Bible Doctrine Project

[Relationship&Truth]

Hello All,

I'm a teacher in a local church in Pocatello, Idaho, and I am putting together a new study for my adult class this semester. I intend to take my students through the entire Bible this year and am thinking that this will be a good time to teach them how to source sound doctrine from the Bible. To this end I have comprised a list of Biblical doctrines for them to study as we go through the Bible. Now our church is Pentecostal, so some of the doctrine you might not agree with, but please look it over and tell me what you think. I want to give my students something that is

1. Contestible (Debatable)
2. Detailed
3. and Requires Significant Effort to Prove or Disprove

The list of doctrines can be found here.

Sincerely,
R&T

[episkopos]

Maybe you could put forth an example so as to take this large undertaking in small bites. Could you cite one example for us?

[Relationship&Truth]

Okay,

I have included five axiomatic doctrines in the list that, by the nature of axioms, are extra-Biblical. The use of extra-Biblical doctrine is, of course, debatable in a Christian church, but do you think the inclusion of extra-Biblical doctrine meets the criteria I have set up?

Five Axiomatic Doctrines:

Extra-Biblical Doctrines

These doctrines are self-evident and in presenting these doctrines we are not assuming (presupposing) Biblical truthfulness or that the Bible records God's message to the world. Even though these doctrines are not Biblical, we know them to be the most immutable doctrines of Biblical Christianity as they are what assure us (a) that we are not deceiving ourselves and (b) that we are living with worthwhile purpose and value.

Further, so far as other religions are concerned, Biblical Christians recognize that most of them—those that in no way claim a Biblical basis—can be shown to be false via the five axiomatic doctrines given below. In the cases in which another religion claims a Biblical basis in any way, Biblical Christians may disprove it (we default to disproof as no others have been proven true and to prevent deceit) on the basis of the original five axiomatic doctrines or via any of the theoremic (not theoretic; not empirical but true as established by means of accepted truths) doctrines following thesis 5 (the fifth doctrine).



Axiomatic Doctrines



(A1) Truth is the reality of a situation, that which is not a lie, false, or deceitful. Consequently, truth is our first fundamental: If what we believe (have faith in) is not first true and if we are not sure that what we believe (have faith in) is true, then our belief (faith) is valueless and it will not provide us with the confidence we require to speak with conviction regarding our beliefs, respectively. In short, Biblical Christians know that truth is the only reasonable path to God's light (enlightenment), if such light exists; that is, truth precedes faith—faith does not come before truth. Faith that is not founded on the truth is weak and liable to break under the strain of life's uncertainties, or it might simply lead to incorrect beliefs.



(A2) Life is valueless in the absence of wholesome (long-lasting, caring, and genuine) relationships. Therefore the second fundamental of Biblical Christianity is relationship: Biblical Christians know that wholesome relationships are to be sought in life—otherwise life is meaningless. This does not mean, however, that Biblical Christians are constrained to niceness as many view niceness. On the contrary, one of the kindest things that one can experience is to be told that he or she was wrong and thus be saved from his or her error, but we do this with gentleness and respect as is required in a wholesome relationship, yet boldly.



(C3) [Corollary of Theses 1 & 2] In light of our first two fundamentals, we come to a conclusion regarding integrity, that standard of morality by which we live our lives: Biblical Christians know that to have integrity is to be actively committed to the truth and to wholesome relationships. In turn, valuing wholesome relationships implies that we care about, respect, and protect others so much as it depends on us.



(A4) In establishing the truthfulness of any proposition it is necessary to have a set of standards by which to assess the aforementioned proposition.

A. With regard to assessing an entire worldview, Biblical Christians expect to see...

1. internal consistency [and]: Internal consistency means that a reasonable worldview must not contradict itself. If a worldview is found to be inherently self-contradictory, then Biblical Christians will reject it. This does not mean that every aspect of a worldview need be explained (at least initially), but that those aspects which are demarcated are not contrary to one another.

2. external consistency: That is, Biblical Christians expect a worldview to conform to reality. If a worldview, despite being internally consistent, does not account for one's observations regarding the universe, then a Biblical Christian will still reject said worldview and consider it to be untruthful. In particular, external consistency includes (but is not limited to) historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, logical accuracy (a worldview cannot redefine what is logical and what is not), linguistic accuracy (specifically to include translational accuracy), and literary accuracy (adhering to the standards of proper literary preservation and interpretation, etc).

B. With regard to assessing a particular tenant of a worldview, Biblical Christians expect to see...

1. non-contradiction with regard to previously established tenants,

2. sufficient support (evidence) from within the worldview (to include attendance to context especially when textual support is given) such that alternative propositions can be shown to be erroneous and that the given proposition is indeed true, and

3. reasonable and morally correct motivation for adding a tenant to those already established.



(A5) As many worldviews are preserved textually, being able to determine what a text means is of vital importance. When determining the meaning of a text, Biblical Christians realize that...

1. all texts have a single unifying meaning: This is to say that any text worth serious consideration is written with a specific purpose in mind and that it is the role of the reader to discover the purpose that unifies the text; Biblical Christians reject the idea that a text can present multiple main ideas (especially if those ideas conflict with one another) or that a worthwhile text is meaningless. If we cannot determine the meaning of the text, then we do not use it as a source of doctrine until (if ever) we can determine its fundamental meaning. Moreover, we recognize the importance of determining the text’s original meaning and original manner of presentation.

2. meaning is derived from situational, inter-textual, and intra-textual context [and]: That is, the meaning of a text is discovered through considering the history and cultural setting of the text (situational context—who?, what?, where?, when?, why?, and how?), how the text relates to other texts (inter-textual context—between or among texts), and what the text has to say about itself and its own meaning (intra-textual context—within the text).

3. understanding meaning is a cognitive process: Put simply, you cannot discover the meaning of something unless you take the time to really consider what has been said; meaning is not assumed—it is discovered. Further, one is culpable (responsible) regarding his or her own search for meaning; Biblical Christians do not defer interpretation to another as ignorance is the fault of the student. This is not to say that teachers are not held accountable for heresy. In fact, it is one of the roles of a student to carefully weigh and scrutinize another’s teachings (as well as his or her own beliefs) so as not to be led astray by false (untrue) doctrines.


The complete list can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/thetea...acher-s-theses

[Eyelog]

Hello All,

I'm a teacher in a local church in Pocatello, Idaho, and I am putting together a new study for my adult class this semester. I intend to take my students through the entire Bible this year and am thinking that this will be a good time to teach them how to source sound doctrine from the Bible. To this end I have comprised a list of Biblical doctrines for them to study as we go through the Bible. Now our church is Pentecostal, so some of the doctrine you might not agree with, but please look it over and tell me what you think. I want to give my students something that is

1. Contestible (Debatable)
2. Detailed
3. and Requires Significant Effort to Prove or Disprove

The list of doctrines can be found here.

Sincerely,
R&T

Hello, Relat.

You are an ambitious person, for sure. Good for you, and God bless you in your zeal to explicate and give students a chance to engage their 'learner'.

So far as your statement of doctrines, they seem to be very mainline Evangelical, and are likely to be great for the local church, though there are many whack-o's like myself here who will dispute even the most dear doctrinal statement -- for the same reason you test all doctrine by Scripture.

In any case, the only issues I am interested to discuss in your document are these:

When determining the meaning of a text, Biblical Christians realize that...
1. all texts have a single unifying meaning: This is to say that any text worth serious consideration is written with a specific purpose in mind and that it is the role of the reader to discover the purpose that unifies the text; Biblical Christians reject the idea that a text can present multiple main ideas (especially if those ideas conflict with one another) or that a worthwhile text is meaningless. If we cannot determine the meaning of the text, then we do not use it as a source of doctrine until (if ever) we can determine its fundamental meaning. Moreover, we recognize the importance of determining the text’s original meaning and original manner of presentation.

2. meaning is derived from situational, inter-textual, and intra-textual context [and]: That is, the meaning of a text is discovered through considering the history and cultural setting of the text (situational context—who?, what?, where?, when?, why?, and how?), how the text relates to other texts (inter-textual context—between or among texts), and what the text has to say about itself and its own meaning (intra-textual context—within the text).

3. understanding meaning is a cognitive process: Put simply, you cannot discover the meaning of something unless you take the time to really consider what has been said; meaning is not assumed—it is discovered. Further, one is culpable (responsible) regarding his or her own search for meaning; Biblical Christians do not defer interpretation to another as ignorance is the fault of the student. This is not to say that teachers are not held accountable for heresy. In fact, it is one of the roles of a student to carefully weigh and scrutinize another’s teachings (as well as his or her own beliefs) so as not to be led astray by false (untrue) doctrines.

Anything I bold-faced in your text is something which is partially true, but not without very important qualification. It is really easy to over-simplify hermeneutics and to rely too heavily on such principles to interpret texts, causing us to attain to a skewed limitation or over-statement of meaning. Moreover, perhaps the worst thing you said is that there is only one meaning, and that it is dependent on the intent of the author.

The author is the HS, not the dude with the quill.

As such, people wrote as led along by the HS, and were engaging their minds and wills to do so, but were writing what the Spirit wanted written.

To suggest that is limited by historical context, and not just informed by it, would be too strong, for sure.

To suggest we must have the mind of a First Century Jew to understand would be an over-statement.

Understand I am not accusing your discursus of such things, but indicating that the way you put things does imply some limitations which some may conclude from what you have said, whether you intend them or not.

I am with you that the text can't mean just anything, and I agree that there are many concentric rings and venn diagram-like rings of contextual meaning going on in Scripture, what i would call many contextual frames. Those frames may be by word, phrase, sentence, verse, paragraph, chapter, book, testament, and Bible as a whole, but also by topics and original language terms, not to mention the socio-historical issues you raise, and so on down the line.

But there is a Spirit to the NT, and an interpretation must catch up with that Spirit and and overtake it. So, you have the entire counsel of God, and that includes the Spirit of the text.

That said, you have a nice intro to some hermeneutical principles, and you actually seek to get at the heart of the matter in practical way, unlike many writers. However, one must be careful not to limit the text as one seeks to limit spurious interpretations. Moreover, the Word is active and live and is there to speak into the heart and change the heart. If the Word is just something to be cognitively understood, that statement needs qualification. For, we must read to know more, but we must also read as part of our interrelationship with the Spirit of God. Does that distinction ring for you?

Anyway, Bless You for your extensive and hard work. You are surely a blessing to your students.

================
Edited point: Via typo, I forgot to say "not" when I said "an interpretation must catch up with that Spirit and and overtake it. So, you have the entire counsel of God, and that includes the Spirit of the text."

It should have read:

"But there is a Spirit to the NT, and an interpretation must catch up with that Spirit and and not overtake it. So, you have the entire counsel of God, and that includes the Spirit of the text."

In my view, this is a hugely important issue, and why I bothered to emphasize this correction.

[Relationship&Truth]

Thanks Eyelog,

I love your comments and your reminder to me (which is important for all of us) regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of the Bible, which is no small item. I have to admit that a lot of the terminology I employ is based on that of literary criticism and thus I need to be careful when stating what I mean:

single unifying meaning, etc (1): The emphasis here in literary criticism is not on the singularity but on the unity. That is, the Holy Spirit designed the various portions of the Bible to fit together, to be unified and that the focal point of that unity, the Gospel of Salvation, is indeed a single point. This does not mean that we cannot glean more than one lesson from a passage but that all of the messages must allign with one another; otherwise, the meaning deconstructs due to self-contradiction. Thanks for making me explain this.

meaning of a text is discovered through considering the history and cultural setting of the text (situational context—who?, what?, where?, when?, why?, and how?) (2): I grant that requiring a reader to climb into the mind of another era, if literally applied, would not necessarily be in keeping with good interpretation (not to mention unfeasible). That said, meaning does not occur without context. For example, if someone says to you, "You are exceptional," then you, based on that context alone may think that the person is complimenting you. However, if the context were extended such that the person said, "You are exceptional--you're the dumbest person I know," (I am not calling you this, of course--just illustrating something) then you probably would not consider the statement to be a compliment. That is, context tends to clear up misunderstandings. In the Bible, for instance, Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman who describes herself as a dog eating crumbs. This makes more sense to us when we consider the significance of her nationality in contrast with that of Jesus. So yes, I agree with you: historical context illuminates a text but is not solely deterministic. This is where critical language fails me: If I had said "the meaning of a text is discovered only through considering the history and cultural setting," then I would have meant historical context in the exclusive sense.

meaning is a cognitive process (3): Yes, this one is extremely important to illuminate. By cognitive, I do not mean purely logical; I mean that understanding meaning requires engagement--that God rewards those who actively seek Him. Of course, the word cognitive implies mental engagement, not necessarily engagement in a more general sense, so I see your point here.

Moreover, these axioms are not meant to be entirely exclusive but are meant to provide a sort of minimum standard. That is, if someone derived a doctrine from the Bible that does not line up with the overall and obvious unifying message of the Bible, if someone does not bother to apply historical context to difficult passages, or if someone simply reacted to the Bible without thinking about it, then we would have sufficient reason to question the doctrine of such a person. These axioms are minimums, not maximums.

There, if I explained these axioms to my students just as I have done to you, then do you think they will have a proper understanding of them, or did I mess it up again?

Thank you so much for your help!
R&T

[Eyelog]

single unifying meaning, etc (1): The emphasis here in literary criticism is not on the singularity but on the unity. That is, the Holy Spirit designed the various portions of the Bible to fit together, to be unified and that the focal point of that unity, the Gospel of Salvation, is indeed a single point. This does not mean that we cannot glean more than one lesson from a passage but that all of the messages must allign with one another; otherwise, the meaning deconstructs due to self-contradiction. Thanks for making me explain this.

Hello again, Relat. I have purused your web pages a bit, and find your treatise on teaching very impressive in its breadth and inclination of discussion, if a bit wordy -- which is what always happens on the first 100 drafts when we are trying to explain something complex. Anyway, some observations about what you have here:

First, if you are trying to be precise, you have a typo as to "self-contradiction," when you likely meant "inter-contradiction" (of "all of the messages" "from a passage").

Second, is this not a huge presumption on your part, based on a doctrinal stance:

That is, the Holy Spirit designed the various portions of the Bible to fit together, to be unified and that the focal point of that unity, the Gospel of Salvation, is indeed a single point.

I would like to examine your Scriptural basis for saying the focal point of the unity of the Bible is the Gospel of "Salvation", and it is a single point.

While I have no desire to argue, I am interested, not only in how you came up with that (usually an assumption prompted by doctrinal views), but in how you propose to justify that axiom to students based on Scripture. i would love to discuss this. Very interesting. (This is not to say I would not argue if I thought it would be mutually edifying.)

[meaning of a text is discovered through considering the history and cultural setting of the text (situational context—who?, what?, where?, when?, why?, and how?) (2): I grant that requiring a reader to climb into the mind of another era, if literally applied, would not necessarily be in keeping with good interpretation (not to mention unfeasible). That said, meaning does not occur without context. ... So yes, I agree with you: historical context illuminates a text but is not solely deterministic. This is where critical language fails me: If I had said "the meaning of a text is discovered only through considering the history and cultural setting," then I would have meant historical context in the exclusive sense.

Of course, I am not commenting in order to be nit-picky, or even to say whether I think you are "technically correct" in how you said something. (Though that might happen in spite of my attitude ). Rather, I worry more that sometimes that what we don't say implies as much as we say. By not stressing that historical social context is relevant but usually not determinative (especially when the context of the Bible is not primarily Historical, but primarily Spiritual. It means to speak History, and we MUST accept it as History, but its purpose is to get us involved spiritually with God, to say the least -- I'll wait until you explain your Gospel focal point view before I bother to substantiate this view. ).

So, here, I like your example of the Samaritan woman being called a dog by Jesus. (Something mischieveous in me loves that kind of shock to our expectations about what the nicey-nice, every loving Jesus, who loves the 'big Philippino and wee Chinese' will say next, to name-call and insult people.)

But the greater point of the passage is not at all that Samaritan's were looked down on by the Jews, and even that the Samaritan woman humbly played along with this lesser social position by making the comment to Christ that even dogs eat from the Master's table. Rather, once we understand the meaning of the analogy of the children and dogs and master to the Jews, Samaritans and Jesus, the socio-historical context matters only in that we are impressed that Jesus allows the Samaritan's request for a healing. But if that's as far as we go in the interpretation, I think you would agree we have missed the main point of the passage.

I'm not teaching you anything to say, Jesus was impressed with her faith: "28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed [c]at once."

But in debriefing we have to ask, why was Jesus so impressed with her faith? What does her faith have in common with the faith of many Jewish and Gentile people who received healings? It is of great interest to liberal, socially conscious people that she was of a different social station, class, minority or whatever. But from a balanced Biblical perspective that is not the point. The point is that Jesus came for all people. The liberal wants to emphasize differences, but Jesus came to de-emphasize them, and treat everyone the same. If the liberal really wanted social equality, rather than to use social injustice as a wedge to divide people - the primary strategy used in this country by many liberal persons in government, religion and politics and media - they could understand and love Jesus.

But who misunderstands Him and hates Him the most: The liberal, social-conscious types. They may try to appropriate Jesus for their purposes, but they don't really espouse the Spirit of what He said, did or meant. They are infinitely outside the kingdom. For they violate the first rule Jesus laid down in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:19
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

My point is that if you leave it that we need to understand the social and historical context in order to understand the text, being silent that the SPIRITUAL meaning of the text is the ultimate goal, we open the door to incomplete and skewed perversions of the meaning, as in the case of today's social liberal.

The Spiritual meaning of the dog analogy is about the nature of faith itself. Priniciples or themes emerge, like it does not matter who you are, if you have faith, Jesus will recognize you. If you humble yourself before the Lord, and accept His evaluation of you, He will lift you up with appropriate honor. If you believe Jesus is Master/Lord, and boldly request, believing He can do it, and that He is benevolent enough to do it, it shall be done unto you. And we could come up with innumerable more principles associated with faith and your big emphasis of the our relationship with God/Jesus. Of course, we could apply many other contextual frames to receive principles of truth from this or any passage.

So, I say all that to illustrate that we must take action to avoid justifying the shallow, mutinous hijacking of Scripture to serve some worldly and evil purpose. That's why I am uninterested in whether you are technically correct, but very interested in whether you are leading your students to overcome shallow, incomplete, skewed or even false interpretations, arming them to resist the liberal interloper.

meaning is a cognitive process (3): Yes, this one is extremely important to illuminate. By cognitive, I do not mean purely logical; I mean that understanding meaning requires engagement--that God rewards those who actively seek Him. Of course, the word cognitive implies mental engagement, not necessarily engagement in a more general sense, so I see your point here.

Moreover, these axioms are not meant to be entirely exclusive but are meant to provide a sort of minimum standard. That is, if someone derived a doctrine from the Bible that does not line up with the overall and obvious unifying message of the Bible, if someone does not bother to apply historical context to difficult passages, or if someone simply reacted to the Bible without thinking about it, then we would have sufficient reason to question the doctrine of such a person. These axioms are minimums, not maximums.

There, if I explained these axioms to my students just as I have done to you, then do you think they will have a proper understanding of them, or did I mess it up again?

Thank you so much for your help!
R&T

I think you make a very good point that these are axioms and not meant to be maximums but minimums. But as I said, omission of some critical controlling axioms can be very damaging.

The thing I would add, without trying to state this perfectly, is an axiom to the effect that the Spiritual meanings of the text, as opposed to the historical or social, cultural, or linguistic, meanings are the ultimate goal, not letting go of those other contexts, as they help define the spiritual meaning. On the other hand, a good axiom is that the historical reality of what took place, including the miracles and amazing supernatural occurrences, are to be taken as literal, and we ought not pretend we have found the ultimate spiritual point, by mechanically trying to allegorize or spiritualize the historical realities conveyed in Scripture. That said, the historical realities occur, often by providence, in order to create a historical picture as a "type" or pattern for some historical and/or spiritual reality to come. So a literal reality can have implications of spiritual matters (as say when Hosea is commanded to literally marry the prostitute and do lots of strange stuff, so as to create a picture of Israel's behavior, that it might awaken them). Indeed, the literal historical reality is inexorably tied to the spiritual reality, and it takes experience working with the Word to rightly handle all that, and sense where the Spirit in the text is going.

If students understand that is the horizon they are headed for, if they want to know how to rightly handle and interpret the Word, they are in more balanced situation than otherwise. Ultimately, though, as you know, only through experience do we start to really understand the implications and importance of these axioms.

If you have the honor of teaching students who will listen to your axioms on truth and Bible interpretation, you have a great group. Bless you. And keep up the refinement process as you conduct your trial and error with your great set of materials -- without growing weary, brother.

[Eyelog]

This is something i made up, because I too am a teacher:

• The mark of a great teacher is that they are a great learner.
• The mark of a great learner is that they are teachable.
• The mark of a greatly teachable person is they are humble.
• The mark of a greatly humble person is that they have already thrown out themselves, so there is no one home to be proud or offended.
• The mark of a greatly thrown out self is they have left everything, including themselves, to go follow Jesus, with a pure heart, soul, mind and strength.

I aspire to be these things.

[Relationship&Truth]

Hmmm... I have some revisions to consider. However, I am encouraged that you found these things to be questionable in that my students will also hopefully question them.

One sticking point, though, is your emphasis on the spiritual meaning of a text--not all texts are necessarily spiritual and thus spirituality is not fundamental. That is, the Spirit is the Spirit of truth and thus being founded in the truth is the first step to accurate interpretation. The main reason why I emphasize this is the region in which I live. Many people here are Mormon and emphasize Spiritual interpretation, but are devoid of truth. Put another way, the truthful interpretation will lead to accurate Spiritual interpretation, but simply seeking a spiritual experience can lead to heresy.

In this region, the word spiritual (as a lens) is almost non-existent in that most Biblical Christians here do not differentiate between reality in general and spiritual realities--the two are assumed to coincide. Frankly, it is odd to me that you would distinguish between them. That is, if a document was inspired by God for our enlightenment, then it seems like a foregone conclusion that we would read it with an eye toward its Spiritual realities. Then again, this discrepency is probably more due to regional understanding than anything else.

As to my claim that the focal point of the unity of the Bible is Salvation, most of the justification comes from how I define being saved: being restored to a relationship with God such we are fulfilled in Him and will live in Him eternally. This view of Salvation, admittedly, contains many aspects--such as relationship with God (with its own sub-aspects), living in accordance with His will (many sub-aspects here too), eternity, etc--but it is still the central concept of the Bible. Then again, multi-faceted singularities never bothered me much, being both a mathematician and convinced of the trinity. Alternatively, I could have simply said that the Bible reveals what God wanted to be passed down through the generations (which also implies sub-aspects), but that is a bit obvious to me.

This is always interesting to me, nonetheless, in that so many people have problems with complex singularities--it has never bothered me, but it really annoys everyone else. I really need to stop phrasing things this way.

Anyhow, I have some work to do, clearly, and thus I'll get to it.
R&T

[Eyelog]

... the truthful interpretation will lead to accurate Spiritual interpretation, but simply seeking a spiritual experience can lead to heresy.

I see your point.

First, I agree that interpretation is not a matter of spiritual experience, per se, which can easily lead to grave error, though one can certainly experience the Spirit while accurately reading the Word.

Second, my point about the Spirit of the text is that if you read the entire NT in one sitting, you cannot help but receive much of the Spirit of the NT. Once you have it, you are able to integrate the texts according to that Spirit. Absent such a comprehension of the Spirit of the NT, for example, one may fail to properly interpret relative to the entire counsel of God and the overarching spiritual truth each passage partakes of as it contributes to it. Indeed, the OT read through the lens of the Spirit of the NT is finally meaningful at all. Make any sense?

Third, your appeal to truth begs the question of how it is arrived at. -- Not a complaint, but just pointing out that in the end that truism that we are after the true interpretation(s) does not advance understanding. Besides, this takes you afield of your point that the central guiding principle is the Gospel, unless, of course, you adequately explain how the Gospel is the central unifying theme which leads us into the truth. This takes us to your second point.

As to my claim that the focal point of the unity of the Bible is Salvation, most of the justification comes from how I define being saved: being restored to a relationship with God such we are fulfilled in Him and will live in Him eternally. This view of Salvation, admittedly, contains many aspects--such as relationship with God (with its own sub-aspects), living in accordance with His will (many sub-aspects here too), eternity, etc--but it is still the central concept of the Bible. Then again, multi-faceted singularities never bothered me much, being both a mathematician and convinced of the trinity. Alternatively, I could have simply said that the Bible reveals what God wanted to be passed down through the generations (which also implies sub-aspects), but that is a bit obvious to me.

You are not quoting Scripture for your position. But you are assuming that the purpose of Christ dying for our sins is complete if people get saved and then begin to obey Jesus. But there is something more to it, and it overarches the entire purpose God had for creating mankind to begin with. See my posts at http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...all-of-Mankind.

In any event, you have explained your position well, and it is sound Biblically. It's just that I am saying you are limiting the meaning of the text by presupposing that salvation is the unifying principle of the Bible, which is only partially true. Whether you agree with my position on what the central guiding principle is or not is not the point. Your presupposition must be justified entirely, or it should not be allowed to limit the meaning of the text, but only inform it. Frankly, I take all such unifying principles as informative but indeterminate, because I continually seek further insight into what truly is the central unifying principle of the Scriptures. It just so happens that to date I believe it is the New Creation, the New Anthropos (man, self), "which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.: Eph 4:24. cf. Titus 2:13-14 ("... our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.")

After all,

Ephesians 2:10
... we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

... in that so many people have problems with complex singularities--it has never bothered me, but it really annoys everyone else. I really need to stop phrasing things this way.

Anyhow, I have some work to do, clearly, and thus I'll get to it.

I am less set back by your way of saying things than by what you seem to imply, as I have explained. You are obviously a talented writer and thinker.

God bless you brother.

[Boo]

This is something i made up, because I too am a teacher:

• The mark of a great teacher is that they are a great learner.
• The mark of a great learner is that they are teachable.
• The mark of a greatly teachable person is they are humble.
• The mark of a greatly humble person is that they have already thrown out themselves, so there is no one home to be proud or offended.
• The mark of a greatly thrown out self is they have left everything, including themselves, to go follow Jesus, with a pure heart, soul, mind and strength.

I aspire to be these things.

That is really good stuff. My favorite teachers have been those who actually engage with me, not those who pontificate to me.

May I add that the mark of a wise man is that he can use discernment to select his teacher?

He will also know that teachers can err and in so knowing this, will be willing to examine all things that are taught. In the end, it is in what we end up believing that will enable us to fail or to succeed. What we believe becomes ours.

[Eyelog]

What we believe becomes ours.

This is so true. that's why folks contend so strongly with each other on this forum.

But it is important, also, because we believe in our heart, and from our heart comes our thoughts, acts and deeds.

So, I agree. You are so right to say we must be careful what we accept to believe upon.