And, just a general point about twi style research…
Once upon a time I was almost as fluent in Spanish as English. My ex was military and we got an assignment to Spain. There was a long flight to Philadelphia and then a 12 hour flight to Spain. We traveled with three young children.
Upon arriving, we were all hungry and exhausted. We proceeded to find a restaurant. Of course, once inside, the kiddos needed to go to the bathroom. Seeing no sign that indicated a bathroom, I signal the waiter. I say, “Donde esta al bano?” (Where is the bathroom?). He looked at me like I was from Mars and responded in Spanish, “You want to take a bath in my restaurant?” I couldn’t remember the word for “rest” so I could ask for a restroom, so I simply said, “Lo siento, no importa.” (I’m sorry, not important).
I spied a sign over a hall way which said, “Servicio.” In English, that means “service.” Fortunately, I also saw in the hallway two doors. One was marked “Damas” (ladies), and the other “Hombres” (men), and aha! it was clear where the “bathroom” was. I would never have found it based on “servicio.”
Even though I could speak the language, I still had trouble. If all I had was a Spanish/English dictionary, it would have been much worse.
I am fine with using Greek and Hebrew materials, if used gently, with the understanding that it really isn’t the same as being fluent. Even being fluent has limitations.
And so here we have it. Only twi rightly divides. All others are private interpretation. I need to be RIGHT so I can be approved by God. If I’m not right, God doesn’t like me.
Feels like a carnal Christian based on intellect. Not much different than being a Pharisee and insisting on circumcision.
Yet I know my brain is not righteous and is not holy. So please explain how my reason is going to make me acceptable to God? And if my brain could make me acceptable to God, then why did I need salvation?
I actually know the answer to this question. It was never dependent on intellect.
Great posts, Another Spot! Especially your point in post # 2. VPW had a knack for re-defining Greek words his way – heck, he even did that with the English language! And he'd always come across with such confidence, boldness and authority...But I think having intellectual humility is a good thing. One thing I can say with full confidence – I am an expert on how dumb I can be at times .
Your posts got me to look at the whole context of the rightly dividing passage:
II Timothy 2:14-26 NKJV
14Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ[c] depart from iniquity."
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses andescape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
You're right – Paul is addressing a church leader – not all the believers. R.C.H. Lenski mentions the twofold audience of a preacher – people and God - in his Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians , to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon, page 798:
"…When we present ourselves to men ["those hearing us," v.14] as preachers of the Word we must ever be conscious of the fact that we are also presenting ourselves to God in everything we say or do [doctrine and practice] in regard to his Word. How this ought to drive out even loose carelessness, to say nothing about arrogant opinions, following human authorities, popular errors and practices…"
End of excerpt
The context of II Timothy 2 dwells on the importance of behavior and character of the leader rather than on any scholarship or teaching skills. Biblical preaching and teaching is a lot more than the dissemination of information. That which the preacher actually practices is the understructure of their sermons – where it can reinforce or nullify any verbal communication - or even subliminally suggest a skewed interpretation. Those whose behavior was contradictory, Jesus referred to as hypocrites. The real ideas quietly conveyed to the audience are what is modeled in the teacher's life away from the pulpit. Jesus talked about the importance of what you DOandTEACH:
Matthew 5:19, 20 NKJV
19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds therighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
It doesn't matter how eloquently a sermon is delivered – actions still speak louder than words. There's more to it than just the explanation of the text. What has the most impact or influence is the way people live, the power of modeling the truth, being an example [see I Kings 11:3, 4; 15: 25, 26; 22:52; II Chronicles 22:3-5; Proverbs 3:6; 7:25; 16:7; 22:24, 25; 23:26; Matthew 5:13-16; I Corinthians 4:16, 17; 11:1; Philippians 3:17, 18; I Thessalonians 1:7, 8; I Timothy 4:11-16; II Timothy 3:10-17; I Peter 5:3; II Peter 2:2, 11, 12].
The lure of TWI was its appeal to our ego. "We have the keys to the Word's interpretation and can't go wrong. We're the only group rightly dividing the Word." Once they have folks hooked with this arrogant attitude, their erroneous doctrines and practices eat away at the spiritual life like a cancer.
You mentioned in another post about books. Would you please post here some you think are good. I get really frustrated plowing thru this stuff. I feel so inadequate for the task sometimes. Most of the time...
You mentioned in another post about books. Would you please post here some you think are good. I get really frustrated plowing thru this stuff. I feel so inadequate for the task sometimes. Most of the time...
I'm not t-bone (but I played him once in a movie ;) )
But if you'd be interested in e-books, a good site is the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (run by Calvin College). They have a HUGE compilation of books you can read online or download. Various formats: html, text, Microsoft Reader, Palm e-book, and so on (I have an Ipaq and use the Microsoft Reader option a lot when I'm waiting in a Dr's office, on a train, plane, etc.)
I can recommend the site in an ecumenical fashion, as well. It's Calvinist (i.e., Presbyterian), but it has a whole lot of texts from multiple confessions, including Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. They have a good G.K. Chesterton collection (if you've never read Chesterton, you should...he's a good read).
FWIW
(BTW, I saw your post on the other thread and will keep you in prayer)
My comments in purple: Sorry I cant quite get the whole 'quote' thing correct.
One thing I can say with full confidence – I am an expert on how dumb I can be at times .
In light of that particular comment that I most certainly resemble...
19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds therighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
How do you think that this verse lines up with this verse?:
Romans 3:23:
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Certainly God would not place an insurmountable challenge before His children. So...can this verse in Matthew be in relation or contigent upon "intent". If a person deliberately teaches one thing and does another...
It would be foolish of me to disagree with this, but I am still wondering.
Certainly ASpot is correct, our "approval" of God is not determined by our intellect, but certainly our enterence to Heaven isn't contingent upon our being more "righteous" I was not aware that there were degrees of righteousness. Perhaps someone can correct my understanding?
I do understand the part that says basically he who sins the leastest gets the mostest in heaven. But only JC was sin free.
You mentioned in another post about books. Would you please post here some you think are good. I get really frustrated plowing thru this stuff. I feel so inadequate for the task sometimes. Most of the time...
That was my post # 314 on holy thing thread:
Two references that I've found helpful – even for beginners -
There's a handy Biblical Greek laminated quick reference sheets for $6.99 here:
the above commentaries use the Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system when referring to any Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words – I often use The Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance used and new from $17.49 – it has a cross reference index to Strong's numbering system. A few of my reference books use both numbering systems:
...It would be foolish of me to disagree with this, but I am still wondering.
Certainly ASpot is correct, our "approval" of God is not determined by our intellect, but certainly our enterence to Heaven isn't contingent upon our being more "righteous" I was not aware that there were degrees of righteousness. Perhaps someone can correct my understanding?
I do understand the part that says basically he who sins the leastest gets the mostest in heaven. But only JC was sin free...
I don't think Matthew 5 is in reference to the basis for entering heaven. But it does seem like a "ranking system" of some kind exists – based on God's criteria – and that is God's prerogative. Here is another reference to God's recognition of individuals:
Matthew 20:20-23 NIV
20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 "What is it you want?" he asked.
She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."
22 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
Thinking about II Timothy 2's context – handling the Word accurately in teaching AND conduct – an idea very similar in Matthew 5 – may be an indication of the criteria God uses in His "ranking system"…a basis for rewards, privileges, recognition.
“The lure of TWI was its appeal to our ego. "We have the keys to the Word's interpretation and can't go wrong. We're the only group rightly dividing the Word." Once they have folks hooked with this arrogant attitude, their erroneous doctrines and practices eat away at the spiritual life like a cancer.”—T-bone.
That’s it in a nutshell…(Eyesopen, I never have taken the time to learn the quoting thing at all. It’s much faster to me to copy and paste…)
Here’s what’s strange to me. This class claims to be keys. What it really was: a system of theology that was man made and full of non-Scriptural terms. When I hear that kind of thing now, my internal yellow caution lights start flashing. I also find it odd that vp took a verse not addressed to us (violating his own idea) and elevated it to such an extreme. In reality, the pfal class was a collection of private interpretation. We didn’t get away from it, we just got a new system.
I don’t know about the ranking thing. I know there are crowns and rewards. I know who wants to be greatest will be least. This is part of the err of twi, I am thinking about household, faithful remnant etc. The idea that we even should try to earn our way into a high opinion of God as the motivator is a bit weird. Even more weird, God likes me better because…(of the group I’m in?!) that is Pharisee thinking.
For me, I think the point all along was faith. Adam disobeyed, thus demonstrating a lack of it. Abraham had righteousness reckoned to him because of it. God concluded all under sin that it might be by faith. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with endeavoring to live a life that is well pleasing to God. It’s the motivation that matters.
T-bone, I remember your links to Greek and Hebrew pamphlets (I am planning to buy them). I was thinking about another post of yours (no idea where) talking about getting books on a cohesive theology (I think that’s how you worded it).
Mark. Thanks for the pointers. I will check them out. You are a sweetheart. And funny
too!
Eyesopen. Re: degrees of righteousness. Just thinking about all Jesus’s comments about the Pharisees, (such as you are of your father the devil, whited sepulchers, etc) I think the statement is really saying they weren’t righteous at all, as opposed to degrees of it. Their idea of righteousness was based strictly on works and their knowledge. It didn’t matter how many miracles Jesus performed or what he said. When Jesus said if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father, they couldn’t get it. That’s tentative…
Oh, one last thing. I remember reading but forget the detail. During the first century church, they didn’t have the N.T. They relied on letters and verbal teaching. I don’t remember when the N.T. came into being. The context of II Tim 2:15 was pointing out that other leaders were teaching the resurrection was past already. From this, I know it is definitely talking about what we know to be N.T. teaching. Basically the admonition was to teach this correctly. Avoid babblings, striving about words that resulted in ungodliness. It wasn’t a complicated thing.
Going back to T-bone’s posts. Lacking personal integrity would of course pollute the teaching.
I don't think Matthew 5 is in reference to the basis for entering heaven. But it does seem like a "ranking system" of some kind exists – based on God's criteria – and that is God's prerogative. Here is another reference to God's recognition of individuals:
Thinking about II Timothy 2's context – handling the Word accurately in teaching and conduct – an idea very similar in Matthew 5 – may be an indication of the criteria God uses in His "ranking system"…a basis for rewards, privileges, recognition.
Certainly God's word supports the "ranking" system. It is fairly clear throughout that once in heaven there will be those that receive more rewards and honor than others.
It is also just as obvious that actions speak louder than words and intent plays a huge role in how God perceives us his children. My question was about degrees of "righteousness". But I have read the section in Matthew again and now realize my error.
Matthew 5:20:
...That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
My error is self evident. Neither the scribes or the Pharisees were righteous at all. Hence no dilema concerning degrees of righteousness.
Please continue as if I hadn't butted in with such an inane question.
I didn't think it was inane at all, and in reality, directly relevant to the topic. My first thought was do I really know what righteousness is, in the first place...
Here's what Thayer's gives for the word.
"1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due"
I didn't think it was inane at all, and in reality, directly relevant to the topic. My first thought was do I really know what righteousness is, in the first place...
Here's what Thayer's gives for the word.
"1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due"
Thanks ASpot. I felt rather foolish when I read the section again.
Considering your definition my "dilema" becomes quite clear. Righteousness as I see it and if I'm reading Thayer correctly as he sees it as well, is a state of being. Kind of akin to being "alive" or "healthy". Either you are or you are not. There is not such thing as "kind of pregnant". Nor do I think that you can be "kind of righteous", either you are right or you are wrong; either you act accordingly or you don't. Which is what I think JC was talking about in Matthew.
After verse 20 JC goes on to lay out several of the big sins and the appropriate behavior as opposed to the inappropriate. He was drawing the obvious contrasts out for people. He was trying to show them how they should live by example but not the example of the scribes and Pharasees. Because if you imitate them you will not be righteous.
God is not stupid he knows that all men sin but, that is not the point. The point is does your life and your words line up with each other? When people sin they need only ask forgiveness and God is faithful and just to forgive our sins. Hence remaining righteous is not an issue. (Of course JC is not talking to those born again so these people will need to do the whole sacrifice something at the temple gig, which he also mentions in that sermon)
ASpot you are absolutely correct the Bible as we know it today as a compiled piece of work was done in the 4th Century by Constatine and the early Catholic Church fathers. Up until that time all they had were scrolls, verbal doctrines and of course epistles. When they were compiled only those that fit the doctrine of the time were included. The rest were conveniently destroyed. Some apparently had copies and are resurfacing. But that is another story.
T -bone, I remember your links to Greek and Hebrew pamphlets (I am planning to buy them). I was thinking about another post of yours (no idea where) talking about getting books on a cohesive theology (I think that's how you worded it).
Another Spot, I don't recall the post you're thinking of but I listed quite a few books in my post # 884 on The Official, The Ultimate, The Amazing PFAL thread [see quote below] and would also add a recent purchase of Systematic Theology in 4 Volumes by Norman Geisler – rapidly becoming a favorite of mine next to Millard Erickson's Christian Theology. I also highly recommend A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams – good for thinking about the practical consequences of doctrine. If I were pressed to whittle down my list to just one helpful book – I would go with Understanding the Bible by John Stott – a small, inexpensive book that has been most influential in my personal Bible study.
And elaborating on what I expressed at the end of post 884 – these books are good – helpful tools as you work at understanding/applying the Bible – but the primary tool of interpretation is your mind - developing our critical thinking skills is a big deal - striving for the goal of doing our best clear THINKING…None of these authors are perfect – and neither am I. Sometimes I'll discover faulty reasoning in a book – sometimes my own faulty thinking is exposed. Such is life – we do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes I won't know what to make of a topic – but it's fun exploring it anyway. My personal Bible study covers a wide array of topics – but I spend the most think-time on topics that have significant practical consequences.
In my opinion, many of these arguments about PFAL's relationship to the Bible is like comparing apples to oranges. I thought PFAL was supposed to be an aid to Bible study [in other words it's NOT the Bible]- "designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold…" [in VPW's own words, page 4 of PFAL]. It would make more sense to compare it to other books that also claim to help the reader understand the Bible. There's a lot of them out there. An analogy may illustrate the way I see Bible study aids. The information in the Bible is like a valuable resource [a gold mine]. Books that help me dig for the gold are tools. The tools are not the gold. Some people think their tools are made of gold.
I can't help but think that the people who are so enamored with PFAL are easily impressed or haven't done much "comparison shopping." It's as if they've been going grocery shopping for years at the corner convenience store. They're missing the variety and specials at Costco's or Wal-Mart. This is merely my opinion, of course, but when I compare the PFALbook with other Bible study books I see a WORLD of difference . And to be fair to VPW we ought to just reference the PFAL book and not the class – because he really gets sloppy in the class.
The biggest differences I see between VPW and other books of the same type are: VPW's inconsistency with his use of the keys to biblical interpretation; not citing a bibliography or references – I'd like to read his reference for myself [the issue of VPW's plagiarism is a whole other well-documented exposé as well - - but we'll get back to beating that dead stolen horse some other time]; PFAL discourages critical thinking, ignoring other viewpoints, very rigid mind-set. All this is just my opinion, of course. You'll have to read these other books and compare them yourself like I did – get your own opinion.
The PFAL book is a blend of Bible study aid, Commentary, and Systematic Theology [though very simplistic in all three areas - sort of at the convenience store/bootleg level]. So, I have listed below a few books that I think do a better job [in other words a more effective tool] in those categories:
Bible Study Aid
How to Enjoy the Bible by E.W. Bullinger [hey, it was good enough for VPW]
Understanding the Bible by John R.W. Stott
What to do on Thursday: A Layman's Guide to the Practical Use of the Scriptures by Jay E. Adams
How to get the Most out of God's Word by John MacArthur, Jr.
How to Study Your Bible by Kay Arthur
30 Days to Understanding the Bible by Max Anders
Bible Explorer's Guide: How to Understand and Interpret the Bible by John Phillips
Living by the Book by Howard G. Hendricks & William D. Hendricks
Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy
Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert Hubbard
Commentary
The Believer's Bible Commentaryby William MacDonald
The New Bible Commentary: Revised edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer, A.M. Stibbs, D.J. Wiseman
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III Consulting Editors
The Bible Knowledge Commentary Editors John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck
Systematic Theology
Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Gruden
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
Understanding Christian Theology Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, General Editors
The above books are tools. No tool is perfect. I like reading other viewpoints. Sometimes I agree – sometimes disagree with the authors. But either way it's great for encouraging thinking.
Wow, T-bone. Man alive, thanks so much for taking the time for all that. Insightful points also. Amazon.com here I come!!!
Eyes, this thread is a living room. We take our shoes off and let our hair down. It is place of acceptance and mutual respect. At least that is how I want it. We got enough judgment in twi. I don’t see any reason to keep it up. I say things I think later are foolish, you ain’t the lone ranger.
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn’t approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn’t approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal."
I can relate! It has taken me at least 2 years to no longer feel ashamed all the time. I was so confused at first that I just handed all of my so called "biblical understanding and knowledge" to God and said--I don't know what is what any more. I have spent most of these last 2 years praying--and only recently begun to study my Bible again.
ASpot you are absolutely correct the Bible as we know it today as a compiled piece of work was done in the 4th Century by Constatine and the early Catholic Church fathers. Up until that time all they had were scrolls, verbal doctrines and of course epistles. When they were compiled only those that fit the doctrine of the time were included. The rest were conveniently destroyed. Some apparently had copies and are resurfacing. But that is another story.
Actually, the process was quite a bit more gradual that that. :)
Of course, it IS the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it will be written from the Catholic POV.
Its strength is that it contains a lot of information that can be independently verified if you doubt the validity of the document.
For example, it says about the development of the four gospels:
Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.
You can go to any number of sites that have written the works of Irenaeus and look it up for yourself...
The key that both sources have, though, is that the Canon wasn't just figured out in a single meeting and everything else was immediately burned. It developed over time.
Actually, the process was quite a bit more gradual that that. :)
The key that both sources have, though, is that the Canon wasn't just figured out in a single meeting and everything else was immediately burned. It developed over time.
Hi Mark thanks for the information. I actually didn't have the Catholic one and had been looking for that text. I know that it was a gradual thing and that there were many events and people involved and lots of time elapsed to give us the Bible that we have today. But I was trying to forestall my enthusiasm for the subject because I didn't want to derail this thread. :P
I got into a great discussion with my boss today on this specific subject. He did his thesis on the fall of Rome and of course had a lot of historical knowledge concerning the Catholic Church and the compilation of the Bible. It was a good talk. It lasted off and on for about 6 hours. Perhaps sometime we can get together and share our mutual enthusiasm and understanding of the subject. :)
Wow, T-bone. Man alive, thanks so much for taking the time for all that. Insightful points also. Amazon.com here I come!!!
Eyes, this thread is a living room. We take our shoes off and let our hair down. It is place of acceptance and mutual respect. At least that is how I want it. We got enough judgment in twi. I don't see any reason to keep it up. I say things I think later are foolish, you ain't the lone ranger.
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn't approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
I can relate! It has taken me at least 2 years to no longer feel ashamed all the time. I was so confused at first that I just handed all of my so called "biblical understanding and knowledge" to God and said--I don't know what is what any more. I have spent most of these last 2 years praying--and only recently begun to study my Bible again.
Another Spot and Penguin – my sentiments exactly!!!!!!!! When I first left TWI – a favorite passage of mine was,
Jeremiah 9:23,24 NIV
23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
I knew some stuff ABOUT God - but it started to dawn on me how little I KNEW God! I'm of the opinion now that it's more about relationship than scholarship.
Actually, the process was quite a bit more gradual that that. :)
Of course, it IS the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it will be written from the Catholic POV.
Its strength is that it contains a lot of information that can be independently verified if you doubt the validity of the document.
For example, it says about the development of the four gospels:
Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.
You can go to any number of sites that have written the works of Irenaeus and look it up for yourself...
The key that both sources have, though, is that the Canon wasn't just figured out in a single meeting and everything else was immediately burned. It developed over time.
MarkOMalley says a good thing on another point of view. That's what makes GSC great!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check out stuff other folks are recommending. Shortly after I left TWI – I went to an estate sale and bought my first commentary for 50 cents. Often I would follow up on a reference in a commentary – even if the author said "it's not like so-and-so said in his book." So I'd go find that book with the opposing viewpoint in a library. For a TWIt-head that can be so confusing and stressful. But for me - checking out other viewpoints was fun – still is ! What freedom…adventure…growth…healing…spiritual deepening. It's a great way to exercise your thinking skills.
Eyes, this thread is a living room. We take our shoes off and let our hair down. It is place of acceptance and mutual respect. At least that is how I want it. We got enough judgment in twi. I don’t see any reason to keep it up. I say things I think later are foolish, you ain’t the lone ranger.
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn’t approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal.
Understanding that it was false doctrine is a huge stepping stone. The point you made in your first post that Timothy was written to a church leader is a monumental item. Realizing that a foundational scripture of TWI was not even written to us when vp made such a big deal about "To whom is it written?" well...what can be said?
As I studied Matt. 5, I began to see that Jesus was explaining the difference between obedience to the letter of the law and the heart of it. Verses 21-22:
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
The unrighteousness of the Pharisees had to do with performing only the letter of the law, in the sense of outward appearance, ignoring unrighteousness in thinking.
“The point is does your life and your words line up with each other?”—Eyesopen.
I understand your statement now.
Then we have:
Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
We become righteous by believing. It remains to act righteously. In reality, we are “approved” by God according to believing unto righteousness and expected to live rightly, which I am sure God approves of also.
I guess I should add, the definition “the right to stand before God without any sense of sin, guilt, or condemnation” doesn’t really work for me. Righteousness to me is something added as opposed to the absence of something in my mind. I suppose it could include that definition, but it would be more of a by product than the thing itself. Not to mention, if I sin, I should feel guilty. That really did cause me some confusion while in twi.
Also: “How righteous are we? As righteous as God.” I dunno. There is a big difference between righteousness of God and as righteous as God. Even Jesus said there was none good but God…
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Ti 2:15 (NIV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
There is a really vast difference in meaning between these two translations. In any case, the “approved” is clearly (to me at least) conduct, as opposed to getting approval based on how one handles Scripture and one’s diligence. Although I am sure God would approve of it, if done rightly. In any case, I don’t think that working hard (or diligence) to acquire God’s approval is Scripturally correct, for the simple reason it ignores right conduct in heart and action and changes it to an intellectual and effort exercise. That conflicts with other Scripture and ignores the context, as T-bone pointed out.
Having sorting that out, I think studying is fine. I just don’t do it to get approval. I do it so I can understand.
So, Eyes, I think the correction to the error is righteousness. That is what puts us in harmony with God. And, yes, it was a big deal. I really had to see the root of the problem as it applied to me. I had to see how it stood between me and God and ate as a cancer. It was really quite a realization. That’s putting it mildly.
We all ended up with so much nonsense in our heads. But some good stuff too. God is so great, he can work it out for us and show us what we need to know. If we let him really be a part of our life.
Maybe you remember (LCM) saying that what you learn in the WC you will be drawing on in 10 years' time? Dunno about you, but I am drawing a lot on what I studied in rez (as opposed to what I was forcefed) and on the things I did for my dissertation or thesis or whatever they called it. Which strangely enough turned into very much a consideration that a leader should live the life and be an example - a topic that came directly from LCM himself when he demanded I study "An answer of truth in the face of accusation."
It is not accusative to look at the lifestyle of someone purporting to be a leader or teacher or minister and see that it does not line up with the word; and thn to view with caution what that person teaches. They disqualify themselves.
God's love and grace truly do see us through every situation. Even when we don't acknowledge him! Reading the Bible just for the sake of reading it can itself be just "works".
We here (esp WC) pretty much all know enough scripture to ponder for many years and if we think on that, meditate on that, we give God space and opportunity to show us what he really means. Pondering with a genuine attitude of, "Dad, show me what this really means," is showing yourself approved, whether as a leader, minister, pastor or whatever; or just as a humble believer who wants to know.
I saw something awesome in the Sermon on the Mount stuff that somebody mentioned on this thread and I'll put it together soon on a new thread.
We here (esp WC) pretty much all know enough scripture to ponder for many years and if we think on that, meditate on that, we give God space and opportunity to show us what he really means. Pondering with a genuine attitude of, "Dad, show me what this really means," is showing yourself approved, whether as a leader, minister, pastor or whatever; or just as a humble believer who wants to know.
I saw something awesome in the Sermon on the Mount stuff that somebody mentioned on this thread and I'll put it together soon on a new thread.
This is something that I have also been thinking of lately. Many verses especially in Psalms encourage people to "ponder" or 'think" on the word of the Lord. And in conjunction they often are associated with being at peace because we would then know God or understand something about God. It had nothing to do with "studying" to be approved. It had everything to do with thinking about what you have read, how it applies to you personally and perhaps to others. It had to do with understanding God and what He does and perhaps why He does it.
I look forward to seeing what you have learned and wish to share about the Sermon on the Mount.
This is something that I have also been thinking of lately. Many verses especially in Psalms encourage people to "ponder" or 'think" on the word of the Lord. And in conjunction they often are associated with being at peace because we would then know God or understand something about God. It had nothing to do with "studying" to be approved. It had everything to do with thinking about what you have read, how it applies to you personally and perhaps to others. It had to do with understanding God and what He does and perhaps why He does it.
I look forward to seeing what you have learned and wish to share about the Sermon on the Mount.
Keep in mind, though, that the word σπουδάζω (spoudazo), rendered "study" in the KJV (and ONLY in the KJV), doesn't mean 'study' at all. It means 'try hard/ work hard/ be diligent.'
Likewise, the word ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeo), rendered "rightly dividing" in the KJV, means to "cut straight."
Interestingly, although not used elsewhere in the NT, this same word is used in the Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6 (In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.) and Proverbs 11:5 (The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.)
The point I'm getting at is that if you look at the context and you look at an accurate translation of the words, I really don't think to sit down and crack the books is at all part of the meaning of this verse. Rather, I think it is more an exhortation to be diligent to LIVE the word and not pervert it in your words or life.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
31
17
27
32
Popular Days
Jul 15
24
Jul 11
12
Jul 10
11
Jun 21
11
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 31 posts
T-Bone 17 posts
Eyesopen 27 posts
another spot 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2007
24 posts
Jul 11 2007
12 posts
Jul 10 2007
11 posts
Jun 21 2007
11 posts
another spot
And, just a general point about twi style research…
Once upon a time I was almost as fluent in Spanish as English. My ex was military and we got an assignment to Spain. There was a long flight to Philadelphia and then a 12 hour flight to Spain. We traveled with three young children.
Upon arriving, we were all hungry and exhausted. We proceeded to find a restaurant. Of course, once inside, the kiddos needed to go to the bathroom. Seeing no sign that indicated a bathroom, I signal the waiter. I say, “Donde esta al bano?” (Where is the bathroom?). He looked at me like I was from Mars and responded in Spanish, “You want to take a bath in my restaurant?” I couldn’t remember the word for “rest” so I could ask for a restroom, so I simply said, “Lo siento, no importa.” (I’m sorry, not important).
I spied a sign over a hall way which said, “Servicio.” In English, that means “service.” Fortunately, I also saw in the hallway two doors. One was marked “Damas” (ladies), and the other “Hombres” (men), and aha! it was clear where the “bathroom” was. I would never have found it based on “servicio.”
Even though I could speak the language, I still had trouble. If all I had was a Spanish/English dictionary, it would have been much worse.
I am fine with using Greek and Hebrew materials, if used gently, with the understanding that it really isn’t the same as being fluent. Even being fluent has limitations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
And so here we have it. Only twi rightly divides. All others are private interpretation. I need to be RIGHT so I can be approved by God. If I’m not right, God doesn’t like me.
Feels like a carnal Christian based on intellect. Not much different than being a Pharisee and insisting on circumcision.
Yet I know my brain is not righteous and is not holy. So please explain how my reason is going to make me acceptable to God? And if my brain could make me acceptable to God, then why did I need salvation?
I actually know the answer to this question. It was never dependent on intellect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great posts, Another Spot! Especially your point in post # 2. VPW had a knack for re-defining Greek words his way – heck, he even did that with the English language! And he'd always come across with such confidence, boldness and authority...But I think having intellectual humility is a good thing. One thing I can say with full confidence – I am an expert on how dumb I can be at times
.
Your posts got me to look at the whole context of the rightly dividing passage:
II Timothy 2:14-26 NKJV
14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ[c] depart from iniquity."
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
You're right – Paul is addressing a church leader – not all the believers. R.C.H. Lenski mentions the twofold audience of a preacher – people and God - in his Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians , to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon, page 798:
"…When we present ourselves to men ["those hearing us," v.14] as preachers of the Word we must ever be conscious of the fact that we are also presenting ourselves to God in everything we say or do [doctrine and practice] in regard to his Word. How this ought to drive out even loose carelessness, to say nothing about arrogant opinions, following human authorities, popular errors and practices…"
End of excerpt
The context of II Timothy 2 dwells on the importance of behavior and character of the leader rather than on any scholarship or teaching skills. Biblical preaching and teaching is a lot more than the dissemination of information. That which the preacher actually practices is the understructure of their sermons – where it can reinforce or nullify any verbal communication - or even subliminally suggest a skewed interpretation. Those whose behavior was contradictory, Jesus referred to as hypocrites. The real ideas quietly conveyed to the audience are what is modeled in the teacher's life away from the pulpit. Jesus talked about the importance of what you DO and TEACH:
Matthew 5:19, 20 NKJV
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
It doesn't matter how eloquently a sermon is delivered – actions still speak louder than words. There's more to it than just the explanation of the text. What has the most impact or influence is the way people live, the power of modeling the truth, being an example [see I Kings 11:3, 4; 15: 25, 26; 22:52; II Chronicles 22:3-5; Proverbs 3:6; 7:25; 16:7; 22:24, 25; 23:26; Matthew 5:13-16; I Corinthians 4:16, 17; 11:1; Philippians 3:17, 18; I Thessalonians 1:7, 8; I Timothy 4:11-16; II Timothy 3:10-17; I Peter 5:3; II Peter 2:2, 11, 12].
The lure of TWI was its appeal to our ego. "We have the keys to the Word's interpretation and can't go wrong. We're the only group rightly dividing the Word." Once they have folks hooked with this arrogant attitude, their erroneous doctrines and practices eat away at the spiritual life like a cancer.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Nice post, T-bone. Really, really great.
You mentioned in another post about books. Would you please post here some you think are good. I get really frustrated plowing thru this stuff. I feel so inadequate for the task sometimes. Most of the time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I'm not t-bone (but I played him once in a movie ;) )
But if you'd be interested in e-books, a good site is the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (run by Calvin College). They have a HUGE compilation of books you can read online or download. Various formats: html, text, Microsoft Reader, Palm e-book, and so on (I have an Ipaq and use the Microsoft Reader option a lot when I'm waiting in a Dr's office, on a train, plane, etc.)
I can recommend the site in an ecumenical fashion, as well. It's Calvinist (i.e., Presbyterian), but it has a whole lot of texts from multiple confessions, including Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. They have a good G.K. Chesterton collection (if you've never read Chesterton, you should...he's a good read).
FWIW
(BTW, I saw your post on the other thread and will keep you in prayer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
My comments in purple: Sorry I cant quite get the whole 'quote' thing correct.
It would be foolish of me to disagree with this, but I am still wondering.
Certainly ASpot is correct, our "approval" of God is not determined by our intellect, but certainly our enterence to Heaven isn't contingent upon our being more "righteous" I was not aware that there were degrees of righteousness. Perhaps someone can correct my understanding?
I do understand the part that says basically he who sins the leastest gets the mostest in heaven. But only JC was sin free.
Am I off topic ASpot?
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That was my post # 314 on holy thing thread:
The above are very helpful quick reference sheets. Some other books that are helpful without getting too technical are:
The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible edited by Spiros Zodhiates $37.79:
http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Greek-Key-Word-Study-Bible/dp/0899576877/ref=sr_1_2/102-0329553-2488163?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182337940&sr=8-2
and a good condensed commentary is an abridgement of the Expositor's Bible Commentary [which I have on CD] are the following:
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 1: Old Testament, Barker & Kohlenberger consulting editors – new and used from $28.11:
http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-NIV-Bible-Commentary-Vol/dp/0310578507/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0329553-2488163?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182338098&sr=1-1
and Volume 2: New Testament new and used from $29.97:
http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-NIV-Bible-Commentary-Vol/dp/031057840X/ref=sr_1_2/102-0329553-2488163?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182338745&sr=1-2
the above commentaries use the Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system when referring to any Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words – I often use The Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance used and new from $17.49 – it has a cross reference index to Strong's numbering system. A few of my reference books use both numbering systems:
http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-Exhaustive-Concordance-Edward-Goodrick/dp/0310229979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0329553-2488163?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182339063&sr=1-1
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't think Matthew 5 is in reference to the basis for entering heaven. But it does seem like a "ranking system" of some kind exists – based on God's criteria – and that is God's prerogative. Here is another reference to God's recognition of individuals:
Matthew 20:20-23 NIV
20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 "What is it you want?" he asked.
She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."
22 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
Thinking about II Timothy 2's context – handling the Word accurately in teaching AND conduct – an idea very similar in Matthew 5 – may be an indication of the criteria God uses in His "ranking system"…a basis for rewards, privileges, recognition.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
“The lure of TWI was its appeal to our ego. "We have the keys to the Word's interpretation and can't go wrong. We're the only group rightly dividing the Word." Once they have folks hooked with this arrogant attitude, their erroneous doctrines and practices eat away at the spiritual life like a cancer.”—T-bone.
That’s it in a nutshell…(Eyesopen, I never have taken the time to learn the quoting thing at all. It’s much faster to me to copy and paste…)
Here’s what’s strange to me. This class claims to be keys. What it really was: a system of theology that was man made and full of non-Scriptural terms. When I hear that kind of thing now, my internal yellow caution lights start flashing. I also find it odd that vp took a verse not addressed to us (violating his own idea) and elevated it to such an extreme. In reality, the pfal class was a collection of private interpretation. We didn’t get away from it, we just got a new system.
I don’t know about the ranking thing. I know there are crowns and rewards. I know who wants to be greatest will be least. This is part of the err of twi, I am thinking about household, faithful remnant etc. The idea that we even should try to earn our way into a high opinion of God as the motivator is a bit weird. Even more weird, God likes me better because…(of the group I’m in?!) that is Pharisee thinking.
For me, I think the point all along was faith. Adam disobeyed, thus demonstrating a lack of it. Abraham had righteousness reckoned to him because of it. God concluded all under sin that it might be by faith. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with endeavoring to live a life that is well pleasing to God. It’s the motivation that matters.
T-bone, I remember your links to Greek and Hebrew pamphlets (I am planning to buy them). I was thinking about another post of yours (no idea where) talking about getting books on a cohesive theology (I think that’s how you worded it).
Mark. Thanks for the pointers. I will check them out. You are a sweetheart. And funny
too!
Eyesopen. Re: degrees of righteousness. Just thinking about all Jesus’s comments about the Pharisees, (such as you are of your father the devil, whited sepulchers, etc) I think the statement is really saying they weren’t righteous at all, as opposed to degrees of it. Their idea of righteousness was based strictly on works and their knowledge. It didn’t matter how many miracles Jesus performed or what he said. When Jesus said if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father, they couldn’t get it. That’s tentative…
Oh, one last thing. I remember reading but forget the detail. During the first century church, they didn’t have the N.T. They relied on letters and verbal teaching. I don’t remember when the N.T. came into being. The context of II Tim 2:15 was pointing out that other leaders were teaching the resurrection was past already. From this, I know it is definitely talking about what we know to be N.T. teaching. Basically the admonition was to teach this correctly. Avoid babblings, striving about words that resulted in ungodliness. It wasn’t a complicated thing.
Going back to T-bone’s posts. Lacking personal integrity would of course pollute the teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Certainly God's word supports the "ranking" system. It is fairly clear throughout that once in heaven there will be those that receive more rewards and honor than others.
It is also just as obvious that actions speak louder than words and intent plays a huge role in how God perceives us his children. My question was about degrees of "righteousness". But I have read the section in Matthew again and now realize my error.
Matthew 5:20:
...That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
My error is self evident. Neither the scribes or the Pharisees were righteous at all. Hence no dilema concerning degrees of righteousness.
Please continue as if I hadn't butted in with such an inane question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I didn't think it was inane at all, and in reality, directly relevant to the topic. My first thought was do I really know what righteousness is, in the first place...
Here's what Thayer's gives for the word.
"1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Thanks ASpot. I felt rather foolish when I read the section again.
Considering your definition my "dilema" becomes quite clear. Righteousness as I see it and if I'm reading Thayer correctly as he sees it as well, is a state of being. Kind of akin to being "alive" or "healthy". Either you are or you are not. There is not such thing as "kind of pregnant". Nor do I think that you can be "kind of righteous", either you are right or you are wrong; either you act accordingly or you don't. Which is what I think JC was talking about in Matthew.
After verse 20 JC goes on to lay out several of the big sins and the appropriate behavior as opposed to the inappropriate. He was drawing the obvious contrasts out for people. He was trying to show them how they should live by example but not the example of the scribes and Pharasees. Because if you imitate them you will not be righteous.
God is not stupid he knows that all men sin but, that is not the point. The point is does your life and your words line up with each other? When people sin they need only ask forgiveness and God is faithful and just to forgive our sins. Hence remaining righteous is not an issue. (Of course JC is not talking to those born again so these people will need to do the whole sacrifice something at the temple gig, which he also mentions in that sermon)
ASpot you are absolutely correct the Bible as we know it today as a compiled piece of work was done in the 4th Century by Constatine and the early Catholic Church fathers. Up until that time all they had were scrolls, verbal doctrines and of course epistles. When they were compiled only those that fit the doctrine of the time were included. The rest were conveniently destroyed. Some apparently had copies and are resurfacing. But that is another story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another Spot, I don't recall the post you're thinking of but I listed quite a few books in my post # 884 on The Official, The Ultimate, The Amazing PFAL thread [see quote below] and would also add a recent purchase of Systematic Theology in 4 Volumes by Norman Geisler – rapidly becoming a favorite of mine next to Millard Erickson's Christian Theology. I also highly recommend A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams – good for thinking about the practical consequences of doctrine. If I were pressed to whittle down my list to just one helpful book – I would go with Understanding the Bible by John Stott – a small, inexpensive book that has been most influential in my personal Bible study.
And elaborating on what I expressed at the end of post 884 – these books are good – helpful tools as you work at understanding/applying the Bible – but the primary tool of interpretation is your mind - developing our critical thinking skills is a big deal - striving for the goal of doing our best clear THINKING…None of these authors are perfect – and neither am I. Sometimes I'll discover faulty reasoning in a book – sometimes my own faulty thinking is exposed. Such is life – we do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes I won't know what to make of a topic – but it's fun exploring it anyway. My personal Bible study covers a wide array of topics – but I spend the most think-time on topics that have significant practical consequences.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Wow, T-bone. Man alive, thanks so much for taking the time for all that. Insightful points also. Amazon.com here I come!!!
Eyes, this thread is a living room. We take our shoes off and let our hair down. It is place of acceptance and mutual respect. At least that is how I want it. We got enough judgment in twi. I don’t see any reason to keep it up. I say things I think later are foolish, you ain’t the lone ranger.
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn’t approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Another spot said:"
Do you know why I started this thread? Bet not. Once I understood I had bought into false doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, I felt really dumb. I felt a fantastic amount of condemnation. I knew I had sinned, sometimes greatly, because of my false beliefs. Then recently it sunk in that God worked in my life during twi. He also has worked in my life since then, in spite of my uncertainty on doctrinal issues. Then I understood it never had to do with knowledge, but my faith in Him. And lots of grace. And mercy. Knowledge is nice. I hope to clear up and eliminate the chaff out of my brain some day.
I am saying it was still rooted in my brain that God approved or didn’t approve of me because of my knowledge and according to whether it was right or not. I now see that was never it. I can now forgive myself. Now I can heal."
I can relate! It has taken me at least 2 years to no longer feel ashamed all the time. I was so confused at first that I just handed all of my so called "biblical understanding and knowledge" to God and said--I don't know what is what any more. I have spent most of these last 2 years praying--and only recently begun to study my Bible again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, the process was quite a bit more gradual that that. :)
You might wish to take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament. Also the one on the Canon of the Old Testament.
Of course, it IS the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it will be written from the Catholic POV.
Its strength is that it contains a lot of information that can be independently verified if you doubt the validity of the document.
For example, it says about the development of the four gospels:
Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.
You can go to any number of sites that have written the works of Irenaeus and look it up for yourself...
If you'd like another POV on that, you can look at Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol II. It is definitely written from a Protestant POV.
The key that both sources have, though, is that the Canon wasn't just figured out in a single meeting and everything else was immediately burned. It developed over time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hi Mark thanks for the information. I actually didn't have the Catholic one and had been looking for that text. I know that it was a gradual thing and that there were many events and people involved and lots of time elapsed to give us the Bible that we have today. But I was trying to forestall my enthusiasm for the subject because I didn't want to derail this thread. :P
I got into a great discussion with my boss today on this specific subject. He did his thesis on the fall of Rome and of course had a lot of historical knowledge concerning the Catholic Church and the compilation of the Bible. It was a good talk. It lasted off and on for about 6 hours. Perhaps sometime we can get together and share our mutual enthusiasm and understanding of the subject. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another Spot and Penguin – my sentiments exactly!!!!!!!! When I first left TWI – a favorite passage of mine was,
Jeremiah 9:23,24 NIV
23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
I knew some stuff ABOUT God - but it started to dawn on me how little I KNEW God! I'm of the opinion now that it's more about relationship than scholarship.
MarkOMalley says a good thing on another point of view. That's what makes GSC great!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check out stuff other folks are recommending. Shortly after I left TWI – I went to an estate sale and bought my first commentary for 50 cents. Often I would follow up on a reference in a commentary – even if the author said "it's not like so-and-so said in his book." So I'd go find that book with the opposing viewpoint in a library. For a TWIt-head that can be so confusing and stressful. But for me - checking out other viewpoints was fun – still is
! What freedom…adventure…growth…healing…spiritual deepening. It's a great way to exercise your thinking skills.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Understanding that it was false doctrine is a huge stepping stone. The point you made in your first post that Timothy was written to a church leader is a monumental item. Realizing that a foundational scripture of TWI was not even written to us when vp made such a big deal about "To whom is it written?" well...what can be said?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
As I studied Matt. 5, I began to see that Jesus was explaining the difference between obedience to the letter of the law and the heart of it. Verses 21-22:
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
The unrighteousness of the Pharisees had to do with performing only the letter of the law, in the sense of outward appearance, ignoring unrighteousness in thinking.
“The point is does your life and your words line up with each other?”—Eyesopen.
I understand your statement now.
Then we have:
Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
We become righteous by believing. It remains to act righteously. In reality, we are “approved” by God according to believing unto righteousness and expected to live rightly, which I am sure God approves of also.
I guess I should add, the definition “the right to stand before God without any sense of sin, guilt, or condemnation” doesn’t really work for me. Righteousness to me is something added as opposed to the absence of something in my mind. I suppose it could include that definition, but it would be more of a by product than the thing itself. Not to mention, if I sin, I should feel guilty. That really did cause me some confusion while in twi.
Also: “How righteous are we? As righteous as God.” I dunno. There is a big difference between righteousness of God and as righteous as God. Even Jesus said there was none good but God…
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Ti 2:15 (NIV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
There is a really vast difference in meaning between these two translations. In any case, the “approved” is clearly (to me at least) conduct, as opposed to getting approval based on how one handles Scripture and one’s diligence. Although I am sure God would approve of it, if done rightly. In any case, I don’t think that working hard (or diligence) to acquire God’s approval is Scripturally correct, for the simple reason it ignores right conduct in heart and action and changes it to an intellectual and effort exercise. That conflicts with other Scripture and ignores the context, as T-bone pointed out.
Having sorting that out, I think studying is fine. I just don’t do it to get approval. I do it so I can understand.
So, Eyes, I think the correction to the error is righteousness. That is what puts us in harmony with God. And, yes, it was a big deal. I really had to see the root of the problem as it applied to me. I had to see how it stood between me and God and ate as a cancer. It was really quite a realization. That’s putting it mildly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
PS
When I said I don't know about rankings, I meant it literally. As in ignorance...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
T-Bone, post 15
Penguin - post 16
... me too...
We all ended up with so much nonsense in our heads. But some good stuff too. God is so great, he can work it out for us and show us what we need to know. If we let him really be a part of our life.
Maybe you remember (LCM) saying that what you learn in the WC you will be drawing on in 10 years' time? Dunno about you, but I am drawing a lot on what I studied in rez (as opposed to what I was forcefed) and on the things I did for my dissertation or thesis or whatever they called it. Which strangely enough turned into very much a consideration that a leader should live the life and be an example - a topic that came directly from LCM himself when he demanded I study "An answer of truth in the face of accusation."
It is not accusative to look at the lifestyle of someone purporting to be a leader or teacher or minister and see that it does not line up with the word; and thn to view with caution what that person teaches. They disqualify themselves.
God's love and grace truly do see us through every situation. Even when we don't acknowledge him! Reading the Bible just for the sake of reading it can itself be just "works".
We here (esp WC) pretty much all know enough scripture to ponder for many years and if we think on that, meditate on that, we give God space and opportunity to show us what he really means. Pondering with a genuine attitude of, "Dad, show me what this really means," is showing yourself approved, whether as a leader, minister, pastor or whatever; or just as a humble believer who wants to know.
I saw something awesome in the Sermon on the Mount stuff that somebody mentioned on this thread and I'll put it together soon on a new thread.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
This is something that I have also been thinking of lately. Many verses especially in Psalms encourage people to "ponder" or 'think" on the word of the Lord. And in conjunction they often are associated with being at peace because we would then know God or understand something about God. It had nothing to do with "studying" to be approved. It had everything to do with thinking about what you have read, how it applies to you personally and perhaps to others. It had to do with understanding God and what He does and perhaps why He does it.
I look forward to seeing what you have learned and wish to share about the Sermon on the Mount.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Keep in mind, though, that the word σπουδάζω (spoudazo), rendered "study" in the KJV (and ONLY in the KJV), doesn't mean 'study' at all. It means 'try hard/ work hard/ be diligent.'
Likewise, the word ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeo), rendered "rightly dividing" in the KJV, means to "cut straight."
Interestingly, although not used elsewhere in the NT, this same word is used in the Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6 (In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.) and Proverbs 11:5 (The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.)
The point I'm getting at is that if you look at the context and you look at an accurate translation of the words, I really don't think to sit down and crack the books is at all part of the meaning of this verse. Rather, I think it is more an exhortation to be diligent to LIVE the word and not pervert it in your words or life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.