemies?

Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Whereas, you dilute all that information, into quite a different view, that hot and cold have no such meaning, and really, have no real meaning at all, except that they are not "lukewarm", and you fail to identify by your interpretation what "lukewarm" actually means, because you have eliminated the absolutes of what "hot" or "cold" mean. Thus, Jesus' rebuke of them being lukewarm by your interpretation has no definition, except that maybe he can't handle their taste or stomach them, which you still do not interpret as having any spiritual significance or meaning. Your view makes Jesus a purveyor of incomprehensible and nonsensical statements.

 

[bibleprotector]

I have not noticed anyone on this forum mention "The Higher Criticism" as much as the Bible  protector. Can I assume he is a former devotee as he seems to be spouting off about it continuously?

Wrong assumption. Higher Criticism is just one of the beliefs or fruits of Infidelity. It is Infidelity which I reject.

However, while many folks (e.g. here) reject Higher Criticism, and may be saved Christians, they still have embraced some of the assumptions behind Higher Criticism, rationalism, etc. That is to say, the leaven of infidelity.

See for example various books, booklets and videos I have made, such as this presentation: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASfDV45_Ges

I speak for myself only. I categorically reject "The Higher Criticism", I do however embrace the lower criticism as those did in the 16th century and latter such as Erasmus, Estienne or Griesbach.

Actually, the folks of the Reformation era had a believing view. Whereas Griesbach would be associated with the German unbelief, and his views are therefore of the category of Infidelity.

Bible protector you have wrongly assumed the embrace of "The Higher Criticism" on this forum.

Wrong, I know that folks here are against Higher Criticism. What many (e.g. here) are is influenced by the same assumptions and ideology of Rationalism, etc., thus the leaven of Infidelity is among them, which is defined as small "m" modernism.

"Higher Criticism" is not the big enemy any more than Freemasons, Jesuits, Evolutionists, Abortionists, New Agers, Illuminati, Modern Versionists, etc. etc. are. The actual enemy is the spirit of error, and the prominent Infidelity belief system.

Saying you agree with the "lower criticism" shows that it is likely you are also affected by the assumptions, ideology and leaven of Infidelity. That would place you on slippery ground.

The assumptions of Infidelity are basically "I define truth for myself", or, "My own mind is my own Church" (Thomas Paine).

Lower criticism is, if not starting from Bible promises and doctrines, based on the assumptions of error, e.g. that we don't actually have God's words today properly; that error and imposition has come through the copying process; that we need to go to the oldest or majority of original language copies to best recover it, etc.

This is in line with the similar views of the modern grammatical-historical method, assuming that we cannot plainly understand the Scripture today; that error, disparity and a cultural gulf exists; that we need to find out what words meant in the original language; that we need to approach the communication and message from a contemporary (e.g. first century near eastern) mindset.

This is Deism. Most of that kind of thinking is semi-Deistic at least. It says that God exists, that He inspired the Scripture, that He intended for it to pass through time. But then, He was not directly superintending or providentially preserving, but willed that natural laws would have their affects, and so, in the end, men today must use naturalistic, humanistic, rationalistic assumptions based on empirical evidence to try to work out what the Bible really says and what it really means.

 

[FSSL]

Lukewarm means that their deeds were worthless in contrast to the deeds of the hot and cold. According to the text, their comfort in riches led to a lack of deeds.

See... easy enough, No need to run to OT contexts that have no allusion or connection to Rev 3.15

Also... I didn't have to use Greek to make the point.

Prophet is spot on with his grammatical analysis of this passage... and you know it

 

[bibleprotector]

<snip> It is the English which is the absolute authority. <snip>

What in the world does that mean? Authority regarding what and over whom? Who granted this authority? When did this happen? Is there some sort of certificate somewhere? Has anyone told the rest of the world?

It means it is the English Bible which is the absolute authoritative basis for the perfect method of interpretation.

It means that the words of God in English in the King James Bible are, by divine providence, exemplary.

It means that the Spirit of God is outworking for the KJB to be raised as a standard for the whole world, as based on doctrines, promises and prophecies of Scripture.

It means that this was in the mind of God all along, was communicated in His Word, understood today, and going forth into the future.

It means that believers everywhere recognise by the Holy Ghost the providentially appointed authority and progress of the KJB, and align with it.

It means that it is in a Holy Ghost empowered continuum, reaching the world, even as we see language, technology, understanding and so on preparing and building toward it.

 

[bibleprotector]

I believe bibleprotector is the person who has declared his own critical edition of the KJV is the only True and authentic Word of God.

You deceive that I have made any such declaration, I have not. In fact, what Paul wrote, the Vulgate, the Geneva Version etc. was the Word of God, so I am far from limiting the Word of God to some critical edition of the KJB.

He has authorized himself to be the only ultimate authenticator of what is and what is not the Word of God.

Really? You must have a vivid imagination, because I have done no such thing. If I had, how could I know that the Word of God went to the Spanish, or to the French, or to the Church of the Galatians, or to Israel in the wilderness?

He must have a certificate of absolute authenticity somewhere in his possession with his own seal and signature attesting to the absolute supremacy of his own self published critical edition of the KJV.

This is neither literally nor figuratively true. How could I be saying that folks who have some wrong doctrines are still saved, who are only using modern versions? Clearly, my views are opposite of the false accusations.

 

[bibleprotector]

Lukewarm means that their deeds were worthless in contrast to the deeds of the hot and cold. According to the text, their comfort in riches led to a lack of deeds.

Yes, but even you are saying "in contrast to" hot and cold. But you don't define hot and cold as anything, unless you mean now that the hot and cold are both not trusting in riches/self-sufficient?

And if so, why did you also say that you could be hot one day, cold the next, or both equally not intermixed? Because that view (the one quoted here about riches) counteracts the one of the definition where hot is good and cold is refreshing. (The people who promote the "cold is good" view say cold = refreshing, which is distinguished from the hot = wholesome.)

Prophet is spot on with his grammatical analysis of this passage... and you know it

What you claim I know and what I know are two different things. Does your conscience bother you about saying such things?

 

[FSSL]

I don't make it a practice to define the characteristics of hot and cold. That is not the point of the text.

 

[bibleprotector]

I don't make it a practice to define the characteristics of hot and cold. That is not the point of the text.

So you admit that your view DOES have Jesus speaking something meaningless, i.e. that hot and cold by you now have no real definition.

 

[FSSL]

Your attempt to erect a strawman is admirable. Just be careful... you don't want to burn down the outback.

Hot/Cold (deeds) are contrasted with Lukewarm (no deeds).

Jesus is allowed to play off the historical realities of the city of Laodicea.

Imagine the writhing of Bibleprotector about the metaphor of blindness in the next few verses!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Clearly he is confused. I gave him Kudos for trying.

I believe he does mean well, God bless him.

 

[bibleprotector]

Hot/Cold (deeds) are contrasted with Lukewarm (no deeds).

A novel, private interpretation, considering:
a. others who go away from the accepted traditional interpretation make a distinction that to be cold is refreshing,
b. that Jesus knows their works, being neither cold nor hot, meaning works that are half-hearted, not the absence of works/deeds.

You are contrasting a conceptual formula of (cold or hot = works) versus (lukewarm = absence of works).

The problem is that in the real word, hot lays to one side and cold to the other, and lukewarm is in the middle, i.e.: (hot = works), (lukewarm = half-hearted works), (cold = no works).

Your interpretation is blatantly wrong, because Jesus says, "I know thy works". That's not, as you wrongly suppose, an absence of works. How could Jesus know their works, if there are none? So then, lukewarmness is between doing works properly and doing none.

Jesus is allowed to play off the historical realities of the city of Laodicea.

What you mean is that you are making the Bible say something by your view of what was the historical situation. The reality is that Jesus was against their lukewarmness.

Anyone who has a sovereignty view would realise that God ordained from the beginning a town with a lukewarm water supply that would, at the right time, be a fitting illustration of their spirituality. And any honest reader would know that Jesus was rebuking a vacillating attitude without necessary knowing that Laodicea had warm water supplies. But if this archelogical fact be stated, then it only serves to show that the Bible was accurate. We don't start from history and then try to make the Bible fit certain presuppositions.

The wide departure from sound doctrine in just this instance is a warning about these kinds of methods being used in other passages, which can therefore justify bad doctrines or condemn true ones.

 

[bgwilkinson]

"PRESENTED
BY THE
AUTHORITY
OF THE
GUARDIANS
OF THE
PURE
CAMBRIDGE
EDITION."

How else does one interpret this statement from your web site?

I stand by my previous evaluation.

 

[bibleprotector]

"PRESENTED
BY THE
AUTHORITY
OF THE
GUARDIANS
OF THE
PURE
CAMBRIDGE
EDITION."

How else does one interpret this statement from your web site?

I stand by my previous evaluation.

That is in regards to a particular exemplary file/copy/standard, not in regards to the existence of the Scripture in other copies, editions, translations, versions and manuscripts.

 

[rsc2a]

<snip> It is the English which is the absolute authority. <snip>

What in the world does that mean? Authority regarding what and over whom? Who granted this authority? When did this happen? Is there some sort of certificate somewhere? Has anyone told the rest of the world?

It means it is the English Bible which is the absolute authoritative basis for the perfect method of interpretation.

It means that the words of God in English in the King James Bible are, by divine providence, exemplary.

It means that the Spirit of God is outworking for the KJB to be raised as a standard for the whole world, as based on doctrines, promises and prophecies of Scripture.

It means that this was in the mind of God all along, was communicated in His Word, understood today, and going forth into the future.

It means that believers everywhere recognise by the Holy Ghost the providentially appointed authority and progress of the KJB, and align with it.

It means that it is in a Holy Ghost empowered continuum, reaching the world, even as we see language, technology, understanding and so on preparing and building toward it.

See also: idolatry.