Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Symbolism and Truth

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bernie View Post
    Okay, how do you know when you have the truth of Christ and the other guy doesn't? When he fails to agree with you?
    No, I know that someone doesn't have the truth of Christ when they deny Him, when they deny the gospel.


    What does this statement mean in real terms?
    Those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ are one in Him. Even though we may disagree on various theological issues, we are still one in Him. Unless one does not have Him, in which case we are not united.


    So would you 'overthink' this with me for a bit and agree that the information contained by either C or A can be said to be fragmented into subsets of information, some true and some false using as a point of reference, absolute Truth (meaning pure truth, or God's essence)?
    Sure.


    What sort of "hearing" is the Lord talking about? What does He mean when He says "more will be given"? More what? What will be taken from the one who does not have? Try not to answer this from the doctrine you've been taught, think about it and use your own words and ideas.
    Mark 4:11-12
    11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that

    'Seeing they may see and not perceive,
    And hearing they may hear and not understand;
    Lest they should turn,
    And their sins be forgiven them.'"
    NKJV

    The disciples were to take heed what they were hearing -- the things Jesus was telling them. Those who receive the word and understand, and use (obey) what they have been given, would be given more. Those who heard but did not receive it, even what they had been given would be taken away.


    I'm enjoying our exchange, TanyaP. You're an honorable correspondent, as re the saying 'honorable men (and women) may both agree and disagree honorably'.
    Love In Christ,
    Tanya






    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TanyaP View Post
      Mark 4:11-12
      11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that

      'Seeing they may see and not perceive,
      And hearing they may hear and not understand;
      Lest they should turn,
      And their sins be forgiven them.'"
      NKJV

      The disciples were to take heed what they were hearing -- the things Jesus was telling them. Those who receive the word and understand, and use (obey) what they have been given, would be given more. Those who heard but did not receive it, even what they had been given would be taken away.
      Amen. Jesus spoke in parables and explained the meaning to the disciples. Jesus taught exactly like God teaches because they are the same. Things spoken in scripture can be understood through the Spirit. But there is much there we do not understand at first glance, for parables hide truth while the Spirit reveals it.
      Matt 9:13
      13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      NASU

      Comment


      • #18
        (Thanks Mark!) Another thing I wanted to add in relation to that parable...

        John came preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. He was the forerunner of Jesus. Those who heard John and repented (and received his baptism) were prepared to hear and receive Jesus.
        Luke 7:29-30
        And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
        Those who rejected John's baptism also rejected Jesus. Because they rejected Him, they were not given to receive more -- the understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Those who obeyed what they did hear (repent) were given more. Those who did not obey, even what they did have was taken away. Thus:
        Matt 13:11-17

        11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

        'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
        And seeing you will see and not perceive;
        15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
        Their ears are hard of hearing,
        And their eyes they have closed,
        Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
        Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
        So that I should heal them.'

        16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
        NKJV
        Love In Christ,
        Tanya






        Comment


        • #19
          John 2:19
          "Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
          NKJV
          Is this in fact a figurative statement? We think of a structure when we read the word "temple". Jesus Christ was the only perfect house of God that has ever been on earth. Even though nobody understood it dosen't mean it was figurative. Jesus use of the word "temple" is as true as it gets. I consider this a very literal statement.

          Now this I consider a spiritual truth, or figurative:
          John 6:51
          "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” NKJV
          John 3:3
          "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot .....(see)..... the kingdom of God.”
          When I study, I always want to recognise (which I admittedly miss sometimes) the Person of Christ. If you think about it, all truth fails in comparison to the revelation of Jesus. Every aspect of our lives always should be evaluated as to how it relates to Him, as also unbelievers its just that they don't know it.

          All descriptions of God must be figurative, obviously He has no arm, yet in Psalms He found no man and His own arm brought salvation, He's not a rock, but Peter and Paul both referred to Him as such. He is unsearchable, how else could we understand the vastness of how He can meet any need?

          Psalm 19:7
          "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;
          The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;" NKJV
          Just a few thoughts...

          Mark
          Last edited by Mark F; Dec 7th 2007, 03:51 AM. Reason: After thought
          Mark


          “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14

          (All Scripture quoted is from NKJV unless otherwise noted)

          Comment


          • #20
            Greetings TanyaP,

            Thanks for continuing our walk here.

            someone doesn't have the truth of Christ when they deny Him, when they deny the gospel.
            Those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ are one in Him. Even though we may disagree on various theological issues, we are still one in Him. Unless one does not have Him, in which case we are not united.
            I think it would suit the purpose of the thread to press 'pause' here and explore the meaning of these statements. I'm trying to figure out truth's real relationship to belief, remember. Expressions of belief like the two above, as is true of all such statements, are preceded by conceptual structures (our presuppositions) pertinent to each individual, which tend to make communication difficult sometimes. As I see it, the elements of each person's theological structure exist in some fragmented ration of unity or disunity (true or false) with respect to absolute truth. If ideas were apples, and prescriptive 'apples' were all kept in a single barrel, some would be shiny and red and others dark and rotten...but together, they make up a single entity, one's theology. Btw, I use the word "prescriptive" because it tends to work as a blanket term for a number of other words we use to refer to the same class of concepts....spiritual/ethical/moral, etc. All are normative in nature, which nature suggests prescriptive value, distinct from descriptive truth (what pertains to matter, time and space, like scientific study, etc.).

            I'm not trying to bore you, but want to set the stage for exploring our theological terminology as carefully as we can without talking past each other.

            In your first statement, " I know that someone doesn't have the truth of Christ when they deny Him, when they deny the gospel", "A" may have a differnt interpretation than "B" of what the "truth of Christ" means, which will naturally adjust "A"s discernment/interpretation of the last part of this statement, "when they deny Him...they deny the gospel".

            Remember, Jesus' detractors thought He was talking about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days, but in this case, the literal truth of His statement was placed before them in such a way that its actuality was hidden from them. Traditional thinking tends to miss possible realms of significance here, I suspect. In this case, we could say Jesus' language was by nature esoteric (hidden), but only hidden by virtue of Jesus allowing His enemies to draw wrong conclusions. Their conclusions were triggered by a priori assumptions, and the argument can reasonably be made that the force of those assumptions expresed some apparently high ratio of falsity within their theological "apple barrel". Assuming that we humans all have the same propensity to fallenness as they, how do we know where truth lies in the statement "When they deny Christ, they deny the gospel"?

            For instance, hearing, it may again be reasonably be argued, can come in both literal (sound waves in ear, translating to neuronal activity in brain) and spiritual (internall illumination or revelational transfer of truth laying outside physical transfer) means. If we can conced the truth potential of either method, then one need not "hear" words spoken in a certain order, leading to a certain set of doctrines in order to "hear the truth of Christ".

            Looking at your second statement, "Those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ are one in Him. Even though we may disagree on various theological issues, we are still one in Him. Unless one does not have Him, in which case we are not united", questions are raised in the spirit of discerning possible truth...
            1) Those who "believe" in what sense of belief? Is it possible for a Moslem peasant in an isolated region of Iran to "hear" Christ's call, and if not what would this person hear? Assuming Christ is Truth (Jn 14:6), a person "hearing" Christ would have to at base hear "Truth", as I see it.
            2) To what degree may one disagree in theology and still be un unity?

            This is enough for this post, looking forward to your answers.

            Hi MarkF,

            Quote:
            "Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
            NKJV
            Is this in fact a figurative statement? We think of a structure when we read the word "temple". Jesus Christ was the only perfect house of God that has ever been on earth. Even though nobody understood it dosen't mean it was figurative. Jesus use of the word "temple" is as true as it gets. I consider this a very literal statement.

            Now this I consider a spiritual truth, or figurative:
            John 6:51

            Quote:
            "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” NKJV
            John 3:3

            Quote:
            "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot .....(see)..... the kingdom of God.”
            I see your point here, and think the answer may be that all three are figurative insofar as they meet the requirements of figurative language (i.e., all being to different degrees emblematic/symbolic figures of speech). I think you provide a good representation of the principle that there are varying levels or shades of meaning and truth in Scripture, that some truths are nearer our natural perception, more amenable to grasping with a minumum or 'surface' understanding and others more 'distant'.

            If true, this structure suggests what traditional Christianity has said from the beginning, that there are layers of truth and meaning to be mined from the Scriptures not readily apparent to the rational eye....although when revealed, all such revelation can be seen to be perfectly rational and logical in nature.

            Jesus spoke in parables and explained the meaning to the disciples. Jesus taught exactly like God teaches because they are the same. Things spoken in scripture can be understood through the Spirit. But there is much there we do not understand at first glance, for parables hide truth while the Spirit reveals it.
            Well put, Brother Mark. I'm trying to figure out why (and, where possible, how much) truth might be 'hidden' from us in Scripture.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bernie View Post
              Assuming that we humans all have the same propensity to fallenness as they, how do we know where truth lies in the statement "When they deny Christ, they deny the gospel"?


              I think if it's so difficult, then one may as well give up. This is why words have to mean things, and the meaning of the words has to be understandable, at least on some basic level.

              For instance, hearing, it may again be reasonably be argued, can come in both literal (sound waves in ear, translating to neuronal activity in brain) and spiritual (internall illumination or revelational transfer of truth laying outside physical transfer) means. If we can conced the truth potential of either method, then one need not "hear" words spoken in a certain order, leading to a certain set of doctrines in order to "hear the truth of Christ".
              Hearing (physical sound waves) they hear but do not understand. Why? It is simply because they rejected what Jesus said to begin with. What they heard at the beginning, they rejected. So from that point, they continued to hear the sound waves, but didn't 'hear' in the spiritual sense that is to understand, to take heed, to receive the thing spoken.


              1) Those who "believe" in what sense of belief? Is it possible for a Moslem peasant in an isolated region of Iran to "hear" Christ's call, and if not what would this person hear? Assuming Christ is Truth (Jn 14:6), a person "hearing" Christ would have to at base hear "Truth", as I see it.
              There are testimonies of Muslims having visions of Christ which gives them opportunity to respond. If they receive it, they are given more. Many come to Christ. If they reject it, they will not receive more.


              2) To what degree may one disagree in theology and still be un unity?
              If one believes the gospel, one is in Christ. And if we are in Christ, we are unified in Him. We can be divided on other grounds which is a sad thing but a necessary thing, and it was prophesied that it would be so.

              I'm finding myself doing a lot of head-scratching here. I'm finding the discussion to be oddly frustrating. Don't know why. I really am having a hard time understanding what your point is.
              Love In Christ,
              Tanya






              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bernie View Post
                Well put, Brother Mark. I'm trying to figure out why (and, where possible, how much) truth might be 'hidden' from us in Scripture.
                I understand the sentiments. I think there is more than we could ever imagine tucked away in the scriptures.

                Rom 16:25-27

                25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
                NASB

                Is anything so sweet as to have the Spirit open our eyes to see the "parables" of the Old and New Testament reveal our precious Savior.

                1 Peter 1:13

                13 Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
                NASB

                Much grace comes when our eyes are opened and the Lord reveals himself to us in His word.

                Can why and how much be answered? Perhaps but it is, what it is.

                Blessings,

                Mark
                Matt 9:13
                13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                NASU

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi TanyaP,

                  I think if it's so difficult, then one may as well give up. This is why words have to mean things, and the meaning of the words has to be understandable, at least on some basic level.
                  But shouldn't we expect the pursuit of truth to be difficult? Peter noted, "AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?" (1Pet 4:18) And the Lord Himself taught, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Mat 7:13-14). In Revelation, the Lord promises salvation to those who overcome, suggesting to me that to search out Truth Himself, difficult as it may be to find Him, is certainly worth the effort.

                  Hearing (physical sound waves) they hear but do not understand. Why? It is simply because they rejected what Jesus said to begin with. What they heard at the beginning, they rejected. So from that point, they continued to hear the sound waves, but didn't 'hear' in the spiritual sense that is to understand, to take heed, to receive the thing spoken.
                  But is it really so simple? Looking at the act of accepting and rejecting, is it possible that to "hear" Christ's call can proceed only from a necessary prior alignment? In other words, to what extent might it be possible that one has to be made capable of hearing and understanding before he/she can move the will to accept or reject the call?

                  There are testimonies of Muslims having visions of Christ which gives them opportunity to respond. If they receive it, they are given more. Many come to Christ. If they reject it, they will not receive more.
                  How do you arrive at the conclusion that once rejected, God gives no more chances?

                  If one believes the gospel, one is in Christ. And if we are in Christ, we are unified in Him. We can be divided on other grounds which is a sad thing but a necessary thing, and it was prophesied that it would be so.
                  Okay, let's try an example here, to clarify what you're saying. A progressive might say the gospel is primarily or purely conceptual and requires no historical, risen Christ, that to believe in good and reject evil on any level (or to principally seek the good despite a natural disposition toward evil) itself is sufficient for salvation. The conservative will say that the literal, historical, resurrected Christ is necessary to fufill the gospel message and award salvation. Is one of these views wholly or mostly true and other false? Which is true, and why?

                  I'm finding myself doing a lot of head-scratching here. I'm finding the discussion to be oddly frustrating. Don't know why. I really am having a hard time understanding what your point is.
                  I'm mostly trying to ask questions aimed down roads I've been on for some time, trying to see how others respond. My own opinion is that the human mind is essentially lazy about spiritual things, for good reason;truth is the enemy of falsity, and whenever the two are introduced to one another, a certain tension and resistance rises in the human intellect. We call this the moral law. If you stop and think about it, in a perfect (wholly true) state, prescriptive/moral pressure wouldn't exist. Perfect unity provides perfect ease, happiness, contentment, etc. We're evil beings, and when we study spiritual concepts, we 'sting' the old man within, who prefers the comfort of darkness. The atheist mind is a good example of this; it reacts most violently against Truth it has not been cleansed to "hear" and "see". Hence the myriad arguments and philosophies which seek to hide or cover up truth. This tension and resistance is normal, but it's also why it's so hard for us to get past a superficial theology and drink the deeper things of God's Spirit. Truth, the very thing that saves us, is also our enemy, so we have to be brought to it gradually, in small steps. (We Christians call this sanctification).

                  The above may also give you insights into my fascination with truth in the intellect and how and why it (and especially falsity, our natural spiritual disease) reacts the way it does with God's pure, holy Truth--and why I ask these questions.

                  It's hard to have discussions about truth, because these always end up leading into areas we find unsettling, IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TanyaP View Post
                    I really am having a hard time understanding what your point is.
                    Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I might know what he is getting at. That if we are to understand all of scripture and what the Lord would have us understand, that a simple reading of scripture will not fully reveal it. That God has used stories and types and shadows to hide the truth and that truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit by revealing these things instead of revealed by much study and exogesis of passages.
                    Matt 9:13
                    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                    NASU

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Bernie View Post
                      Hi TanyaP,


                      But shouldn't we expect the pursuit of truth to be difficult? Peter noted, "AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?" (1Pet 4:18) And the Lord Himself taught, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Mat 7:13-14). In Revelation, the Lord promises salvation to those who overcome, suggesting to me that to search out Truth Himself, difficult as it may be to find Him, is certainly worth the effort.
                      The difficulty is not that it is so hard to understand. It is difficult because of what it costs.


                      But is it really so simple? Looking at the act of accepting and rejecting, is it possible that to "hear" Christ's call can proceed only from a necessary prior alignment? In other words, to what extent might it be possible that one has to be made capable of hearing and understanding before he/she can move the will to accept or reject the call?
                      From man's point of view, which is our point of view, it is about hearing and responding to what one hears. Whatever you believe about the mechanism of that response is irrelevant to the command to repent and believe the gospel.


                      How do you arrive at the conclusion that once rejected, God gives no more chances?
                      I didn't say that, nor did I mean that.

                      Okay, let's try an example here, to clarify what you're saying. A progressive might say the gospel is primarily or purely conceptual and requires no historical, risen Christ, that to believe in good and reject evil on any level (or to principally seek the good despite a natural disposition toward evil) itself is sufficient for salvation. The conservative will say that the literal, historical, resurrected Christ is necessary to fufill the gospel message and award salvation. Is one of these views wholly or mostly true and other false? Which is true, and why?
                      If Christ is not risen, we are all still in our sins.

                      It's hard to have discussions about truth, because these always end up leading into areas we find unsettling, IMO.
                      I still don't understand what you're arguing about.
                      Love In Christ,
                      Tanya






                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hey, Bro Mark:

                        I think I might know what he is getting at. That if we are to understand all of scripture and what the Lord would have us understand, that a simple reading of scripture will not fully reveal it. That God has used stories and types and shadows to hide the truth and that truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit by revealing these things instead of revealed by much study and exogesis of passages.
                        Bingo! After years of online debate on various theology/philosophy boards, I'm disappointed in the degree to which we Christians argue from preconceived notions, losing sight of the main goal--TRUTH. We all do it. I'm trying to explore ways to 'crack the barrier' of superficiality. Can't do that until and unless we know 1) what constitutes superficiality in our approach to the things of God, and, 2) how we might exchange superficial theology with a drive toward truth.

                        I'm a high school dropout and have spent considerable time criticizing scholars, but have come to admire the way scholarship carefully picks their way through every angle, studiously poring over even the smallest matters. Lots of this seems like a waste of time, and like anyone else, sometimes scholars spiral off on their own little bents (ultimately, motive fuels the will and the direction our theology takes, but this is a different topic...) but I've come to realize that if even for the wrong reasons (fear of losing professional prestige, etc.), the methodology of scholarship is much closer to the way truth should be approached than we layfolks do our theology.

                        Howdy TanyaP,

                        The difficulty is not that it is so hard to understand. It is difficult because of what it costs.
                        How do you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know that the difficulty Peter speaks of might not exist on a number of levels?

                        From man's point of view, which is our point of view, it is about hearing and responding to what one hears. Whatever you believe about the mechanism of that response is irrelevant to the command to repent and believe the gospel.
                        ??? huh? I don't understand this statement at all. Could you elaborate?

                        Quote:
                        How do you arrive at the conclusion that once rejected, God gives no more chances?

                        I didn't say that, nor did I mean that.
                        Forgive me if I misunderstood you. What did you mean?

                        Quote:
                        Okay, let's try an example here, to clarify what you're saying. A progressive might say the gospel is primarily or purely conceptual and requires no historical, risen Christ, that to believe in good and reject evil on any level (or to principally seek the good despite a natural disposition toward evil) itself is sufficient for salvation. The conservative will say that the literal, historical, resurrected Christ is necessary to fufill the gospel message and award salvation. Is one of these views wholly or mostly true and other false? Which is true, and why?

                        If Christ is not risen, we are all still in our sins.
                        I agree with Paul and you, but am asking you to join me in divorcing ourselves from any emotional attachment we have to this long enough to explore to what extent the progressive view might be true.

                        For instance, the principle that literal meaning can be representative of deeper truth--included in the subject of this section and this particular thread--does hold up to examination. On the other hand, I struggle with granting assent to the notion that pure myth, devoid of literal circumstances to give rise to it, can be true....but have to be honest and admit that it's possible. On the one hand, I can't see how one can believe in a "Christ" who was never actually present on earth to die for sin, but also can't say that belief that the message is a myth necessarily cancels the salvation of the one who thus believes. See what I mean?

                        I still don't understand what you're arguing about.
                        This goes without saying, TanyaP, as the fact is, I'm not really 'arguing' about anything in particular....just asking questions. How and why do you interpret "arguing" from questions?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Bernie View Post
                          Hey, Bro Mark:


                          Bingo! After years of online debate on various theology/philosophy boards, I'm disappointed in the degree to which we Christians argue from preconceived notions, losing sight of the main goal--TRUTH. We all do it. I'm trying to explore ways to 'crack the barrier' of superficiality. Can't do that until and unless we know 1) what constitutes superficiality in our approach to the things of God, and, 2) how we might exchange superficial theology with a drive toward truth.

                          I'm a high school dropout and have spent considerable time criticizing scholars, but have come to admire the way scholarship carefully picks their way through every angle, studiously poring over even the smallest matters. Lots of this seems like a waste of time, and like anyone else, sometimes scholars spiral off on their own little bents (ultimately, motive fuels the will and the direction our theology takes, but this is a different topic...) but I've come to realize that if even for the wrong reasons (fear of losing professional prestige, etc.), the methodology of scholarship is much closer to the way truth should be approached than we layfolks do our theology.
                          I have thought about this stuff a little bit. I think it's both my friend. For instance, when Paul wrote much of scripture after Acts, much of it is precept upon precept, or if you will, a fuller explanation to the modern day disciples of many of the parables and types and shadows. Often he drops little hints in his epistles to the OT types. For instance, to the Corinthians he spoke of "God that shined light in the darkness" was a quote from Genesis 1. Paul was saying that Genesis 1 was a type of how the Corinthians got saved. Just as light entered the world, so light entered their hearts. Darkness was upon the face of the deep of my heart. The holy Spirit hovered over my heart. Then God said "let their be Light" in my heart and I was saved. As the process continues, we are made in the image of Christ and God said "it is very good". But prior to that he said "it is good". Interesting that "very good" was said after man was made in the image of God.

                          But that's a side track. Just thought you might enjoy it.

                          Precept upon precept can be seen and studied in scripture. The richness of scripture, and the power IMO, comes from a study of things that are revealed when God opens our eyes to see what before we could not see.

                          What first interested me in the types and shadows was when someone first began to show me Jesus in the OT. Oh how my heart burned within me when they were pointed out to me! I felt just like the two men on the road to Emmaus!
                          Matt 9:13
                          13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                          NASU

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm going to jump in here and I hope my example doesn't seem to trivial as to offend. I actually just taught on the concept you mentioned Mark; precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line. I repeated because God's word does and there is much to be gleaned from that simple fact. Here's the scripture from which it comes:

                            Isaiah 28:12-13
                            12 To whom He said, “This is the rest with which
                            You may cause the weary to rest,”
                            And, “This
                            is the refreshing”;
                            Yet they would not hear.
                            13 But the word of the LORD was to them,

                            “ Precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
                            Line upon line, line upon line,
                            Here a little, there a little,”
                            That they might go and fall backward, and be broken
                            And snared and caught.


                            God had given us ALL we need to gain understanding on the deepest level but unfortunately most do not take the time required to do so. It's more than just the repetition of reading scripture over and over although that is a good place to start. Like crawling before you walk and walking before you run. Anyway, here is the example I used in my teaching.

                            I have a 10 yr old son that has a PS2 game system. I'm forty and my hubby and I have a friend who's a little older than me who comes over and will play with my son sometimes. When they play football, my son always beats him like 98-17 or something ridiculous like that. Why? Because although our friend understands many things about the game system, he has not spent the time and effort to go beyond the basic understanding to the level upon level, level upon level understanding. Now, if I were to sit down to play, I would have to learn even the basics. What does the triangle do? What does the 'X' do? What does the square do? And so on. I don't even want to imagine what the score would be if I played my son! It wouldn't just be a blowout, it would be a massacre! Okay, let me get to the point. My son, in this example, has gone beyond the basic understanding. He has exceeded understanding the different levels. He has taken it to the point of reading gamer magazines and going online to gain even deeper understanding. One level is built upon the next, and the next upon the next, and the next upon the next. If I were to even try to read the gamer magazine it would be like reading a different language and I would not understand it. One can not go out to build a 5 story building and build the fifth floor first. You MUST build the first floor and upon that put the second and then the third and so on.

                            In far too many cases, believers seem absolutely satisfied with only the most basic of foundations and nothing else built upon it. Or they will attempt to go straight to the third floor and because it has not been built upon a solid first and second floor of understanding they may come to a message board and attempt to discuss that which they are not properly equipped to discuss because their understanding has no foundation beneath it. When the rains come and the wind beats against it, it crumbles! And, unfortunately, the unbelievers see and they gawk and laugh and think, unwisely, that their flimsy interpretation of it is what our faith really is.

                            The solution, as I see it, is to take the time and effort to build good precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, so that WE may be effect disciples for our Messiah. And as proper ambassadors for Him, we must strive to teach those we disciple and lead to Him, that they need to build their understanding in the same fashion; precept upon precept!

                            God Bless!
                            II Timothy 2:15
                            Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
                            Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bernie View Post

                              How do you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know that the difficulty Peter speaks of might not exist on a number of levels?
                              How do you know that it does? When I read the passage in context, I see what he's talking about. He's talking about righteousness and suffering. If you want to read other stuff into it, and if you feel that this makes you more understanding of truth than me, then so be it. I don't know that Peter is speaking on other levels. What he says there is hard enough, and I accept it at face value. If in your view that makes me a 'harsh literalist' or that I will not be saved because of it, then I guess I'll have to just live with that.

                              ??? huh? I don't understand this statement at all. Could you elaborate?
                              Well I'll try to answer the question again. You had said:
                              But is it really so simple? Looking at the act of accepting and rejecting, is it possible that to "hear" Christ's call can proceed only from a necessary prior alignment? In other words, to what extent might it be possible that one has to be made capable of hearing and understanding before he/she can move the will to accept or reject the call?
                              From our point of view, all we have to go on is what we have been given. When we respond to what we have been given, then we receive more. Then we must respond to that. Then we receive more. And on and on. To whom much is given, much will be required.

                              Forgive me if I misunderstood you. What did you mean?
                              A person receives revelation from God. He either (a) receives it, in which case he will then receive more; or he (b) rejects it, in which case he will not receive more. In other words, if someone rejects the degree of revelation that they HAVE been given, God will not give them even more (higher, greater) revelation in an attempt to get them to respond to Him. If they reject what they have been given, then that's all they'll get. And in the end if they rejected it to the end, even that will be taken away.

                              For instance, the principle that literal meaning can be representative of deeper truth--included in the subject of this section and this particular thread--does hold up to examination. On the other hand, I struggle with granting assent to the notion that pure myth, devoid of literal circumstances to give rise to it, can be true....but have to be honest and admit that it's possible. On the one hand, I can't see how one can believe in a "Christ" who was never actually present on earth to die for sin, but also can't say that belief that the message is a myth necessarily cancels the salvation of the one who thus believes. See what I mean?
                              If a person only understands Christ as a myth, then he doesn't understand Christ at all. Belief that Jesus has been raised from the dead is essential to salvation. If one doesn't even believe that Jesus was God manifest in human flesh (literally, really, truly), then he doesn't have Christ.

                              The literal resurrection of Christ IS the deep truth. IF Christ is NOT risen, we are all still in our sins.

                              This goes without saying, TanyaP, as the fact is, I'm not really 'arguing' about anything in particular....just asking questions. How and why do you interpret "arguing" from questions?
                              An argument is setting forth a case over against another case. You're arguing, even though you're posing your arguments in the form of questions. You have a case to make, an axe to grind, a beef against something. At the beginning you were using language indicating a certain disdain for what you were calling "harsh literalism" but you never did answer my questions about what you meant by that -- you simply moved away from it. So I'm still trying to figure out what your beef is.
                              Love In Christ,
                              Tanya






                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
                                I'm going to jump in here and I hope my example doesn't seem to trivial as to offend. I actually just taught on the concept you mentioned Mark; precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line. I repeated because God's word does and there is much to be gleaned from that simple fact. Here's the scripture from which it comes:
                                Thanks S2S. I was referring to the word when I used that phrase. Scripture also speaks in parables and dark sayings. In other words, without both, we miss out on the fullness of the word. It is both precept upon precept and the hidden truths.
                                Matt 9:13
                                13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                                NASU

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X