[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation  (Read 38470 times)

jd@

  • Guest
Firstly, Pearson, I'm sorry if at times I quote people without attribution.  I'll remember to be careful in future. 

Secondly, I don't apologise for one-line answers.  Why speak many words if a few are sufficient?

Pearson said this:
Quote
If it is representative of the time you put in your bible study, I can see why you don't know what you are talking about.

But you don't know how much time I put into my bible study, do you?  Anyway, it's begging the question.  I think I too have the Spirit of God.  I know for sure that I'm justified.  So I know that anyone who implies otherwise is wide of the mark.

Andreas said this:
Quote
We are not interested in what saith jd@

Fair enough, but maybe - just maybe - they might occasionally concur.  Are you open to that possibility?

Anyway, andreas, my point is that sometimes wine in scripture stands for blood, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes it stands for Jesus' blood and sometimes it doesn't.  For example, I can't see how it could stand for blood in Psalm 104:15.  To get it to say that would require some quite exquisite biblical gymnastics.







andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
<<<For example, I can't see how it could stand for blood in Psalm 104:15.  To get it to say that would require some quite exquisite biblical gymnastics.>>>

" For the cattle there is grass, and the beasts of prey, that live not on grass, feed on those that do; for man there is herb, a better sort of grass (and a dinner of herbs and roots is not to be despised); nay, he is furnished with wine, and oil, and bread," Psalm 104:15

The Lord does not only provide for our material needs, but also for our spiritual needs ,"For man doth not live by bread only,but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord". Deut.8:3. Christ ,the bread of life,John 6:35, John 6:41.Oil  in the lampstands(the church,Rev 1:20),dispels the darkness,and spreads the light.Finally without the blood,we are still dead in our trespasses and sins,"To Him that loves us and send  us free from our sins by His blood".Rev.1:5b
andreas. 8)
kai ean diabainhs di¢ udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

yaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • I'm a Lamma
Our job is to feed those who are hungry, not cram bread down the throats of those who have no desire for it. These are those who will not receive the things of the Spirit, because they remain "spiritually" blind unable to discern what is being shown.


Amen. This is one problem with new Christians because we are so wired and excited about the gospel and want everyone to feel just like we do. But deep down I know you are right and we just can't force feed the gospel to these people.

As a new christian what do we need to do to become well versed in the scriptures that we keep learning and don't become stagnant?
 

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Quote
>>>
I don't apologise for one-line answers.
<<<

You seldom apologize for anything, so I don't believe that anyone expected one. Nevertheless, one-liners in answer to "pertinent" questions are usually a sign that you don't really have an answer.


Quote
>>>
..Why speak many words if a few are sufficient?
<<<

"IF" is a big word, allegorically speaking ;)

Another drawback with one-liners is that they more often do more to confuse the issue than to bring light to it, as they generally produce more questions than answers, and breed misunderstanding. As indeed you've demonstrated time and again in the past with your continual retorts that, "you didn't say that," or that "this is not what you meant!" ..precisely because you don't really have that much substantive to say about anything. And seeing how you've been caught with "foot in mouth" more than a few times, I can understand that.


Quote
>>>
Since the alleged answer that it merely means that, "we should listen to God" is blatantly absurd!

This is what is known as a proof by assertion. How is it 'blatantly absurd'?? 
<<<

How--as in, in what manner or way? Blatantly means brazenly or boldly obvious. Obvious means it's very plain or unmistakable. Need I say more? "He that hath eyes to see and ears to hear" PLAINLY does not simply mean, listen! For we all (normally) have eyes and ears. So for Christ to say, "He who has them," OBVIOUSLY means that some allegorically don't have them. Correct! ie, some do not have these spiritual ears or eyes to hear or see. Confirming this, Christ said of the unrighteous, eyes they have, but they cannot see! OBVIOUSLY it didn't mean that they should open their eyes, but that they had eyes, but were unable to see spiritually. It's not rocket science, but you seem to always have trouble grasping even the simplest of Biblical teachings.

John 12:39-41
  • "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
  • He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
  • These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

Quite "obviously" God is not talking about literal eyes, nor is He just saying, listen. He's saying that they can't listen because they have been judged of God and been made "Spiritually" deaf and "spiritually" blind. They have no allegorical eyes to see. God has withheld from them the gift of Spiritual sight. Those who hath eyes to see and ears to hear are obviously those to whom God hath given to see and hear.

Luke 8:10
  • "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

How much plainer can it get? In other words, one is given to see and hear, while the other is not! And so I repeat, it's blatantly absurd and Biblically untenable to come to the conclusion that you have, considering scripture. Or as Pearson so succinctly put it, it's just plain ridiculous to say it just means listen! But as we've come to learn, your retort was another "typical" meaningless one-line answer to serious biblical questions posed to you by faithful Christians.

It's proof by assertion alright. Proof by assertion of scripture. It's called witness of the Word. And please, don't bother with the one-line retort syonymous with saying "..Oh Yeah?"  For two reasons. This is a Biblical forum for serious discussions, and it's a waste of time (yours and everyone who has to read it).


Quote
>>>
I fully agree that at the Eucharist the wine represents the blood of the Christ.  (Actually, he doesn't say, 'this represents my body', he says, 'this is my body, but this, as they say, is another story.)  Sometimes we are told to interpret things allegorically, or metaphorically.
<<<

Yes, Christ said this "IS" my Body. Now would that be anything like Christ saying of John the Baptist, this "IS" Elijah? Did you think that meant it was literally, physically, Elijah? Was it the Elijah that lived hundreds of years before? No! Was it Elijah as Christ said? Yes! It's not an enigma. John came as the "Spiritual" or Allegorical Elijah, a  Spiritual messenger of God. Because John was filled with the Holy Spirit of God, and so came in the same Spirit and with the same power that Elijah did. He was Metaphorically Elijah, not physically Elijah. Just as the bread wasn't physically Christ. That would be silly, as Christ was standing right there and He didn't tell anyone to take a bite of Him. You have to get off this anti-spiritual kick. Because it's foolish considering the number of passages confirming these truths. Allegorically. Just as John the Baptist "WAS" Elijah prophesied to come.

Luke 1:15-17
  • "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
  • And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
  • And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Because of the Spirit of God, he came in the Spirit that Elijah came with. Was He Elijah that was prophesied to come? Yes. Was he the Elijah that lived hundreds of years before? No! Likewise, when Christ says of the bread, this is my body. Is it his physical body? That is (again) blatantly absurd, the stuff of certain Church traditions. Was it his body? Yes, because like Elijah, it wasn't the name that was substantive, but the Spirit.

But as I said, some people slowly come to understand the Spiritual, and some people never come to understand it, because it is not given to them to understand. It is spiritually discerned. And we should all discern what the bread of Christ's body was. It's His word by which we are nourished and sustained.

Matthew 16:11-12
  • "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
  • Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Think of it this way, the bread of the Pharisees, versus the bread of Christ. That's why Christ is called the Word of God. He "IS" the Manna from heaven. ...metaphorically speaking, to those who will receive it.


Quote
>>>
we are told to interpret them typically as well as literally.  And that, in fact, is my hermenuetic: to interpret Scripture allegorically, if I am told to do so.   
<<<

You sound just like the Dispensationalists. That's the same "unsound hermeneutic" they take as well. In fact, their mantra is:

            "If the literal sense, makes sense, seek no other sense"
          or alternatively,
            "If the plain sense, makes sense, seek no other sense"
         
Which is obviously seriously flawed. And if that were REALLY true what you say about having to be told first, then you wouldn't take David as a type of Christ, because you are never told to do that. ..and the plain sense makes sense. But the "FACT" is, we take David as a type of Christ because we can see that "by example," and from comparing the spiritual with spiritual, and comparing scripture with scripture. It is in this manner revealed to us by the Spirit of God, that David was a type of Christ. Not because we are specifically told it in this chapter or that chapter. The same as is revealed everything else we learn in scripture. The Methodology doesn't change, nothing is different, it's all a farce to say we don't take anything allegorically unless told. That has never been a true statement, even with Dispensationalists, much less with others.

..truth be known, in a sense, we are told. If we listen to with a spiritual ear to hear it. By the Spirit of God, through study of scripture we rightly divide the word of truth. That's how we are told. But to think that God will have written that we should, "take this verse allegorically, and don't take this other one allegorically," is again, Absurd. That's for us to glean from scripture. Listen and learn!

Proverbs 25:2
  • "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

You would do well to actually take these passages to heart, rather than simply read them on a strictly intellectual basis. Clearly, everything is not told you plainly. That's not how God inspired the Bible written. He could have, but He didn't. Selah.


Quote
>>>
Well, thanks for taking the time to clarify this, Tony,
<<<

I wouldn't have to if you weren't so enamored with the one-liner.


Quote
>>>
I am saying that wine is sometimes a figure of blood.  But of course, your inital statement was "Wine in Scripture is a figure of the blood of Christ"
<<<

aaAAhhhHHH. That's what you were really saying? :)

 I stick by my statement. Wine in scripture is a figure of the blood of Christ (by your own admission). Just as the lamb in scripture is a figure of Christ. That's all true. That doesn't then mean that a lamb cannot be a figure of believers also, does it? Let's stop with the games, please. Wine is a figure of blood. It's up to us to search the scriptures to determine from context what the blood signified. Is it that he'll crush the wicked in a winepress, and their blood come out, or is it the time for the Woman to receive wine for the wedding supper? Context reveals which, by the careful study of God's word. It is certainly not revealed by making unsupportable rash statements about symbolism or having disdain for God's metaphors and allegories. Yet to whom they are revealed, is God's business.

John 16:13
  • "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Quote
>>>
 - which it certainly isn't in Isaiah 49:26. 
<<<

Isaiah 49:26
  • "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob."


I was using these passages to illustrate clearly that "wine" is used throughout scripture as a symbol of "blood" (my initial post). Obviously, you're helping me do that. I guess I should thank you. :)  But this was not your intent, it is just more nonsense from you in lieu of anything substantive or pertinent to say against what has been written concerning wine and blood.

So now that we've established that wine is used in scripture as a symbol of blood (my contention from the start), where do you go from here? To a one-liner about how stone jars don't always hold purified water for the Jews, or how 6 jars just means they didn't have room for 7?


Quote
>>>
And since God says that the Spirit reveals the spiritual things to His elect, I don't think that I have to defend that statement

To be quite honest, Tony, this confirms my initial suspicion.  You seem to be implying that people who don't agree with you are 'unspiritual.'
<<<

As I said, God's Word defends itself! It needs no help from me. And God (not Tony) said that the things of the Spiritual are discerned by the Spirit, and that they will not be discerned by the natural/carnal man. These things are foolishness to him. That's a fact of scripture, not my rhetoric. As such, it's either true, or it's a lie, depending upon if we have saving faith, or dead faith. So it's not about agreeing with me, it's about listening to what the word of God says, or fighting against it. It's about the works of Christ and who hears it, and who thinks it foolishness. And it's always been. It's the reason Christ spoke in parables, and yet said He told them plainly, but they wouldn't hear. He didn't have to tell them "I AM The Messiah" as you seem to imply, He still told them plainly by his words, and yet they would not hear nor follow. But "HIS" Sheep do, because it's spiritually discerned.

John 10:24-27
  • "Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
  • Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
  • But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
  • My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"

So then, a tree is known by it's fruits. Either a tree is good and it's fruit good, or the tree corrupt, and it's fruit corrupt. But not both.
 
Your suspicions notwithstanding, unscriptural Christians are a dime a dozen in our day. And the way we know them is to try the spirits "by the word of God." Ears to hear are a symbolic illustration of spiritual understanding. In other words, if you have no ears, you have no understanding. It doesn't mean listen, it means you have no spiritual ears, therefore you can't listen. You're dead in trespass and sins.

John 8:43
  • "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."

Here again, understanding is equated to spiritual hearing, not literal hearing.

So I don't imply, I say it plainly. And what I say is that those who don't agree with scripture, are (by definition) unscriptural. I have no problem in saying that because as you know I'm not your typically "Politically Correct" professing Christian. I'll say it quite plainly, because scripture says it. Why did the people Christ was speaking to not understand what He was saying? ...Because they couldn't!  It wasn't given them to have ears to hear. Doctrines of grace and receiving spiritual ears to hear go hand in hand.


Quote
>>>
I fear that you are confusing Scripture, with your interpretation of Scripture.
<<<

No need for you to worry your little head about that, for I don't interpret scripture. I'm not smart enough or wise enough to interpret scripture. That would be a private (or my personal) interpretation, which the scriptures are not subject to. I am one of those "few" Christians in our day who understands explicitly that man cannot interpret God's word. God's word must interpret itself. Man can only be a messenger or a witness to what it says, an ambassador of Christ.

Genesis 40:8
  • "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."
Genesis 41:16
  • "And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace."

Thus, if God says Candlesticks symbolize the Church, that's God's interpretation. If God's word says wine symbolizes blood, that's God's interpretation. If God's word says Gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel, that's God's interpretation. Likewise, if God's word says we need not that any man teach us, but the same anointing of the Spirit teaches us all things, and is truth, and is no lie, then that also is God's interpretation. So don't confuse what I "repeat" or what I "bear witness to," with my own interpretation. i.e., some simply will not compare spiritual things with spiritual, "BECAUSE" God says he cannot do it. It's not in him to do it. He possesses the wisdom of the world, but not the wisdom of God. He looks at things not spiritually, but carnally, historically, naturally, worldly, earthly, whatever word you want to put on it, it's all addressing the same wisdom of the world which is foolishness with God, and wisdom of God which is foolishness to the world. What then of the man who thinks that comparing the spiritual with spiritual is foolishness? Does he have eyes to see and ears to hear? Only if God gives him eyes to see and ears to hear. Whose interpretation is it? ..in context.

1st Corinthians 2:9-16
  • " But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
  • But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
  • For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
  • Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
  • Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
  • But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
  • But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
  • For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Those with the mind of Christ "receive" spirit of truth, while those without it whine about the things of the Spirit "as if" it were an evil thing.


Quote
>>>
And, if you forgive my boldness, that is often a mark of false teaching.
<<<

Ouch! the mark of the beast I assume. As I've said before, "A tree is knwon by it's fruits." For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. So what can I say but as I've said. The Lord judge!

 I'm always comfortable with that because, "unlike man," the Lord judges righteously.

For the record, the mark of a false teacher is his making extrabiblical prophesies, which don't come to pass, not his testimony to prophecies of God. The mark of a false teacher is his teaching things that are not in scripture, as if they are, not his "quoting them" word for word. The mark of a false teacher is his saying "thus saith the Lord, when the Lord has not said,"  not his giving you both chapter and verse where the Lord does say it. The mark of a false teacher is his teaching what seems right in his own eyes, not his teaching that what scripture says "is right in God's eyes." The mark of a false teacher is his taking things of scripture out of context, not his reading all things in their proper context, and in "light" of the whole bible.

..but again, as I say, the Lord Judge His faithful Church, and His unfaithful church. I'm comfortable with that, for true and righteous are His judgments.

Revelation 19:2
  • "For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand."

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Pilgrim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
  • Gender: Male
  • Reformed and Reforming
Quote
I have no problem in saying that because as you know I'm not your typically "Politically Correct" Christian. I'll say it quite plainly, because scripture says it.

Which is the way I like it. I'm fed up with the tip-toe-through-the-tulips preaching from evangelists these days. I like my coffee black, and my truth straight.

 1 King 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

Keep telling it like it is, not like they want to hear it.
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." -Matthew 1:21

jd@

  • Guest
Tony,

Quote
Nevertheless, one-liners in answer to pertinent questions are usually a sign that you don't really have an answer

That's possible, but it could also mean that I'm just succinct.  :)

Quote
It's proof by assertion alright. Proof by assertion of scripture.  It's called witness of the Word. And please, don't bother with the one-line retort syonymous with "..Oh Yeah?"

This is precisely what I mean about confusing what you say and what Scripture says.  Your exact words were “since the alleged answer that it merely means that, 'we should listen to God' is blatantly absurd” - and nothing else!  You did not seek to back up your opinion from Scripture.  In this you err.  Stating your opinion is not the “witness of the word”.

In saying your comment was a “proof by assesrtion” I was pointing out the logical fallacy involved.  I fail to see how it's the exact equivalent of  “...oh yeah?”, but now that you mention it, I see the parallels. ;)

For what it's worth, (if you're actually willing to my interpretation), it seems entirely possible that “he who has ears to hear, let him hear” is a strong way of saying, “this is important; listen very carefully; this concerns you...”

Quote
You sound just like the Dispensationalists. That's the unsound hermeneutic they take as well.

Zoing!!  My ad hominem detector just went off the chart!  That's a totally fallacious argument, Tony, and I'm sure you know it.

But what you say is interesting, because as a point of fact I do disagree with the dictum, (which has, I believe,  Louis Berkhof as one of its adherents) that we take the literal interpretation unless explicitly told otherwise.  Maybe the key word here is 'explicit'.  I would certainly think we are told to interpret David as a type of Christ.  Even if there is no verse which says so explicitly.

(By the way, Tony, are you using the words 'metaphorically', 'allegorically' and 'typically' interchangeably?)

Anyway, I totally agree with this statement:

Quote
truth be known, in a sense, we are told. If we listen to scripture. By the Spirit of God through study of scripture to rightly divide the word of truth. That's how we are told. But to think that God will have written that we should, "take this verse allegorically, and don't take this other one allegorically," is again, Absurd. That's for us to glean from scripture.

In fact, it implies that not every verse is to be taken allegorically.  Did you mean to say that?

Quote
I stick by my statement. Wine in scripture is a figure of the blood of Christ (by your own admission)

Except that wasn't your initial statement.  Oh, well.  I guess we have to get back to basics.  I trust you can see the distinction between the following three statements:

i) Wine in scripture is always a  figure of the blood.

ii) Wine in scripture is a figure of the blood.

iii) Wine in scripture is sometimes a figure of the blood.

I reject (i) and accept (iii).  I therefore can accept (ii) conditionally.  Clear enough?

Quote
Just as the lamb in scripture is a figure of Christ. That's all true. That doesn't then mean that a lamb cannot be a figure of believers also, does it?

Spot on.  Now, the issue is: does a lamb necessarily have to stand for either of those, or can in it certain contexts have only a literal meaning.  For example,

Amos 6:4 - “You lie on beds inlaid with ivory and lounge on your couches. You dine on choice lambs and fattened calves.”

The prophet is rebuking the people for their extravagance.  They're having a good time while others are doing without.  But I fail to see how 'lamb' here can have an allegorical meaning.  There's no reference to Levitical sacrfices in this verse...

Quote
No need for you to worry your little head about that, for I don't interpret scripture. I'm not smart enough or wise enough to interpret scripture. That would be a private (personal) interpretation, which the scriptures are not subject to. I am one of those "few" Christians in our day who understands explicitly that man cannot interpret God's Word. God's Word must interpret itself. Man can only be a messenger or a witness to what it says, an ambassador of Christ.

I'm sorry Tony, but this is rubbish.  You're quibbling over words.  Sure, “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”  (WCF)  The Bible is God's self-authenticating, self-interpreting Word.  But there's still something for us to do.  We still have to figure out what any given passage means.  This is called interpreting.  In order to be a messenger to what it says, we have to know what it says – and not just what how the words are pronounced, but how it all ties in together, how it fits into the context of the history of redemption – in short, what it means.

Quote
So don't confuse what I repeat or what I bear witness to, with my own interpretation

Hence, this is exactly what you are doing.  In saying you 'aren't interpreting, just telling it like it is' – you are mixing up God's word and your word.  For you do interpret Tony – it's impossible not to. Whenever you quote a verse, you're interpreting, whether you like it or not.  For either that verse will be in context, or it will be out of context.  (Granted, there is some sort of continuum here, because we have to take into account context with respect to the passage, the book, and  the whole Bible.)  Your posts are not infallible.  There are lots of other comments between the verses of Scripture, but even if there weren't, your hand would still be evident in the selection of verses.  You can't get away from interpretation.

Quote
For the record, the mark of a false teacher is his making extrabiblical prophesies, which don't come to pass

Yes, true.  But that's not the only mark of a false teacher.  For a start, not all false teachers make predictive prophecies.  There are other marks too: holiness of life, for example.

Which is why I'm not calling you a false teacher, Tony.  ;)  I don't know you.  I don't know whether you are bearing good fruit.  I don't know the way you treat your wife, for example.  But you do exhibit some traits that bother me: one is this confusion between what you say and what God says.  Be very careful.

Quote
The mark of a false teacher is his taking things of scripture out of context, not his reading all things in their proper context, and in "light" of the whole bible.

Absolutely!  At least, that's one of the marks...

Genrev

  • Guest

 I don't know whether you are bearing good fruit.  I don't know the way you treat your wife, for example.  But you do exhibit some traits that bother me: one is this confusion between what you say and what God says.  Be very careful.


jd@,

I know that Mr. Warren can very well answer you for himself, but as I read this post, I noticed the above statement that you made about "good fruit" and "the way you treat your wife."  Of course we should not mistreat our spouses, but is that what the Lord meant by "good fruits"? 


Please consider what the Lord Jesus Christ tells us in Matthew 27.

Matthew 7

1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9  Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12  Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.



Mr. Warren IS bearing good fruits.

Blessings,
Minna

Genrev

  • Guest


Please consider what the Lord Jesus Christ tells us in Matthew 27.

Please excuse me for my typo.  I meant Matthew 7.

Blessings,
Minna

Frank Mortimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Which is the way I like it. I'm fed up with the tip-toe-through-the-tulips preaching from evangelists these days. I like my coffee black, and my truth straight.

 1 King 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

Keep telling it like it is, not like they want to hear it.


That's the bottom line isn't it? We live in a world where no one wants correction, and everyone is full of themselves. That verse is perfect for this situation.  Never mind that Imlah spoke the truth, this king didn't like him because what he spoke was not what he wanted to hear.

As for the belief by jd@ that "he who hath wears to hear" just means listen, that is proven wrong by God himself.

 Matt. 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
 9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Plainly God shows in the context here that he that hath ears to hear these parables are those whom are given ears to hear. And those who have ears but cannot hear are those to whom it is not given. Christ plainly taught this. Denial of that is denial of Christ's words.

Anyway, those like the king of Israel who have so much pride they cannot accept the truth if it corrects them have a spiritual problem, so it is no wonder that they cannot understand the allegorical aspects of scripture.

jd@

  • Guest
Minna:

Quote
I noticed the above statement that you made about "good fruit" and "the way you treat your wife."  Of course we should not mistreat our spouses, but is that what the Lord meant by "good fruits"? 

Well, I don't think Jesus defines "good fruit" in Matt 7, but it seems to revolves around "doing the will of [the] Father" in verse 21.

I would think that will includes (but obviously is not limited to!) righteousness in familial relationships.  When Paul tells the Thessalonians what is 'God's will for their lives', it's in terms of sexual conduct.  The discussion of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 seems to be in the context of the various societal relationships in 5:22 - 6:9.

Frank:

Quote
Anyway, those like the king of Israel who have so much pride they cannot accept the truth if it corrects them have a spiritual problem, so it is no wonder that they cannot understand the allegorical aspects of scripture

But do you see, Frank, how one must be very careful here?  If this is pushed too far, it ends up saying something along the lines of, "this is my interpretation of scripture, and if you don't agree with me you must be unspiritual."  This is why the discussion about interpretive method is so important.



Genrev

  • Guest
Minna:

Quote
I noticed the above statement that you made about "good fruit" and "the way you treat your wife."  Of course we should not mistreat our spouses, but is that what the Lord meant by "good fruits"? 

Well, I don't think Jesus defines "good fruit" in Matt 7, but it seems to revolves around "doing the will of [the] Father" in verse 21.



jd@,

The Lord does define "good fruit" in Matthew 7, by giving us a definition of what "good fruits" are not:

Matthew 7:16 

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


And when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we can understand the definition even better:


Luke 6

43  For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44  For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

45  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.


And when we look at the Lord's parable of the sower, we can understand it even further:


Mark 4

2  And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

3  Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

4  And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

5  And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

6  But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

7  And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

8  And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

9  And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10  And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11  And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13  And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

14  The sower soweth the word.

15  And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16  And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17  And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

18  And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19  And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20  And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

21  And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?

22  For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

23  If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.



I would think that will includes (but obviously is not limited to!) righteousness in familial relationships.  When Paul tells the Thessalonians what is 'God's will for their lives', it's in terms of sexual conduct.  The discussion of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 seems to be in the context of the various societal relationships in 5:22 - 6:9.




I do not have the slightest idea about how any of what you said above has anything to do with it.

Blessings,
Minna

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood
Minna:
Well, I don't think Jesus defines "good fruit" in Matt 7, but it seems to revolves around "doing the will of [the] Father" in verse 21.

jd@,

The Lord does define "good fruit" in Matthew 7, by giving us a definition of what "good fruits" are not:

Matthew 7:16 
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

And when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we can understand the definition even better:

Luke 6
43  For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44  For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.



Like I said, Thorn in the flesh. Do men gather grapes of thorns?

 Lam. 3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,
 36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.
 37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?

jd@ does this continually. He takes an obvious scripture, and then claims the scripture doesn't say what it obviously says. This can only be attributed to being unable to grasp God's truths.

God warned us about those coming in his name to subvert the gospel, and this is exactly what is happening across this land.

 2Co 9:10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;  )


jd@

  • Guest
Minna, the definition of what good fruits aren't wasn't given in Matthew 7 either!  But you did well to compare Scripture with Scripture.  And in Mark 4 we are given several  examples of what it means not to bear fruit - caught up with the cares of this world, falling away when persecution comes, etc.

Quote
I do not have the slightest idea about how any of what you said above has anything to do with it.

Well, as I noted, Matthew 7 centres around doing the will of the Father.  I compared Scripture with Scripture to come up with an example of what doing the will of the Father might mean.  In other words, demonstrating how sexual misconduct might be an instance of not bearing good fruit. 

Ephesians shows us how vital family relationships are in the context of serving and obeying God.  Hence mistreating your wife would be an example of not bearing good fruit.  I thought that was obviuous, but evidently not.

I'm also reasonably sure that the good fruit in Matthew 7 is closely related to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.

............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ...........

Pearson, you're both extremely rude, and totally wrong.


Anthony Faggiano

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Gender: Male
I am new to this dicussion forum and have found this discussion thread on allegorical interpretation very interesting.  I have a sincere question I want to ask and hope I don't receive a confrontational response...The question I have is when do we take a passage of Scripture as allegory?  When the context indicates it or when we "feel" led by the Spirit?  The argument that "the elect will know when" is very subjective, and possibly arrogant.  There have been great men in church history, elect of God, who have disagreed.  What are the rules of proper Biblical interpretation?  Thanks for your replies...


Respectfully,

Anthony Faggiano

Genrev

  • Guest
Minna, the definition of what good fruits aren't wasn't given in Matthew 7 either!  But you did well to compare Scripture with Scripture.  And in Mark 4 we are given several  examples of what it means not to bear fruit - caught up with the cares of this world, falling away when persecution comes, etc.

jd@,

Do you not understand the difference between what grapes and figs represent and what thorns and thistles represent in the Scriptures?


Well, as I noted, Matthew 7 centres around doing the will of the Father.  I compared Scripture with Scripture to come up with an example of what doing the will of the Father might mean.  In other words, demonstrating how sexual misconduct might be an instance of not bearing good fruit. 

Ephesians shows us how vital family relationships are in the context of serving and obeying God.  Hence mistreating your wife would be an example of not bearing good fruit.  I thought that was obviuous, but evidently not.

I'm also reasonably sure that the good fruit in Matthew 7 is closely related to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.



Jd@, there are many people in this world who don't mistreat their wives, but does that mean that they bear "good fruit"?

Blessings,
Minna

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]