Man's Interpretation

[jtartar]

If biblical scripture means what it means, why is man divided on its interpretation?

If the bible is divinely inspired and god meant exactly what he meant, then why is it that man has to interpret what god meant?

InfidelRiot,
There are a myriad reasons. Let me mention just a few.
The Bible says that no wicked ones will understand, Dan 12:10.
Some are wilfully blind, they just do not want to understand about God, Ps 10:4, 14:1.
Most have no concept about what is meant when spiritual things are mentioned, 1Cor 2:6,7, 12-14.
Very few people realize that Interpretations belong to God, Gen 40:8, and if you search throughout the Holy Scriptures to find the answer to something mentioned in one place, you will find the truth, Prov 2:1-6.
If you take the time to read the 13th chapter of Matthew, you will find iterated many causes for the many beliefs, and why many do not keep faithful to the truth.
The theory of Evolution is a reason for not believing what the Bible says. Scientists keep stating the theory as a fact and say that only the ignorant do not believe. People have confidence in them and also do not want to be in the class called ignorant, so they believe though having absolutely no evidence. the truth is; true science agrees completey with the Bible. The term Doctrinaire is the answer for the discrepancy.
There is absolutely no reason to deny the Bible!! God has promised to protect His word, Ps 12:6,7, John 17:17, 1Pet 1:25.

 

[Astravalon]

There is absolutely no reason to deny the Bible!! God has promised to protect His word, Ps 12:6,7, John 17:17, 1Pet 1:25.

The irony is that God will (supposedly) protect the contents of a book while letting the souls of those created in His own image wind up in endless torment or annihilation for not holding the Correct Belief™.

 

[e.r.m.]

If biblical scripture means what it means, why is man divided on its interpretation?

If the bible is divinely inspired and god meant exactly what he meant, then why is it that man has to interpret what god meant?

Another reason for division is the approach to the Bible.
The prophets, Jesus, and the apostles took a very, very careful approach to the scriptures.
Joshua 1:8
Matthew 15:1-9
John 12:48-50
1 Timothy 4:16
2 Peter 1:20-21
...to name just a few.

Ancient Biblical world attitudes was DON'T MESS WITH GOD'S WORD!!!
Today's attitude is entirely different. With Contributions like Zwingli who believed in the common man's right to interpret the Bible for himself, and theologians like A.T. Robertson who said of translating the Bible to english "sometimes grammar has got to give way to theology.",
people then believe they have the right to

1. Interpret the Bible to their liking. I was once told by someone "I know what the Bible says, but my personal belief is..."

2. To take one verse, and then expand a doctrine around it, without using other verses. A mormon once used Romans 8:17 "...we are co-heirs with Christ..." to say as heirs, we will also recieve ALL of God's powers and become like God. Romans 8:17 didn't say we will recieve ALL of God's powers and become like God, they filled that in themselves.
Another example is Ephesians 2:8-9. Although this verse does not define what works is, many go ahead and define works on behalf of the Bible (without looking it up in the Bible).

3. Take scriptures VERY LOOSELY. John 1:12 refers to receiving Jesus in general, being in the camp of those who were with him as opposed to those who were against him. Nicodemus was among those who was with him or received him.
Today people use that a lot to say "that means receiving Jesus as their savior." John 1:12 never said receive him "as savior."
Once on a bus, someone offered John 3:16 as scriptural reference to accepting Jesus as their personal savior. John 3:16 says nothing of Accepting Jesus as personal savior. This guy said, "It means the same thing." P.S. - he admitted to not reading the bible, but getting the information second hand. (Laziness and taking other people's word for it, is another lengthy discussion.)

4. To use scriptures out of context. Many use Revelation 3:20 and 1 John 1:9 as how to get saved scriptures, even though John was writing to christians about matters not related to getting saved.

Just these few examples (out of many), cause people to not pay attention to what's written. When 1 Timothy 4:16 is employed, there is only one message.

The alternative to interpretation, as frowned upon in 2 Peter 1:20-21, is seeking the original intent of the Biblical authors, not inserting our own.

 

[e.r.m.]

The irony is that God will (supposedly) protect the contents of a book while letting the souls of those created in His own image wind up in endless torment or annihilation for not holding the Correct Belief™.

You're seeing the glass more than half empty.

Torment or annihilation comes from
Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

God's plan of salvation you're referring to as the correct belief -is the way out!

Just like when Moses lifted up the bronze snake in the desert, the people weren't punished for not looking at the snake to be healed. They were saved from death by looking at it.

When people go their own way, they are choosing to forfeit the assurance that could be theirs.

 

[McBell]

When people go their own way, they are choosing to forfeit the assurance that could be theirs.

I disagree.
The above should be written:

When people go their own way, they are choosing to forfeit an assurance that could be theirs.
​

At least then it would be an honest statement.

 

[e.r.m.]

I disagree.
The above should be written:

When people go their own way, they are choosing to forfeit an assurance that could be theirs.
​

At least then it would be an honest statement.

Honest on who's part?
Does God cater to man?
Whose the one providing salvation and who's the one receiving it?
Does God give a different way out according to each man's/woman's preference?

 

[McBell]

Another reason for division is the approach to the Bible.
The prophets, Jesus, and the apostles took a very, very careful approach to the scriptures.
Joshua 1:8
Matthew 15:1-9
John 12:48-50
1 Timothy 4:16
2 Peter 1:20-21
...to name just a few.

Ancient Biblical world attitudes was DON'T MESS WITH GOD'S WORD!!!
Today's attitude is entirely different. With Contributions like Zwingli who believed in the common man's right to interpret the Bible for himself, and theologians like A.T. Robertson who said of translating the Bible to english "sometimes grammar has got to give way to theology.",
people then believe they have the right to

1. Interpret the Bible to their liking. I was once told by someone "I know what the Bible says, but my personal belief is..."

2. To take one verse, and then expand a doctrine around it, without using other verses. A mormon once used Romans 8:17 "...we are co-heirs with Christ..." to say as heirs, we will also recieve ALL of God's powers and become like God. Romans 8:17 didn't say we will recieve ALL of God's powers and become like God, they filled that in themselves.
Another example is Ephesians 2:8-9. Although this verse does not define what works is, many go ahead and define works on behalf of the Bible (without looking it up in the Bible).

3. Take scriptures VERY LOOSELY. John 1:12 refers to receiving Jesus in general, being in the camp of those who were with him as opposed to those who were against him. Nicodemus was among those who was with him or received him.
Today people use that a lot to say "that means receiving Jesus as their savior." John 1:12 never said receive him "as savior."
Once on a bus, someone offered John 3:16 as scriptural reference to accepting Jesus as their personal savior. John 3:16 says nothing of Accepting Jesus as personal savior. This guy said, "It means the same thing." P.S. - he admitted to not reading the bible, but getting the information second hand.

4. To use scriptures out of context. Many use Revelation 3:20 and 1 John 1:9 as how to get saved scriptures, even though John was writing to christians about matters not related to getting saved.

These are a few examples, which do not exist in a climate when people watch their doctrine closely, as in 1 Timothy 4:16.

The alternative to interpretation, as frowned upon in 2 Peter 1:20-21, is seeking the original intent of the Biblical authors, not inserting our own.

Here are a few more examples:

1. The whole "Trinity" doctrine
2. The idea that the Bible says not to judge
3. The idea that the Bible defines marriage as one man to one woman
4. the idea that the Bible says masturbation is a sin
5. The idea that the Bible and the Scriptures are the same thing
6. TULIP

The problem here is that you are not explaining why your personal favourite interpretations of the Bible are the ones line up with what God wanted.

 

[e.r.m.]

Here are a few more examples:

1. The whole "Trinity" doctrine
2. The idea that the Bible says not to judge
3. The idea that the Bible defines marriage as one man to one woman
4. the idea that the Bible says masturbation is a sin
5. The idea that the Bible and the Scriptures are the same thing
6. TULIP

The problem here is that you are not explaining why your personal favourite interpretations of the Bible are the ones line up with what God wanted.

Off the top of my head...
1. The trinity doctrine depends on who you ask. I'd rather people just explain the concept to me and then compare it to scripture.
2. You're right. It does say do not judge in one place, it does not say do not judge at all.
3. Jesus accepted only what God set up in the beginning.
Mark 10:5-8
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. [6] "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.' [7] `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [8] and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.

 

[McBell]

Honest on who's part?
Does God cater to man?
Whose the one providing salvation and who's the one receiving it?
Does God give a different way out according to each man's/woman's preference?

It is not my assumption that the Bible is is to interpreted in the exact same way for each individual.
That assumption belongs to you.

One might ask what assurance you speak of.
One might also ask why you think everyone needs said assurance.
One might also ask why you think that everyone should be required to accept your personal interpretations as the ones God intended for each and every individual.

 

[kylixguru]

we can save ourselves through hope...
we can destroy ourselves by controlling others

You are getting very close to becomming a believer!
In time you will see that the God I worship offers the knowledge and power required for us as a people to generate that hope.

And, not a blind hope, which would be vain, but the actual knowledge and power to give real hope to a real salvation we are the co-creators of.

 

[Astravalon]

You're seeing the glass more than half empty.

Torment or annihilation comes from
Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

God's plan of salvation you're referring to as the correct belief -is the way out!

Just like when Moses lifted up the bronze snake in the desert, the people weren't punished for not looking at the snake to be healed. They were saved from death by looking at it.

When people go their own way, they are choosing to forfeit the assurance that could be theirs.

That only solidifies my conviction that the god of Christianity is more concerned about preserving a book than preserving people. The book is just an inanimate object, and as such, doesn't even have to make the right choice.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to. I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ).

That unstable kind of assurance pales in comparison to the assurance I now enjoy in God, which is based on His unconditional love and His intention to save all mankind (assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with). I now have faith in God, rather than faith in faith or in correct doctrine.

 

[e.r.m.]

It is not my assumption that the Bible is is to interpreted in the exact same way for each individual.
That assumption belongs to you.

One might ask what assurance you speak of.
One might also ask why you think everyone needs said assurance.
One might also ask why you think that everyone should be required to accept your personal interpretations as the ones God intended for each and every individual.

-The assurance of salvation/forgiveness of sins.

-Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Salvation is a lot better than condemnation.

-My point from the beginning is that no one should seek my or their own interpretation. God's interpretation is the only one that counts. Hence, instead of interpreting, The original intent of the Bible authors are what need to be sought. For example Revelation 3:20 was writtten to Christian. There is no instruction in the letter to Laodicea on how to get saved. The instruction was for this lukewarm church to repent. So pastors using Revelation 3:20 as instruction to the lost on how to get saved is not teaching the intended message of the apostle John.

 

[e.r.m.]

That only solidifies my conviction that the god of Christianity is more concerned about preserving a book than preserving people. The book is just an inanimate object, and as such, doesn't even have to make the right choice.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to. I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ).

That unstable kind of assurance pales in comparison to the assurance I now enjoy in God, which is based on His unconditional love and His intention to save all mankind (assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with). I now have faith in God, rather than faith in faith or in correct doctrine.

The Bible is a medium on which God's words are printed. It would be no different if the prophet Nathan came to us personally and told us
2 Samuel 12:7, 11
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: `I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. [11] "This is what the Lord says: `Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.

Or if one of the many other Lord's prophets came and spoke to us. Although 30 years later, it might harder to recall everything. The Bible is written so that we may believe and so that we may know God's will.

You are replacing God's message with the medium it's printed on.
It's God's words, the message written therein that counts.

Otherwise, you are literally creating your own own god. Assigning the attributes and qualities you want him to have. It sure sounds like you are too, a god that is all love, no holiness, no justice, no accountability, just 100%, all the time unconditional positive regard. A spoiling type God sounds just the kind of God sinful man would want to create.

 

[McBell]

-The assurance of salvation/forgiveness of sins.

-Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Salvation is a lot better than condemnation.

-My point from the beginning is that no one should seek my or their own interpretation. God's interpretation is the only one that counts. Hence, instead of interpreting, The original intent of the Bible authors are what need to be sought. For example Revelation 3:20 was writtten to Christian. There is no instruction in the letter to Laodicea on how to get saved. The instruction was for this lukewarm church to repent. So pastors using Revelation 3:20 as instruction to the lost on how to get saved is not teaching the intended message of the apostle John.

false dichotomy.
You assume not only god, but that god presents a false dichotomy.

 

[Astravalon]

The Bible is a medium on which God's words are printed.

More accurately, the Bible is a medium on which it is believed God's words are printed.

You are replacing God's message with the medium it's printed on.
It's God's words, the message written therein that counts.

Well no, I'm not the one who sees the bible as the equivalent of God, to the degree that I would believe that the words therein would receive a level of protection that God doesn't offer human souls. I don't believe He would preserve the words in a 'holy' book yet leave the fate of human souls up to a hit-or-miss sort of thing.

Otherwise, you are literally creating your own own god. Assigning the attributes and qualities you want him to have.

I may no longer identify as Christian, but a good 90-something percent of my perception of God has been influenced by the bible. So if you don't like how I see Him, blame the bible.

It sure sounds like you are too, a god that is all love, no holiness, no justice, no accountability, just 100%, all the time unconditional positive regard.

How do you conclude that love contradicts holiness, justice, or accountability? I see that a lot, and I have to admit it doesn't make sense to me.

A spoiling type God sounds just the kind of God sinful man would want to create.

No, I think the kind of God man loves to create is one that torments or annihilates those they don't like. This is probably why the teaching of hell/annihilation is so popular in churches. Not to mention the idea that Satan gets the victory over most of mankind in such a fashion might have a sort of dramatic appeal that attracts 'righteous' folks.

By the way, how do you make the leap from God restoring souls to God 'spoiling' them?

 

[e.r.m.]

More accurately, the Bible is a medium on which it is believed God's words are printed.
I'm addressing of man tailoring the Bible to their own liking. I'm not going to address the authenticity of the Bible itself. That's another thread.


Well no, I'm not the one who sees the bible as the equivalent of God, to the degree that I would believe that the words therein would receive a level of protection that God doesn't offer human souls. I don't believe He would preserve the words in a 'holy' book yet leave the fate of human souls up to a hit-or-miss sort of thing.
I don't believe either that God leaves human souls to hit or miss either. The Bible teaches us how to approach God's word. Read my original post on this. (E.g. - Matthew 15:1-9 Follow the scripture above tradition. Honoring one's parents was scripture, Corban was not. A clear dilineation). When people throw stuff like this out they are choosing to stray. The Bereans, examined the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. The compared what Paul said to the scriptures. If it was there, then it was true, if it was not then it wasn't true. It's not that the message is so elusive, it's that humans decide to stray from scripture. The Israelites were always straying to idols. It's not an intellectual issue, it's a heart issue. Due diligence, etc.

I may no longer identify as Christian, but a good 90-something percent of my perception of God has been influenced by the bible. So if you don't like how I see Him, blame the bible.
Doesn't sound like 90%.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
How do you conclude that love contradicts holiness, justice, or accountability? I see that a lot, and I have to admit it doesn't make sense to me.
Love does not. But you are by wondering if we need salvation.

No, I think the kind of God man loves to create is one that torments or annihilates those they don't like. This is probably why the teaching of hell/annihilation is so popular in churches. Not to mention the idea that Satan gets the victory over most of mankind in such a fashion might have a sort of dramatic appeal that attracts 'righteous' folks.

By the way, how do you make the leap from God restoring souls to God 'spoiling' them?

More accurately, the Bible is a medium on which it is believed God's words are printed.

Well no, I'm not the one who sees the bible as the equivalent of God, to the degree that I would believe that the words therein would receive a level of protection that God doesn't offer human souls. I don't believe He would preserve the words in a 'holy' book yet leave the fate of human souls up to a hit-or-miss sort of thing.

I may no longer identify as Christian, but a good 90-something percent of my perception of God has been influenced by the bible. So if you don't like how I see Him, blame the bible.

How do you conclude that love contradicts holiness, justice, or accountability? I see that a lot, and I have to admit it doesn't make sense to me.

No, I think the kind of God man loves to create is one that torments or annihilates those they don't like. This is probably why the teaching of hell/annihilation is so popular in churches. Not to mention the idea that Satan gets the victory over most of mankind in such a fashion might have a sort of dramatic appeal that attracts 'righteous' folks.

By the way, how do you make the leap from God restoring souls to God 'spoiling' them?

 

[e.r.m.]

Iridescence,

Well no, I'm not the one who sees the bible as the equivalent of God, to the degree that I would believe that the words therein would receive a level of protection that God doesn't offer human souls. I don't believe He would preserve the words in a 'holy' book yet leave the fate of human souls up to a hit-or-miss sort of thing.
My discussion here is to illuminate the fallacies of man tailoring God's word to their own liking. I'm not going to discuss the authenticity of the Bible itself, that's another thread. The Bible contains not the God's word, but also how to approach it. (e.g. Matthew 15:1-9 the scripture above tradition. Honoring one's parents is scripture, Corban was not.) RThe Bereans in Acts 17 examined the scripture to see if what Paul said was true. They compared the scriptures against waht Paul said. If what he said was written there, then it was true, if not then it was not true. When people put tradition over God's word, they are choosing to stray. Even in the case of having bad teachers, we have the option of doing what the Bereans did. The Israelites strayed often to idols. The message isn't so elusive. It's not an intellectual issue most of the time, but a heart issue. We are stubborn about doing things our own way, whatever that way may be. Jesus taught us to deny ourselves Mark 8 for a very good reason. Roman 10 teaches us to confess that Jesus is Lord for a very good reason.


I may no longer identify as Christian, but a good 90-something percent of my perception of God has been influenced by the bible. So if you don't like how I see Him, blame the bible.
Doesn't sound like 90%

Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

Luke 13:5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Acts 17:29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[b] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Revelation 21:6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

How do you conclude that love contradicts holiness, justice, or accountability? I see that a lot, and I have to admit it doesn't make sense to me.
Love doesn't, but you are, by suggesting we might not need salvation. We've all messed up and the only way back to God is through the forgiveness of sins he gives through Jesus Christ. No one is good enough to be ok with God on their own.


No, I think the kind of God man loves to create is one that torments or annihilates those they don't like. This is probably why the teaching of hell/annihilation is so popular in churches. Not to mention the idea that Satan gets the victory over most of mankind in such a fashion might have a sort of dramatic appeal that attracts 'righteous' folks.
I agree inasmuch that man tries to fashion God in his own own image, whatever that may be. People don't create hell/annihilation, God did. That's already in the Bible. But people sometimes do put more focus on things they prefer and leave out what they don't. Perfect example - Joel Olsteen admitted in an interview that he doesn't like to talk about sin. Some talk only of love, and some talk only of "hellfire and brimstone". It's all there though and should all be focused on.

By the way, how do you make the leap from God restoring souls to God 'spoiling' them?
It sounds like you speak, not of unconditional love, but of unconditional salvation. -(assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with).:sarcastic
God loves those who will not be saved, but it's there choice.

 

[Storm]

If biblical scripture means what it means, why is man divided on its interpretation?

If the bible is divinely inspired and god meant exactly what he meant, then why is it that man has to interpret what god meant?

Maybe it has something to do with God being beyond our comprehension?

 

[e.r.m.]

That only solidifies my conviction that the god of Christianity is more concerned about preserving a book than preserving people. The book is just an inanimate object, and as such, doesn't even have to make the right choice.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to. I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ).

That unstable kind of assurance pales in comparison to the assurance I now enjoy in God, which is based on His unconditional love and His intention to save all mankind (assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with). I now have faith in God, rather than faith in faith or in correct doctrine.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to.
When you had these doubts, did you go and check what the preacher said against the Bible or look up the scriptures he quoted? Not saying the preacher was write or wrong here, but am asking if you took the time to look it up ito see if it what the preacher said was written in the Bible.

That's the sword that separates truth from fiction.

For instance if they quoted Rev. 3:20 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. as a how to get saved scripture, did you read the whole chapter and find out that it was actually directed at lukewarm christians to repent Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth... 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Just an example.

I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ). That unstable kind of assurance...
Non-Biblical terms are one of the things that confuse people. A a preacher can use "saving faith" in several ways.
The scriptural term is "believe in" as in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. and John 6:28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Not a one time mental ascent of faith, but it takes work to trust in him and follow him, especially when it doesn't seem right to us. When a person believes in Him, trusts him, they will be saved. We know who He is and what he said to trust in the Bible. When we make up who God is for us, then we are not believing in Him, but in ourselves. Believing in Him only is saving faith.

 

[e.r.m.]

That only solidifies my conviction that the god of Christianity is more concerned about preserving a book than preserving people. The book is just an inanimate object, and as such, doesn't even have to make the right choice.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to. I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ).

That unstable kind of assurance pales in comparison to the assurance I now enjoy in God, which is based on His unconditional love and His intention to save all mankind (assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with). I now have faith in God, rather than faith in faith or in correct doctrine.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to.
When you had these doubts, did you go and check what the preacher said against the Bible or look up the scriptures he quoted? Not saying the preacher was write or wrong here, but am asking if you took the time to look it up ito see if it what the preacher said was written in the Bible.


That's the sword that separates truth from fiction. If people did this, there wouldn't be hundreds of denominations.


For instance if they quoted Rev. 3:20 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. as a 'how to get saved' scripture, did you read the whole chapter and find out that it was actually directed at lukewarm christians to repent Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth... 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Just an example.



I used to have that "assurance" -- at least most of the time -- but every now and then I'd hear a preacher speak on salvation and he would leave me doubting if I had what he called "Saving Faith" (as opposed to regular faith, I guess ). That unstable kind of assurance...
Non-Biblical terms are one of the things that confuse people. A preacher can use "saving faith" in several ways.
The scriptural term is "believe in" as in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. and John 6:28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Not a one time mental ascent of faith, but it takes work to trust in him and follow him, especially when it doesn't seem right to us. When a person believes in Him, trusts him, they will be saved. We know who He is and what he said to trust, in the Bible. When we make up who God is for us, then we are not believing in Him, but in ourselves. When we believe in Him, we do have saving faith.