The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 25, 2017

Crucible said:
Cool story.

You're just brooding, and forcing the idea that anything has ever been said or done, on this or any other thread, that 'slays' the historical theology of the Reformation.

It's frankly above your league
And
You haven't said what it is you stated in the supposed thread you were cut off from, and have decided to play martyr.

You ran and cried mommy last time, then couldn't handle the heat... Just watch!

This one is one for the archives.

: )

daqq · Jan 25, 2017

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
You ran and cried mommy last time, then couldn't handle the heat... Just watch!

This one is one for the archives.

: )

Yep, he said he was done with this thread but now that it is done I see he is not so done.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 25, 2017

daqq said:
Yep, he said he was done with this thread but now that it is done I see he is not so done.

But it ain't done... : )

All Calvinists have till Friday to bring an actual contest!

It's all in TOL HTML... :chuckle:

I was given ample reason to shift from olive branch to fight-to-the-finish.

daqq · Jan 25, 2017

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
But it ain't done... : )

All Calvinists have till Friday to bring an actual contest!

It's all in TOL HTML... :chuckle:

I was given ample reason to shift from olive branch to fight-to-the-finish.

Enjoy!

freelight · Jan 25, 2017

Challenging Preterition.......

Challenging Preterition.......

Ask Mr. Religion said:
<snip>

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

AMR

Lets take a look -

The Definition of the

Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

The above is just a composition created by the church powers that were at that time in history, wherever they were at along the lines of Christological debate and controversy. The Orthodox needed to hone down some 'orthodox' statement to maintain the church-state and 'settle the word' so to speak, Christologically speaking. Note that this does not necessarily address the points EE has made in his OP in which we are contesting points of 'principle '.

A more important matter at hand is Exposing the concept of Preterition:

My first commentary on point #1, which is also now addressing point #4 about God being no respector of persons, still stands here. It is 'Preterition' specifically that I expose as being incompatible with divine love and will. See also here (the 'God' who passes you over). I'm the only one addressing/challenging this concept by its own unique term on this forum at this time. Its only been mentioned one other time in a post by yourself in 2007 here.

nikolai_42 · Jan 26, 2017

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION],

Here is my counter to your counter of OP point 2.

2: Let no man teach you
Scripture for 2

Let's start with my initial post response:

Point 1: 1 John 2:27 Context:

- 1 John 2 is void of analogy or parable. This makes its verbiage "Literal".

This is crucial to my OP point. Within Context, 1 John 2:27 maintains its continuity and exact verbiage, without allowance for tampering or reassignment of intent and meaning.

Point one held factual via assertion of context.

Point 2: Manuscript Translation

I have provided an interlinear study link that reveals the original Greek of 1 John 2:27

In the link, the exact verbiage that demands we only lift up the Holy Spirits Authority in scripture is made of inflexible verbiage.

Point 2 held factual via lingual, manuscript analysis.

Point 3: Identification of [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]'s counter points

All employed conjecture, scripture and assertions within N42's counter argument serves to open Canon in a very slippery way.

The premise is that scripture can be difficult to fully understand, thus, it is ok to draw from the exegesis of "Godly" men to "assist" in this difficulty and generate doctrinal unity.

But... here comes the Mike Tyson KO...

Interpretation of Canon is a form of Prophesying.

This means that if one is going further than lingual exegesis or direct reassertion of scriptural intent... they are adding to Canon.

2 Peter 2:20

Jesus was the presence of GOD and Jesus was the true, final Prophet. Who but God can Prophesy for God? Even the apostles were direct extensions of the one on one teachings of Jesus. Paul was unique because He testified as one who communicated directly with the post ascension Yeshua/Jesus/God. But... make no mistake, these writings all link back to every recorded word of... The Living Word!

This means that canon is the final writings about God that take direct verbiage from the "Mouth" of God!

Hear Oh Israel... Dt. 6:4 + Jn. 5:39 + Jn. 10:30 drive this home!

God spoke through man and it is recorded in "Canon"... period!

Every word spoken about scripture (canon), or apart from scripture is "conjecture" of the human kind.

The instant an extra biblical person's words get printed and defined as a way to interpret "Canon", that person is officially declared a PROPHET!

Point 3 held factual via the assertion that N42 is attempting to interject reformed pioneer writings as Canonical lenses that are acceptable to interpret scripture with.

Point 4: Jesus is the final Prophet and Is God

Jesus is the very Spirit that indwells us. Unless you call the Holy Spirit an (Active Force... cough... blabobba witnesses), you know that God is One... (Let's spare the 40,000,000 ways to fight over what this means).

Jesus is the presence of God... Period! Trinitarian view leads to this as much as Modalism, or any other way of expressing the "Mystery" of the unity of God.

Now... the indwelling Comforter is our teacher too! But... the difference between good old TOL discussion fueled by our "spiritual" learning and Prophesy is simple.

If a person argues a point violently and assertively, but admits they are a fallible human being and NOT a prophet... it's cool!

But, if a person says... I'm 1000% correct and my word is as good as scripture... they have now declared them self a prophet... and... that's uncool.

Point 4 factually distinguishes between discussion and prophecy.

Final Point: Posthumous Prophets and High-stakes Gambling

Sometimes... extra canonical men and women, who write prolifically, become printed and utilized as an awesome way to interpret scripture.

If you love yourself and that prolific writer, it would be best to heed a tiny warning found in the close of cannon.

Rev. 22:19

Does anyone care to play Soul Russian Roulette with a 6 shooter loaded with 6 hollow points?

Enjoy fighting, fussing, discussing, praying over and generally pondering scripture with friends, family, loved ones and people you witness to......

But... for the love of God!... self... and your neighbor...

Let the extra canonical assertions go and quit trying to rewrite scripture through complex doctrines of men!

This concludes my first counter rebuttal to Nikolai_42

My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm afraid there are a few reasons for it - not the least of which is still trying to recover my arguments (mentally, at least) and regroup after losing the "ultimate post". This response will not be up to what I posted last, but it will convey the basics:

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.
I Corinthians 2:10-15

To be brief, blunt and to the point, the teaching Paul and John are talking about here is real teaching to the heart. The impartation and revelation of the Truth that can only be done by God. Two men in the same room can hear the same thing and come away with two different takes on what was said. When you are talking about what God teaches by His Spirit, you are dealing with spiritual things (by definition). Those things (themselves) are NOT received by the natural (unregenerate, carnal, wordly thinking) man. They can't be. He may agree with what he hears, but what he hears is NOT what the Spirit is teaching. Only as God reveals can that man receive the teaching. However, once that man receives what can only be taught by God, he is no longer discerning by his natural mind - he is understanding spiritual things (however rudimentary when he begins) and can compare those spiritual things with spiritual. He, then, can convey (to whatever degree God has allowed him) what he has learned (been taught of God) by means of scripture and anything else that confirms and affirms the scriptures and what God has done in that man. The scriptures are true and inspired - they are our rule of faith - but if we are going to follow them literally as you have suggested, then we need not bother ourselves with exegesis. There is no need to expand on the word meanings of the Greek or Hebrew text we have, because if we are to follow (as you have suggested) the real, literal meaning of what is said, no man can teach us. No man can bring us better understanding. We have the Spirit and the scriptures and that is all we need. But if we are to be so inclined to take things so directly, we need heed this scripture as well :

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:6

And Jesus told us this :

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

Indeed, it even appears that Paul could have been quoting (or paraphrasing) the Savior. By that measure, then, we should only be reading the words in red. Even apostolic teaching is erroneously considered scripture, right? The point I am trying to make (and I hope you realize I am exaggerating to make that point) is that there is a line between scripture and exegesis of scripture that is clear. And in teaching us, the Spirit does something that, simply put, no man CAN. So anytime someone expounds upon the scripture, it is taking the literal to extremes it was not meant to be taken to call it extending the canon. Now, it is sure that we need to be careful that we don't draw conclusions not warranted by scripture, but there again we have wise counselors and teachers for a reason - we are all fallible (even the apostles).

The bottom line is that scripture in the superficial sense IS not what John 6:63 and Hebrews 4:19 are talking about. These refer to what only God by His Spirit can do - reveal the actual thing instead of just pointing to it (which is all man can do). Paul, I think said this in a manner of speaking when he made this statement :

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
*To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Galatians 1:15-16

He was expressing something that went beyond what he could do justice in words, but what the Spirit could do in anyone. Paul's teaching could only scratch the surface as a pointer to what God's Word really is and does.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
*For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12-13

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you
John 15:3

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
*That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
Ephesians 5:25-26

I believe the critical part to preaching and teaching is the active Word. That is, the moving of the Spirit in the proclaimed Word and expounding of the truths therein. This is not done by simple explication of the Greek and Hebrew or by restating the intent - but by reasoning with the hearer using all methods at the faithful teacher's disposal. The preacher/teacher proclaims and the Spirit does the teaching and the inward work. This teaching is the internal work and the working out involves (for the teacher) an expression of what God has taught - not only himself, but others of like precious faith. We are built upon the apostles and prophets - Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone - but as Paul expressed, everyone needs to take care how they build. Teachers, in building, don't add to scripture but bring new and old things out for the benefit of their hearers. Just as Paul received grace to be an apostle, teachers receive grace to expand (not add to) scripture. You are at least as familiar with this as I am (likely more so) but that's why we have so many creeds - because they were written to pull out of scripture those truths that directly counted the heresies of the day. Sermons pull out of verses the truths that are needed for the congregation - should we tell preachers to stop preaching because they are adding to the canon?

I have a daughter who is right now in the middle of a classical christian education. The focus of the curriculum is the recognition how all academic disciplines have their ultimate source in God and the elucidation of the Word. History is (yes...you guessed it) His Story. Biology is the study of life - of which there would be none without God. Linguistics shows the design of communication (and the so-called Proto-Indo European language gives a big hint at a Babel-like event). Law - you can't get far in scripture without encountering that. So should she not be taught all these things by teachers in the light of scripture because only the Holy Spirit is to teach her? Stephen's history lesson is a restating (in different words) of the wanderings of the Israelites. But it is no less scripture (by definition) than the first hand account given by Moses himself. So are his words scripture simply because they are recorded in the bible? Does giving a similar message (whether in sermon or in class) constitute adding to scripture if there is a spiritual point to the message? You see, you get into the definition of scripture itself as soon as you allow any broadly related (to scripture, that is) teaching to occur. If one were to say that one of the figures listed in the bible is wrong, that would be considered a slippery slope to the undermining of the "important" parts of scripture. So where does scripture begin and end when discussing it in any relation to anything not directly contained in it? I return to your assertion that anything beyond "lingual exegesis" or "reassertion of scriptural intent" is prophesy. But isn't reassertion of scriptural intent contained in Paul's own definition to the Corinthians (the first passage I quoted in this post)? Doesn't he say that even to assert scriptural intent you have to understand scripture - and to understand scripture you need to be spiritual? Therefore, the qualification for a teacher is one who is

(1) taught of God (all believers are taught of God),
(2) recognized to be given the gift of teaching (something one cannot do in isolation and take on simply because he believes God told him he is a teacher) and
(3) demonstrably able to reason with men spiritually (i.e. the role of the Holy Spirit is critical - thus returning to the necessity for a regenerate man).

And to reiterate, I don't think one can even get to "reasserting scriptural intent" unless one has been taught that intent. As an example, the social gospel takes Christ's words and actions to mean that He came so that the poor would be brought up in social standing, be given food for their bellies, clothes on their backs and jobs for their welfare. While He did address man's physical well being, anyone who is truly in Christ can't fail to see that what He taught was first of all spiritual and with an eternal (not a temporal) purpose. So in the way you define scripture, I don't think you are left with anyone who is NOT taught of God to be able to do that. And anyone who IS taught of God (and a teacher) can do what you say - and take it as far as needed to get his point across. And he can do all this BECAUSE he is taught of God.

Therefore, anyone recognized as a teacher because of his spiritual qualifications is not barred from using what he will to convey what he must.

And I wonder if I'm getting off in the weeds or straying from the original contention...I will leave it at that for the moment.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

!!!Tally Update!!!
[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] has submitted further explainatiin. OP is currently under evaluation.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

nikolai_42 said:
My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm afraid there are a few reasons for it - not the least of which is still trying to recover my arguments (mentally, at least) and regroup after losing the "ultimate post". This response will not be up to what I posted last, but it will convey the basics:

I appreciate your kindness, but now I will move forward. In reference to your super post... I am put off by the statement. It suggests you can't properly articulate your argument.. and in light of your chosen OP point to contend... doesn't it seem odd you are struggling?

#The Spirit guides us in scriptural matters
#What is dulling your senses?
#Are you contending with something you shouldn't?

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.
I Corinthians 2:10-15

To be brief, blunt and to the point, the teaching Paul and John are talking about here is real teaching to the heart. The impartation and revelation of the Truth that can only be done by God. Two men in the same room can hear the same thing and come away with two different takes on what was said. When you are talking about what God teaches by His Spirit, you are dealing with spiritual things (by definition). Those things (themselves) are NOT received by the natural (unregenerate, carnal, wordly thinking) man. They can't be. He may agree with what he hears, but what he hears is NOT what the Spirit is teaching. Only as God reveals can that man receive the teaching. However, once that man receives what can only be taught by God, he is no longer discerning by his natural mind - he is understanding spiritual things (however rudimentary when he begins) and can compare those spiritual things with spiritual. He, then, can convey (to whatever degree God has allowed him) what he has learned (been taught of God) by means of scripture and anything else that confirms and affirms the scriptures and what God has done in that man. The scriptures are true and inspired - they are our rule of faith -

I agree so far, with the exception that you have simply restated 1 John 2:27, but used parallel scripture to do so and have taken more time to personally articulate it with Reformed verbiage.

I maintain that... let no man teach you... says this all.

but if we are going to follow them literally as you have suggested, then we need not bother ourselves with exegesis. There is no need to expand on the word meanings of the Greek or Hebrew text we have, because if we are to follow (as you have suggested) the real, literal meaning of what is said, no man can teach us. No man can bring us better understanding. We have the Spirit and the scriptures and that is all we need.

Exegesis is different than doctrine. One is taking scripture at face value, the other is attempting to alter face value into teaching.

But... I will affirm you on the above... absolutely... "We have the Spirit and the scriptures and that is all we need."

This would be great... but... you introduce the cake argument here...

But if we are to be so inclined to take things so directly, we need heed this scripture as well :

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:6

And Jesus told us this :

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

You assert scripture that reaffirms my 5 quoted points in your actual response... plus 1 John 2:27...

What's a cake argument? You are trying to assert I can't have my cake and eat it too.

You are arguing tit for tat. If 1 John 2:27 is literal, than the word minister means...

Let's see what you say it means.

Indeed, it even appears that Paul could have been quoting (or paraphrasing) the Savior. By that measure, then, we should only be reading the words in red. Even apostolic teaching is erroneously considered scripture, right? The point I am trying to make (and I hope you realize I am exaggerating to make that point) is that there is a line between scripture and exegesis of scripture that is clear. And in teaching us, the Spirit does something that, simply put, no man CAN. So anytime someone expounds upon the scripture, it is taking the literal to extremes it was not meant to be taken to call it extending the canon. Now, it is sure that we need to be careful that we don't draw conclusions not warranted by scripture,

You are correct here... no eat it too argument yet... but then...

but there again we have wise counselors and teachers for a reason - we are all fallible (even the apostles).

The bottom line is that scripture in the superficial sense IS not what John 6:63 and Hebrews 4:19 are talking about. These refer to what only God by His Spirit can do - reveal the actual thing instead of just pointing to it (which is all man can do). Paul, I think said this in a manner of speaking when he made this statement :

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
*To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Galatians 1:15-16

He was expressing something that went beyond what he could do justice in words, but what the Spirit could do in anyone. Paul's teaching could only scratch the surface as a pointer to what God's Word really is and does.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
*For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12-13

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you
John 15:3

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
*That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
Ephesians 5:25-26

I believe the critical part to preaching and teaching is the active Word. That is, the moving of the Spirit in the proclaimed Word and expounding of the truths therein. This is not done by simple explication of the Greek and Hebrew or by restating the intent - but by reasoning with the hearer using all methods at the faithful teacher's disposal.

Here's the eat it too! I'm seriously watching you compare Paul of Cannon to Reformed writings as if they were Holy Writ!

Let no man teach you! You are literally validating my OP assertion here.

2: Let no man teach you

The defense of any extra biblical document as entry into scholarly, theological debate is rendered as heresy by this simple 1 John reference.

3: Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the evil one

This Matthew reference fully destroys a doctrine based believer's ability to skirt around any direct question with a wall of theological effort.

You are literally struggling your damnedest to bring Reformed writings that are extra canonical into this equation! You are twisting the intent of let no man teach you by trying to shoehorn its meaning into your addition of extra biblical writings.

Do you even realize this?

Why is Canon closed? To prevent this malarkey!

No sir.... You will not add one word to 1 John 2:27... (Reformed doctrine)

And No sir... you won't take it away...

*Let no man teach you* scheduled for deletion.

The preacher/teacher proclaims and the Spirit does the teaching and the inward work. This teaching is the internal work and the working out involves (for the teacher) an expression of what God has taught - not only himself, but others of like precious faith. We are built upon the apostles and prophets - Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone - but as Paul expressed, everyone needs to take care how they build. Teachers, in building, don't add to scripture but bring new and old things out for the benefit of their hearers. Just as Paul received grace to be an apostle, teachers receive grace to expand (not add to) scripture. You are at least as familiar with this as I am (likely more so) but that's why we have so many creeds - because they were written to pull out of scripture those truths that directly counted the heresies of the day. Sermons pull out of verses the truths that are needed for the congregation - should we tell preachers to stop preaching because they are adding to the canon?

Preach! But throw the sermon away when your done. The same Spirit that ensured the scripture and preaching hit their mark... is there to do it again.

No Creeds! Christ is our cornerstone and you are placing extra canonical men on par with cannon.

My point 1-5 response to your initial response destroys your attempt to add adjacent material to cannon!

Even the trinity doctrine has caused horrendous division and even murder. Did Christ command that? Please show me where Jesus says to take Doctrines of men to divide my body?

1 Cor. 13... if you know ALL mysteries Nikolai_42... but have not Love... you're NOTHING!

Does Doctrine Save? That's called Gnosticism! Saved by knowledge!

Does Jesus save? Gospel... easy! Done!

I have a daughter who is right now in the middle of a classical christian education. The focus of the curriculum is the recognition how all academic disciplines have their ultimate source in God and the elucidation of the Word. History is (yes...you guessed it) His Story. Biology is the study of life - of which there would be none without God. Linguistics shows the design of communication (and the so-called Proto-Indo European language gives a big hint at a Babel-like event). Law - you can't get far in scripture without encountering that. So should she not be taught all these things by teachers in the light of scripture because only the Holy Spirit is to teach her? Stephen's history lesson is a restating (in different words) of the wanderings of the Israelites. But it is no less scripture (by definition) than the first hand account given by Moses himself. So are his words scripture simply because they are recorded in the bible? Does giving a similar message (whether in sermon or in class) constitute adding to scripture if there is a spiritual point to the message? You see, you get into the definition of scripture itself as soon as you allow any broadly related (to scripture, that is) teaching to occur. If one were to say that one of the figures listed in the bible is wrong, that would be considered a slippery slope to the undermining of the "important" parts of scripture. So where does scripture begin and end when discussing it in any relation to anything not directly contained in it?

They're your kids and good for you for teaching them scripture... but... they haven't chosen yet! You are surrounding them with Christ... but they are free moral agents and will decide what they want when they are on their own...

This is such a bafflingly inapplicable argument that I'm refraining from being rude...

Should your teach your kids? They're your kids!

I can play this game... did Jesus ever "cover His feet"?

Should I "cover my feet"?... I don't want to do anything Jesus didn't do.

(I'm sure you know, but cover your feet was OT for excreting... I didn't want to be crude to make the point)

You have clearly mapped out the way the Spirit moves on the heart...

Ask me if you should indoctrinate your kids into Reformed teachings...

I have 6 kids, so I'm not shooting from the dark here...

Hell No! You would be better served to explain the who and why... but to cram doctrine down there throat? No! Trinity? Nope! Teach them where the three are found and how to know Jesus is God with just the Bible... but let them figure stuff out and think freely...

Otherwise... one day they will realize they don't have their own beliefs from searching and relation to the Spirit.

You bring your kids up... they're your kids, so that's that.

I return to your assertion that anything beyond "lingual exegesis" or "reassertion of scriptural intent" is prophesy. But isn't reassertion of scriptural intent contained in Paul's own definition to the Corinthians (the first passage I quoted in this post)? Doesn't he say that even to assert scriptural intent you have to understand scripture - and to understand scripture you need to be spiritual? Therefore, the qualification for a teacher is one who is

(1) taught of God (all believers are taught of God),
(2) recognized to be given the gift of teaching (something one cannot do in isolation and take on simply because he believes God told him he is a teacher) and
(3) demonstrably able to reason with men spiritually (i.e. the role of the Holy Spirit is critical - thus returning to the necessity for a regenerate man).

Wake up! Paul was the agent of our resurrected Lord and Savior! He was literally spoken to by the post ascension Jesus! God used Paul as a prophet! All scripture is applicable to prophecy of some type.

There is milk to be taught... Let the Spirit handle the meat!

Paul preached Christ Crucified and laid the framework for salvation by grace rhetoric...

We don't indoctrinate if we are good teachers!

Again... Scripture of Canon testifies about Christ! It's not just words of men... It is the recorded Holy Writ of God! Canon is different then extra canonical anything!

Do I really have to say this 1000 different ways.

And to reiterate, I don't think one can even get to "reasserting scriptural intent" unless one has been taught that intent. As an example, the social gospel takes Christ's words and actions to mean that He came so that the poor would be brought up in social standing, be given food for their bellies, clothes on their backs and jobs for their welfare. While He did address man's physical well being, anyone who is truly in Christ can't fail to see that what He taught was first of all spiritual and with an eternal (not a temporal) purpose. So in the way you define scripture, I don't think you are left with anyone who is NOT taught of God to be able to do that. And anyone who IS taught of God (and a teacher) can do what you say - and take it as far as needed to get his point across. And he can do all this BECAUSE he is taught of God.

Therefore, anyone recognized as a teacher because of his spiritual qualifications is not barred from using what he will to convey what he must.

And I wonder if I'm getting off in the weeds or straying from the original contention...I will leave it at that for the moment.

I don't mean to be rude... but... you just spent an enormous amount of effort to affirm 1 John 2:27 and then attempt to deconstruct it!

I was looking for one point of my five points to be contested... but you affirmed them all and then tried to strip 1 John 2:27 of its power to bring unity in abolishing extra canonical dribble that is eaten up in ways that cause division!

Again 1 John 2:27...

Asserted 5 points that you quoted when submitting your response... completely uncontested.

Would you like to change the meaning of 1 John 2:27 again?

Would you like to discount the closing warning in Revelation... again?

Add a word? Remove a word? Is the 66 book canon sacred or just bull?

Would you like to tell me where I should cross words out of scripture so they don't inconvenience Calvinism's affinity for extra biblical writings that alter canonical perspective?

nikolai_42 · Jan 26, 2017

Part of my problem, sometimes, is I try to bite off more than I can chew and the essence of what I am trying to say gets lost in my overreach. I only have a few minutes now, but an observation :

You agreed with what I said here (underline added for emphasis) :

Indeed, it even appears that Paul could have been quoting (or paraphrasing) the Savior. By that measure, then, we should only be reading the words in red. Even apostolic teaching is erroneously considered scripture, right? The point I am trying to make (and I hope you realize I am exaggerating to make that point) is that there is a line between scripture and exegesis of scripture that is clear. And in teaching us, the Spirit does something that, simply put, no man CAN. So anytime someone expounds upon the scripture, it is taking the literal to extremes it was not meant to be taken to call it extending the canon. Now, it is sure that we need to be careful that we don't draw conclusions not warranted by scripture,

Yet, when I said this shortly thereafter :

I believe the critical part to preaching and teaching is the active Word. That is, the moving of the Spirit in the proclaimed Word and expounding of the truths therein. This is not done by simple explication of the Greek and Hebrew or by restating the intent - but by reasoning with the hearer using all methods at the faithful teacher's disposal.

...now it has become adding to the canon. This, in truth, is what a teacher and preacher do. They do not go beyond the scriptures in doctrine, but they are not adding to the canon by proving scripture through non-canonical sources and establishing scripture through a pulling out of what is already there. Linguistic analysis and rewording of the words of scripture is not the extent of exegesis. Making a case based on scripture as it harmonizes in the mouths of different witnesses such as the prophets and Jesus or maybe nature and creation as in Romans 1:19-20. In fact, Romans 1 shows that implying that the world was made by God is not a revelation that needs scripture - it is somewhat extra-scriptural. Scripture is not all superficial as in pointing to verse X and saying "this is what it says and this is what it means". Note that Matthew 13:52 doesn't simply say someone instructed into scripture (which anyone could use to put cases together) but instructed into the kingdom of heaven...every scribe instructed into the kingdom.

And I would add that doctrine divides - not peace but a sword...they went out from us so it was manifest that they were not of us etc... And there is a sense in which doctrine does save. But we don't pursue the knowledge itself, we pursue the One whose knowledge saves us :

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:31-32

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

I hasten also to add that I am thinking of no teacher in particular (Reformed or otherwise). I would say this applies for any man or creed. Just remember that the body of Christ is just that - a many membered body, not a group of individuals. It is by the church (as a whole) that God is to reveal His wisdom. So it shouldn't be a surprise if that Body is used to reveal this wisdom in many ways at many times for many purposes. It remains the wisdom of God. Paul even expected his audience to think outside scripture at times (e.g. I Corinthians 11:14).

There's more I want to say and cover (and I think I'm starting to overextend again) so I'll just leave it at that for now.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

nikolai_42 said:
Part of my problem, sometimes, is I try to bite off more than I can chew and the essence of what I am trying to say gets lost in my overreach. I only have a few minutes now, but an observation :

You agreed with what I said here (underline added for emphasis) :

Yet, when I said this shortly thereafter :

...now it has become adding to the canon. This, in truth, is what a teacher and preacher do. They do not go beyond the scriptures in doctrine, but they are not adding to the canon by proving scripture through non-canonical sources and establishing scripture through a pulling out of what is already there. Linguistic analysis and rewording of the words of scripture is not the extent of exegesis. Making a case based on scripture as it harmonizes in the mouths of different witnesses such as the prophets and Jesus or maybe nature and creation as in Romans 1:19-20. In fact, Romans 1 shows that implying that the world was made by God is not a revelation that needs scripture - it is somewhat extra-scriptural. Scripture is not all superficial as in pointing to verse X and saying "this is what it says and this is what it means". Note that Matthew 13:52 doesn't simply say someone instructed into scripture (which anyone could use to put cases together) but instructed into the kingdom of heaven...every scribe instructed into the kingdom.

And I would add that doctrine divides - not peace but a sword...they went out from us so it was manifest that they were not of us etc... And there is a sense in which doctrine does save. But we don't pursue the knowledge itself, we pursue the One whose knowledge saves us :

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:31-32

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

I hasten also to add that I am thinking of no teacher in particular (Reformed or otherwise). I would say this applies for any man or creed. Just remember that the body of Christ is just that - a many membered body, not a group of individuals. It is by the church (as a whole) that God is to reveal His wisdom. So it shouldn't be a surprise if that Body is used to reveal this wisdom in many ways at many times for many purposes. It remains the wisdom of God. Paul even expected his audience to think outside scripture at times (e.g. I Corinthians 11:14).

There's more I want to say and cover (and I think I'm starting to overextend again) so I'll just leave it at that for now.

A teacher and preacher merely exegete and utilize parallel allegory that is up to date. A good teacher and preacher refuse to draw from non canonical sources and let the Spirit speak through scripture.

1 Canon

No additions.

Let the living, breathing teacher speak... but never go further than canon.

The teachers are there to provide the basics! The rest is on us! And for God's sake and ours... never taint canon with extra biblical interpretations!

This is getting circular in stance and I fully assert that our words need to shrink. You can fill up 4 pages of this OP... but the point remains that you are striving to redefine 1 John 2:27 and you are failing.

You wax eloquent and are pointing out underlined scripture which fully empowers 1 John 2:27.

Is Canon complete [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]?
Does God Teach Us?
How can you disagree with 1 John 2:27? Paul even addresses how we gravitate towards teachers other than Christ... and... Jesus did this as well. He perpetually warned that people would rather listen to others than Him.

Here we are 2000 years later with 30,000 divisions of Christ thanks to doctrines of men!

I am blown away that a person of your intellect is arguing against this.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

freelight said:
Lets take a look -

The above is just a composition created by the church powers that were at that time in history, wherever they were at along the lines of Christological debate and controversy. The Orthodox needed to hone down some 'orthodox' statement to maintain the church-state and 'settle the word' so to speak, Christologically speaking. Note that this does not necessarily address the points EE has made in his OP in which we are contesting points of 'principle '.

A more important matter at hand is Exposing the concept of Preterition:

My first commentary on point #1, which is also now addressing point #4 about God being no respector of persons, still stands here. It is 'Preterition' specifically that I expose as being incompatible with divine love and will. See also here (the 'God' who passes you over). I'm the only one addressing/challenging this concept by its own unique term on this forum at this time. Its only been mentioned one other time in a post by yourself in 2007 here.

If I didn't say thank you... I'm saying it now.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

Why [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] 's Preterition post hasn't had much address on my part.

The end game is AMR would reveal that Calvin taught the limiting of God's Love and he bought what Calvin was selling.

Instant point 6 issue! Either we rewrite Holy Writ to satisfy Calvin and AMR...

Or we exalt supremacy of Canon.

End... of... issue...

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] has gone to great lengths to further expound why the doctrine of Preterition is false.

Also... the angel of death passed over the land in the actual event.

Scripture Quiz...

Who held the keys to "Death" before Christ? This is more loaded than a Sunday hobo that just stumbled onto 100 bucks.

: )

#100 dollar spoiler... Heb. 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:54-57

freelight · Jan 26, 2017

The Anointing......

The Anointing......

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
A teacher and preacher merely exegete and utilize parallel allegory that is up to date. A good teacher and preacher refuse to draw from non canonical sources and let the Spirit speak through scripture.

1 Canon

No additions.

Let the living, breathing teacher speak... but never go further than canon.

The teachers are there to provide the basics! The rest is on us! And for God's sake and ours... never taint canon with extra biblical interpretations!

In respect to the anointing -

I think we all agree the Spirit is our teacher, leader and guide, per Jesus word, and John's writings speak of the 'anointing' teaching us all things,....this 'anointing' being the Spirit's illumination within our own souls, directing, revealing, opening up to us the MIND of 'God'. The Spirit is Life. Spirit is truth. - hence as the Spirit of truth was poured upon us from the Lord Jesus, so shall the spirit lead and guide.

Let us note that the passages in 1 John, do not limit or put a restraint on the 'anointing' that teaches us, except that it will be consonant with the teaching of the apostle John in his writings in direct context to his teaching, and naturally so, but this does not necessarily quarantine the Spirit, neither can it limit it to only what has been 'canonized' as the Bible, since there are other intertestamental, apocryphal and non-canonical books that have helpful and pertinent information in them, even inspired words....since how can we limit the Infinite Spirit? ALSO, keep in mind that that authors in the canonized Bible DO quote from apocryphal sources (some no longer extant), and they do so with purpose and reason, showing that these passages have meaning and value. PLUS,...inspired and learned men today who serve as ministers, prophets, apostles, teachers....teach by the same anointing that was upon and empowering the apostles/prophets of old. There is One Spirit, but many ministrations and giftings of the Spirit. - while there is One Spirit, there are many different 'anointings' as it were, and we might add that each personality is unique and different, so that the 'anointing' upon each expresses in its own special way, showing the beautiful manifold unity of God among his people. - like the anointing that was placed upon Aaron, and went down his head, beard, body and all pertinent parts, so how wonderful it is, when the anointing of God, even the Shekinah Glory rests and reigns upon his people. Therefore we say, the Lord is One, his name is One, and his glory is One.

Therefore,...in relation to Calvinism or any branch of theology, any teaching or doctrine, we evaluate the doctrine upon its inherent and contextual 'truth', its meaning and value in principle, if it is true, and in what way it has its value by relating knowledge. While a canon has been put together by man (note, men put these books together, and did also modify texts for their own purposes in some passages), we also have apocryphal texts (I'll use the term 'apocryphal' to include the whole of non-canonical books altogether, of various kinds and sorts), and commentary from church fathers, laymen, and teachers of religion today. The student of truth approaches the kingdom, by bringing out treasures old and new, and compares, evaluates and considers their relationship in the 'total' of truth, being revealed NOW. - all time-ports trans-merge in the eternal

How do we discern or evaluate truth in any of these? - by the same anointing of the Spirit that indwells and teaches all. So, our endeavor is to in purity of heart and clarity of spirit, be taught by the Spirit of truth, humbly submitting to the prompting and illumination of Spirit. Since Spirit is infinite, we cannot limit its all-encompassing, all-pervading influence within or without canonized writings. Of course we have a traditional canon (formalized by man),....but let us not limit God to it, for in truth such cannot be done, although such a base of religious instruction is sanctioned therein. - I'm certainly not against any religious tradition having their 'holy books', since such is par for the course and part of the curriculum so to speak, but we ministers of the Spirit, not of the letter, for we are by the Spirit minister life, using the written word as a vehicle for the Spirit to work thru. Words are the vessel, the spirit is its life-breath.

Even with a high regard to only the canonized writings (to the extremes of those who hold to inerrancy/infallibility of the scriptures,), we have many different divisions, sects, schools of thought, branches of Christology, denominations, etc.,....so this belief in the exclusivity of the Bible as a collection of only 66 'approved' books has done little to keep the unity of the faith! - I mean as a whole, it stands as a solid base, but do look at all the different sects/cults all using the same Bible, which has so many translations, and then is further divided by so many interpretations. So, the 'inerrancy of the Bible' belief, doesn't hold much weight IMO, but that we can all be LED by the Spirit of truth and wisdom....DOES in my book

- so that is the challenge, yet one as liberal as I also uses apocryphal writings as additional adjuncts and helps, AND of course I also draw from the universal wisdom (theosophical) schools both ancient and modern in my religious studies which are universal in nature and principle,...so I'm quite eclectic, to the dismay of some who would clip my wings and put me in any one traditional box

- Since I did grow up in the Christian tradition culturally speaking, its a primary school from which I interface my religious studies, but do enjoy dives into our eastern religious traditions as well, as my contributions on former threads on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahaism have attested to, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In summary, yes.....in John's teaching....the anointing of truth, transmitted by the Spirit to our hearts and minds....is the unction of God that presses into and onto us, the truth that is communicated thru Christ (in spirit and word). In correlating Paul's terminology, to be 'in Christ' is to be in the Anointing

To be in the body of Christ is have this anointing always, but the inner anointing of the Spirit may not always be leading and guiding us, if we are not in rapport with it. Hence our own surrender and attunement to Spirit is essential, as we may come into various distortions in any given communication, hence our vigilence to be continually taught and corrected. Humility, sensitivity to the spirit, surrender to divine will, commitment to love, are ALWAYS the qualities shared by those who do great and mighty things for 'God', and this is so, no matter what theology we espouse, but we would hope to be found holding that theology that best comports to the Spirit's teaching. And with this I say, may the anointing rest upon and empower all of us who in purity of heart, seek to know God and do his will.

View attachment 25208

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

freelight said:
In respect to the anointing -

I think we all agree the Spirit is our teacher, leader and guide, per Jesus word, and John's writings speak of the 'anointing' teaching us all things,....this 'anointing' being the Spirit's illumination within our own souls, directing, revealing, opening up to us the MIND of 'God'. The Spirit is Life. Spirit is truth. - hence as the Spirit of truth was poured upon us from the Lord Jesus, so shall the spirit lead and guide.

Let us note that the passages in 1 John, do not limit or put a restraint on the 'anointing' that teaches us, except that it will be consonant with the teaching of the apostle John in his writings in direct context to his teaching, and naturally so, but this does not necessarily quarantine the Spirit, neither can it limit it to only what has been 'canonized' as the Bible, since there are other intertestamental, apocryphal and non-canonical books that have helpful and pertinent information in them, even inspired words....since how can we limit the Infinite Spirit? ALSO, keep in mind that that authors in the canonized Bible DO quote from apocryphal sources (some no longer extant), and they do so with purpose and reason, showing that these passages have meaning and value. PLUS,...inspired and learned men today who serve as ministers, prophets, apostles, teachers....teach by the same anointing that was upon and empowering the apostles/prophets of old. There is One Spirit, but many ministrations and giftings of the Spirit. - while there is One Spirit, there are many different 'anointings' as it were, and we might add that each personality is unique and different, so that the 'anointing' upon each expresses in its own special way, showing the beautiful manifold unity of God among his people. - like the anointing that was placed upon Aaron, and went down his head, beard, body and all pertinent parts, so how wonderful it is, when the anointing of God, even the Shekinah Glory rests and reigns upon his people. Therefore we say, the Lord is One, his name is One, and his glory is One.

Therefore,...in relation to Calvinism or any branch of theology, any teaching or doctrine, we evaluate the doctrine upon its inherent and contextual 'truth', its meaning and value in principle, if it is true, and in what way it has its value by relating knowledge. While a canon has been put together by man (note, men put these books together, and did also modify texts for their own purposes in some passages), we also have apocryphal texts (I'll use the term 'apocryphal' to include the whole of non-canonical books altogether, of various kinds and sorts), and commentary from church fathers, laymen, and teachers of religion today. The student of truth approaches the kingdom, by bringing out treasures old and new, and compares, evaluates and considers their relationship in the 'total' of truth, being revealed NOW. - all time-ports trans-merge in the eternal How do we discern or evaluate truth in any of these? - by the same anointing of the Spirit that indwells and teaches all. So, our endeavor is to in purity of heart and clarity of spirit, be taught by the Spirit of truth, humbly submitting to the prompting and illumination of Spirit. Since Spirit is infinite, we cannot limit its all-encompassing, all-pervading influence within or without canonized writings. Of course we have a traditional canon (formalized by man),....but let us not limit God to it, for in truth such cannot be done, although such a base of religious instruction is sanctioned therein. - I'm certainly not against any religious tradition having their 'holy books', since such is par for the course and part of the curriculum so to speak, but we ministers of the Spirit, not of the letter, for we are by the Spirit minister life, using the written word as a vehicle for the Spirit to work thru. Words are the vessel, the spirit is its life-breath.

Even with a high regard to only the canonized writings (to the extremes of those who hold to inerrancy/infallibility of the scriptures,), we have many different divisions, sects, schools of thought, branches of Christology, denominations, etc.,....so this belief in the exclusivity of the Bible as a collection of only 66 'approved' books has done little to keep the unity of the faith! - I mean as a whole, it stands as a solid base, but do look at all the different sects/cults all using the same Bible, which has so many translations, and then is further divided by so many interpretations. So, the 'inerrancy of the Bible' belief, doesn't hold much weight IMO, but that we can all be LED by the Spirit of truth and wisdom....DOES in my book - so that is the challenge, yet one as liberal as I also uses apocryphal writings as additional adjuncts and helps, AND of course I also draw from the universal wisdom (theosophical) schools both ancient and modern in my religious studies which are universal in nature and principle,...so I'm quite eclectic, to the dismay of some who would clip my wings and put me in any one traditional box - Since I did grow up in the Christian tradition culturally speaking, its a primary school from which I interface my religious studies, but do enjoy dives into our eastern religious traditions as well, as my contributions on former threads on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahaism have attested to, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In summary, yes.....in John's teaching....the anointing of truth, transmitted by the Spirit to our hearts and minds....is the unction of God that presses into and onto us, the truth that is communicated thru Christ (in spirit and word). In correlating Paul's terminology, to be 'in Christ' is to be in the Anointing To be in the body of Christ is have this anointing always, but the inner anointing of the Spirit may not always be leading and guiding us, if we are not in rapport with it. Hence our own surrender and attunement to Spirit is essential, as we may come into various distortions in any given communication, hence our vigilence to be continually taught and corrected. Humility, sensitivity to the spirit, surrender to divine will, commitment to love, are ALWAYS the qualities shared by those who do great and mighty things for 'God', and this is so, no matter what theology we espouse, but we would hope to be found holding that theology that best comports to the Spirit's teaching. And with this I say, may the anointing rest upon and empower all of us who in purity of heart, seek to know God and do his will.

View attachment 25208

This is a solid point! I acknowledge that actual cannon draws from books deemed "false" by today's 66. This is a revelation only you would be studied enough to draw out.

I now note that I had anticipated this possible point and thus, I also submit that point 5 dovetails into your point. You sited Love after citing all of you eclectic sources. Note that point two and point 5 cross like swords once this point has been broached.

Not only do they cross, but 1 John 2:27 and 1 John 4:8 bind perfectly together as they are found in the same book.

This launches the point that all Spirits must be tested with Love and all anointing must be evaluated through the scope of 1 John 4:8! I was no dummy and saw this leading to the pre-emptive launch of Preterism as the Calvinist "nuke" towards point 4 and thus added point 6.

Instant disqualification of Preterism which signifies the "god" who would pass one over. Note the two texts I employed and what their full implications are to labeling "God" as the "god" who passes over. I'll leave that for possible assertion in the future if it comes to it. But 1 John 2:27, coupled with 1 John 4:8 and then bound to 1 Corinthians 13:7-8 makes it clear that "Limiting" the capacity of "God's" Love is a direct undermining of ... "The Good News".

I maintain my stance on Holy Writ for the sake of this debate and the wisdom that most debating here would be very upset to "expand" Canon to the extent that the written words of the apostles already have.

It comes down to "Prophets". People unknowingly place the dogma of their favorite author over Christ! Christ says "Come unto me all you..." and not "Come unto Me, you who I Love more than others".

This holds strong, even with the admission that extra canonical writings are in Canon... I don't think AMR wants to give up the right to call his "moon beams" war cry.

I fully reassert that 1 John 2:27 is there to protect us from division and 1 John 4:8 is there to ensure that peace and Love are the theological measuring sticks we utilize.

I wish I could have been more yes and no on that response... but you wouldn't let me get away with that would you?

- : )

#Excellent points and response! I would normally agree fully, but for the sake of debate and protection of the character of God.. I'm fully stating that canon is there to protect the character of God and to keep the theologically strong from Lording over the theologically weak.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

nikolai_42 said:
My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm afraid there are a few reasons for it - not the least of which is still trying to recover my arguments (mentally, at least) and regroup after losing the "ultimate post". This response will not be up to what I posted last, but it will convey the basics:

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.
I Corinthians 2:10-15

To be brief, blunt and to the point, the teaching Paul and John are talking about here is real teaching to the heart. The impartation and revelation of the Truth that can only be done by God. Two men in the same room can hear the same thing and come away with two different takes on what was said. When you are talking about what God teaches by His Spirit, you are dealing with spiritual things (by definition). Those things (themselves) are NOT received by the natural (unregenerate, carnal, wordly thinking) man. They can't be. He may agree with what he hears, but what he hears is NOT what the Spirit is teaching. Only as God reveals can that man receive the teaching. However, once that man receives what can only be taught by God, he is no longer discerning by his natural mind - he is understanding spiritual things (however rudimentary when he begins) and can compare those spiritual things with spiritual. He, then, can convey (to whatever degree God has allowed him) what he has learned (been taught of God) by means of scripture and anything else that confirms and affirms the scriptures and what God has done in that man. The scriptures are true and inspired - they are our rule of faith - but if we are going to follow them literally as you have suggested, then we need not bother ourselves with exegesis. There is no need to expand on the word meanings of the Greek or Hebrew text we have, because if we are to follow (as you have suggested) the real, literal meaning of what is said, no man can teach us. No man can bring us better understanding. We have the Spirit and the scriptures and that is all we need. But if we are to be so inclined to take things so directly, we need heed this scripture as well :

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:6

And Jesus told us this :

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

Indeed, it even appears that Paul could have been quoting (or paraphrasing) the Savior. By that measure, then, we should only be reading the words in red. Even apostolic teaching is erroneously considered scripture, right? The point I am trying to make (and I hope you realize I am exaggerating to make that point) is that there is a line between scripture and exegesis of scripture that is clear. And in teaching us, the Spirit does something that, simply put, no man CAN. So anytime someone expounds upon the scripture, it is taking the literal to extremes it was not meant to be taken to call it extending the canon. Now, it is sure that we need to be careful that we don't draw conclusions not warranted by scripture, but there again we have wise counselors and teachers for a reason - we are all fallible (even the apostles).

The bottom line is that scripture in the superficial sense IS not what John 6:63 and Hebrews 4:19 are talking about. These refer to what only God by His Spirit can do - reveal the actual thing instead of just pointing to it (which is all man can do). Paul, I think said this in a manner of speaking when he made this statement :

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
*To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Galatians 1:15-16

He was expressing something that went beyond what he could do justice in words, but what the Spirit could do in anyone. Paul's teaching could only scratch the surface as a pointer to what God's Word really is and does.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
*For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12-13

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you
John 15:3

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
*That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
Ephesians 5:25-26

I believe the critical part to preaching and teaching is the active Word. That is, the moving of the Spirit in the proclaimed Word and expounding of the truths therein. This is not done by simple explication of the Greek and Hebrew or by restating the intent - but by reasoning with the hearer using all methods at the faithful teacher's disposal. The preacher/teacher proclaims and the Spirit does the teaching and the inward work. This teaching is the internal work and the working out involves (for the teacher) an expression of what God has taught - not only himself, but others of like precious faith. We are built upon the apostles and prophets - Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone - but as Paul expressed, everyone needs to take care how they build. Teachers, in building, don't add to scripture but bring new and old things out for the benefit of their hearers. Just as Paul received grace to be an apostle, teachers receive grace to expand (not add to) scripture. You are at least as familiar with this as I am (likely more so) but that's why we have so many creeds - because they were written to pull out of scripture those truths that directly counted the heresies of the day. Sermons pull out of verses the truths that are needed for the congregation - should we tell preachers to stop preaching because they are adding to the canon?

I have a daughter who is right now in the middle of a classical christian education. The focus of the curriculum is the recognition how all academic disciplines have their ultimate source in God and the elucidation of the Word. History is (yes...you guessed it) His Story. Biology is the study of life - of which there would be none without God. Linguistics shows the design of communication (and the so-called Proto-Indo European language gives a big hint at a Babel-like event). Law - you can't get far in scripture without encountering that. So should she not be taught all these things by teachers in the light of scripture because only the Holy Spirit is to teach her? Stephen's history lesson is a restating (in different words) of the wanderings of the Israelites. But it is no less scripture (by definition) than the first hand account given by Moses himself. So are his words scripture simply because they are recorded in the bible? Does giving a similar message (whether in sermon or in class) constitute adding to scripture if there is a spiritual point to the message? You see, you get into the definition of scripture itself as soon as you allow any broadly related (to scripture, that is) teaching to occur. If one were to say that one of the figures listed in the bible is wrong, that would be considered a slippery slope to the undermining of the "important" parts of scripture. So where does scripture begin and end when discussing it in any relation to anything not directly contained in it? I return to your assertion that anything beyond "lingual exegesis" or "reassertion of scriptural intent" is prophesy. But isn't reassertion of scriptural intent contained in Paul's own definition to the Corinthians (the first passage I quoted in this post)? Doesn't he say that even to assert scriptural intent you have to understand scripture - and to understand scripture you need to be spiritual? Therefore, the qualification for a teacher is one who is

(1) taught of God (all believers are taught of God),
(2) recognized to be given the gift of teaching (something one cannot do in isolation and take on simply because he believes God told him he is a teacher) and
(3) demonstrably able to reason with men spiritually (i.e. the role of the Holy Spirit is critical - thus returning to the necessity for a regenerate man).

And to reiterate, I don't think one can even get to "reasserting scriptural intent" unless one has been taught that intent. As an example, the social gospel takes Christ's words and actions to mean that He came so that the poor would be brought up in social standing, be given food for their bellies, clothes on their backs and jobs for their welfare. While He did address man's physical well being, anyone who is truly in Christ can't fail to see that what He taught was first of all spiritual and with an eternal (not a temporal) purpose. So in the way you define scripture, I don't think you are left with anyone who is NOT taught of God to be able to do that. And anyone who IS taught of God (and a teacher) can do what you say - and take it as far as needed to get his point across. And he can do all this BECAUSE he is taught of God.

Therefore, anyone recognized as a teacher because of his spiritual qualifications is not barred from using what he will to convey what he must.

And I wonder if I'm getting off in the weeds or straying from the original contention...I will leave it at that for the moment.

freelight said:
In respect to the anointing -

I think we all agree the Spirit is our teacher, leader and guide, per Jesus word, and John's writings speak of the 'anointing' teaching us all things,....this 'anointing' being the Spirit's illumination within our own souls, directing, revealing, opening up to us the MIND of 'God'. The Spirit is Life. Spirit is truth. - hence as the Spirit of truth was poured upon us from the Lord Jesus, so shall the spirit lead and guide.

Let us note that the passages in 1 John, do not limit or put a restraint on the 'anointing' that teaches us, except that it will be consonant with the teaching of the apostle John in his writings in direct context to his teaching, and naturally so, but this does not necessarily quarantine the Spirit, neither can it limit it to only what has been 'canonized' as the Bible, since there are other intertestamental, apocryphal and non-canonical books that have helpful and pertinent information in them, even inspired words....since how can we limit the Infinite Spirit? ALSO, keep in mind that that authors in the canonized Bible DO quote from apocryphal sources (some no longer extant), and they do so with purpose and reason, showing that these passages have meaning and value. PLUS,...inspired and learned men today who serve as ministers, prophets, apostles, teachers....teach by the same anointing that was upon and empowering the apostles/prophets of old. There is One Spirit, but many ministrations and giftings of the Spirit. - while there is One Spirit, there are many different 'anointings' as it were, and we might add that each personality is unique and different, so that the 'anointing' upon each expresses in its own special way, showing the beautiful manifold unity of God among his people. - like the anointing that was placed upon Aaron, and went down his head, beard, body and all pertinent parts, so how wonderful it is, when the anointing of God, even the Shekinah Glory rests and reigns upon his people. Therefore we say, the Lord is One, his name is One, and his glory is One.

Therefore,...in relation to Calvinism or any branch of theology, any teaching or doctrine, we evaluate the doctrine upon its inherent and contextual 'truth', its meaning and value in principle, if it is true, and in what way it has its value by relating knowledge. While a canon has been put together by man (note, men put these books together, and did also modify texts for their own purposes in some passages), we also have apocryphal texts (I'll use the term 'apocryphal' to include the whole of non-canonical books altogether, of various kinds and sorts), and commentary from church fathers, laymen, and teachers of religion today. The student of truth approaches the kingdom, by bringing out treasures old and new, and compares, evaluates and considers their relationship in the 'total' of truth, being revealed NOW. - all time-ports trans-merge in the eternal How do we discern or evaluate truth in any of these? - by the same anointing of the Spirit that indwells and teaches all. So, our endeavor is to in purity of heart and clarity of spirit, be taught by the Spirit of truth, humbly submitting to the prompting and illumination of Spirit. Since Spirit is infinite, we cannot limit its all-encompassing, all-pervading influence within or without canonized writings. Of course we have a traditional canon (formalized by man),....but let us not limit God to it, for in truth such cannot be done, although such a base of religious instruction is sanctioned therein. - I'm certainly not against any religious tradition having their 'holy books', since such is par for the course and part of the curriculum so to speak, but we ministers of the Spirit, not of the letter, for we are by the Spirit minister life, using the written word as a vehicle for the Spirit to work thru. Words are the vessel, the spirit is its life-breath.

Even with a high regard to only the canonized writings (to the extremes of those who hold to inerrancy/infallibility of the scriptures,), we have many different divisions, sects, schools of thought, branches of Christology, denominations, etc.,....so this belief in the exclusivity of the Bible as a collection of only 66 'approved' books has done little to keep the unity of the faith! - I mean as a whole, it stands as a solid base, but do look at all the different sects/cults all using the same Bible, which has so many translations, and then is further divided by so many interpretations. So, the 'inerrancy of the Bible' belief, doesn't hold much weight IMO, but that we can all be LED by the Spirit of truth and wisdom....DOES in my book - so that is the challenge, yet one as liberal as I also uses apocryphal writings as additional adjuncts and helps, AND of course I also draw from the universal wisdom (theosophical) schools both ancient and modern in my religious studies which are universal in nature and principle,...so I'm quite eclectic, to the dismay of some who would clip my wings and put me in any one traditional box - Since I did grow up in the Christian tradition culturally speaking, its a primary school from which I interface my religious studies, but do enjoy dives into our eastern religious traditions as well, as my contributions on former threads on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahaism have attested to, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In summary, yes.....in John's teaching....the anointing of truth, transmitted by the Spirit to our hearts and minds....is the unction of God that presses into and onto us, the truth that is communicated thru Christ (in spirit and word). In correlating Paul's terminology, to be 'in Christ' is to be in the Anointing To be in the body of Christ is have this anointing always, but the inner anointing of the Spirit may not always be leading and guiding us, if we are not in rapport with it. Hence our own surrender and attunement to Spirit is essential, as we may come into various distortions in any given communication, hence our vigilence to be continually taught and corrected. Humility, sensitivity to the spirit, surrender to divine will, commitment to love, are ALWAYS the qualities shared by those who do great and mighty things for 'God', and this is so, no matter what theology we espouse, but we would hope to be found holding that theology that best comports to the Spirit's teaching. And with this I say, may the anointing rest upon and empower all of us who in purity of heart, seek to know God and do his will.

View attachment 25208

At [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] has provided you with pry bars to my stance. You are welcome to research his content. It is accurate.

If you catch it... you will have the needed ammunition you need to "open" Canon.

A key to crippling my stance would be to find an extra canonical reference in canon that points to what has been labeled...

"Apocrypha" or false books (As referred to by the Protestant types)

I would expect you to find one of these references in canon and site the extra canonical source. Happy hunting, and prepare to open... Pandora's box. : )

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 26, 2017

[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]

Do you care to cite the extra canonical references in scripture, or has your orthodox reform stance dulled your spiritual nimbleness?

freelight · Jan 27, 2017

hidden texts....obscure.......

hidden texts....obscure.......

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
At [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] has provided you with pry bars to my stance. You are welcome to research his content. It is accurate.

If you catch it... you will have the needed ammunition you need to "open" Canon.

A key to crippling my stance would be to find an extra canonical reference in canon that points to what has been labeled...

"Apocrypha" or false books.

I would expect you to find one of these references in canon and site the extra canonical source. Happy hunting, and prepare to open... Pandora's box. : )

Hi EE,

To the bolded above, lets remember....'apocrypha' just means 'hidden, esoteric', not necessarily 'false', although books regarded to be 'biblical apocrypha' maybe considered to be spurious, of doubtful authorship, suspect, not fully accepted, although may have been accepted by some groups.....not being included in the formal canon for whatever reason. The canon took some time to 'standardize' while some books were more apt to make it in, and were accepted,...a few that we have now....were 'contested' for a time.

The word's origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apokryphos), "obscure", from the verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apokryptein), "to hide away".

-wiki

Apocrypha means 'hidden things' in Greek. The Apocryphical books of the Bible fall into two categories: texts which were included in some canonical version of the Bible at some point, and other texts of a Biblical nature which have never been canonical.

-Internet Sacred Text Archive

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 27, 2017

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]

I just want to say thank you for taking the time to put up with slander on this thread by people that think they're better than you, because of their theological stances.

I sincerely meant it when I told you that we could disagree on many points, but we agree on the most important one.

1 Cor. 13:2

I may not have the honor of reading your exegesis for the rest of this thread... but I'm sending a big thank you towards you for all you did.

Evil.Eye.<(I)> · Jan 27, 2017

freelight said:
Hi EE,

To the bolded above, lets remember....'apocrypha' just means 'hidden, esoteric', not necessarily 'false', although books regarded to be 'biblical apocrypha' maybe considered to be spurious, of doubtful authorship, suspect, not fully accepted, although may have been accepted by some groups.....not being included in the formal canon for whatever reason. The canon took some time to 'standardize' while some books were more apt to make it in, and were accepted,...a few that we have now....were 'contested' for a time.

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION] knew that they weren't necessarily "false"... but was throwing around the Protestant hook line for the Apocrypha in parallel to the word to inflate the point that they have a negative stigma attached to them.

As far as the actual meaning of the word and origin.... I... just got [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] schooled

: )

#Schooled by [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]
#Always thankful to learn new things.

:cheers:

daqq · Jan 27, 2017

Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
@daqq

I just want to say thank you for taking the time to put up with slander on this thread by people that think they're better than you, because of their theological stances.

I sincerely meant it when I told you that we could disagree on many points, but we agree on the most important one.

1 Cor. 13:2

I may not have the honor of reading your exegesis for the rest of this thread... but I'm sending a big thank you towards you for all you did.

Awe . . . thanks, and cheers.

And what was said about the twin-devil-goat Esau old man nature applies in the ECT threads also.
The parable and doctrine doesn't change . . . :Nineveh:

The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

BANNED

Well-known member

BANNED

Well-known member

Eclectic Theosophist

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

Eclectic Theosophist

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

Eclectic Theosophist

BANNED

BANNED

Well-known member