The Bible teaches;. The Protestant method, of interpreting scripture is to grant ultimate authority to the Scripture. Not to popes or traditions, not to pet ideas or themes persisting more from well-worn mental ruts than the Word of God. Scripture, rather, is granted primary interpretive authority over Scripture. We seek, so far as possible, to let the meanings provided by the Word dominate over theological meanings Admittedly, fewer than we would like to admit can be claimed to have applied this principle. We must labor to rightly divide the Word, refusing to seperate what God has joined together; that we not l,eaveoff the one partof inspired Writ that we don‘t understand or do not agree with what has been written.. The challenge is, proof-texting. What is it? Proof-texting illegitimately isolates a text. It lifts a snippet here and a text there. It is another form of false division of the Word. Proof-texting in its most obvious form is a neglect to properly consider the adjacent portions of the text . The selected text will be lifted from the longer passage and assertions made about its meaning that fail to take into consideration its meaning as integrated into that longer passage. Another more subtle form of proof-texting is to disregard larger circles of context. Context has its ever expanding circle, from the text itself, to passage, to chapter, to book, to testament, to the whole of Scripture, to the whole of inspired writings. Now hear me. The Bible contains history, wisdom literature, messianic and apocalyptic prophecy, epistles, etc We must when considering rightly divide the Word. Now friends, God would have us to study so as to have his approval. No one ever said it would not be work. It is work, but lets be obedient in this area as in all other areas as we endeavor to please him with what we do with our lives Searching in 1 John The passage of 1 John 1:5-10 . We find the topic of transgression/unrighteousness noted many times (beside 1 John 1:5-10, also 2:1, 2; 3:4, 5, 8, 9; 4:10; 5:16, 17). A careful review of the passages involved lends no suggestion that John in these references to sin is that it can and must be overcome. Let me give an example, John 9. Jesus is passing by a man who was born blind. The disciples ask Jesus, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is an illuminating question because of what it tells us about the disciples understanding of sin and punishment. The disciples had apparently understood that being born blind is a punishment by God. Their question was, Was this case a punishment of the child, or of the parents of the child? Their query, “Who did sin” shows that they thought that blindness was a punishment for sin. Jesus’ answer was, Neither case A nor case B: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” (John 9:3). Blindness in the context of birth is not a direct punishment by God for sin. Jesus explicitly ruled out such an idea. Jesus finished by stating that while it was not the case that child or parent had sinned and were being punished for the sin via the blindness of the child, that the blindness was permitted “that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” I am trying to encourage you to do your own studying. You say you want to be obedient, this is the place to start and don’t quit. It takes time.
Posted on: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:59:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015