|
|
HE JUST WON'T GET IT!
AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN RAY AND MYSELF
There is only one way to define
words in the Bible or any book. It is supposed to be in accordance with how the words are used and these definitions
are reported in dictionaries. Otherwise anyone can rewrite God's Word
and many do.
[Ray] That I agree; at the time I couldn't put that to words, in addition to our perception of what the words mean to us.
[You are violating the rules of
reading by adding your own perception of what words mean to us. Your
perception DOES NOT COUNT. You must follow the normative rules of
language, context and logic. The proof of this is that if you follow
those rules you will prove out the inerrancy of God’s Word - its reliability - as well as
the many contracts people make with one another that are adjudicated in
court where perception is ruled out in favor of the established rules
of language, i.e., through usage of the meaning of words in the light
of the established rules of langage, context and logic]
[Ray] You said "That does not make sense. You can ONLY use the
definition of repentance to determine what the word means"
But do you agree that the context can also dictate their meaning as well? Luke 12:50 is the best example of it.
[No. The context dictates which
established not imagined definition of a word is applicable - according
to / as reflected in dictionaries. You
keep missing that. No verse such as Lk 12:50 can be used to violate the
normative rules of language, context and logic. THOSE ARE THE RULES
THEY CANNOT BE BROKEN BY YOUR IDEA OF WHAT A SENTENCE SUCH AS LK 12:50
SAYS. Your ideas DO NOT COUNT!!!!!!!.
Unless these rules of communicating via language are followed, one
cannot have a dependable method of communicating in which all
individuals are on the same page as to what is universally accepted in any communication.
Otherwise your own special perception would not be understood.
You have misinterpreted Lk 12:50 and want to use your misinterpretation
to change the rules of reading / language AGAIN!!!! Another baptism is
in view - Christ’s baptism / immersion into the sins of the whole world
which were symbolized by His previous water baptism]
Believing involves the mind ONLY. The word “heart” = kardia is
figurative for the mind. Look it up on my website. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS:
HEART = MIND, A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE 
[Ray] I believe that too, as believing occurs at the heart.
[NO. You can’t say “I believe that too” and then contradict it.
Believing does not occur at the heart. Believing involves the mind
ONLY. The word “heart” = kardia is figurative for the mind. Look it up
on my website. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: HEART = MIND, A BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVE biblestudymanuals.net/heart.htm]
[Ray] However, it is the person who decides whether to believe or not.
Otherwise, in order for it to be entirely not a work done by the
person, you must then agree that it is given to him or her to believe.
[There is no “However”. The issue of the person’s volition to choose or
not to choose is irrevelent to the issue of where the believing occurs
in the human body. Believing is never a work anyway. It is not
contributory to what Christ did on the cross for mankind is it!!! It is
a non-contributory, passive acceptance as true that He died for your
sins or to anything that one believes. What does one do if one believes
that the sky is blue. There was nothing done. It does participate in
anything such as making the sky blue. It is a volitional act that is
entirely up to the will of man. On the other hand man is set against
believing in Christ and God has given some the gift of faith in the
sense of providing a special drawing to the elect which PERSUADES THEM
TO CHOOSE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION TO BELIEVE. Have you ever been
persuaded of your own volition to do something?]
[First comes the dictionary that reflects how words are used. Then
comes the context which best suits a particular definition of a word.
You cannot editorialize and make up your own definitions. That’s how
you learned to read - by following the normative rules of language,
context and logic. Otherwise anyone can decide what the words mean.]
[Ray] VERBATIM: That I agree; at the time I couldn't put that to
words, in addition to our perception of what the words mean to us.
[There is NO PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE WORDS MEAN TO US ALLOWED WITHIN THE
RULES OF LANGUAGE, CONTEXT AND LOGIC IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT ANOTHER
SUCH AS THE WORD OF GOD IS SAYING. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR
HEAD!!!!!!! THAT’S WHY THERE ARE SO MANY FOOLISH INTERPRETATIONS OF
GOD’S WORD SUCH AS YOUR INTERPRETATION. THAT WILL NOT GO WELL WITH GOD.
AGAIN YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I WROTE THEN YOU TAKE AWAY YOUR AGREEMENT
WITH A CONTRADICTION
Without a consistent universally accepted set of rules of language,
context and logic there will not be a consistent understanding in that
communication. We must be diligent with what the author wrote – his
intentions, NOT YOURS]
[Ray] But do you agree that the context can also dictate their meaning as well? Luke 12:50 is the best example of it.
[No. Context dictates which available meaning is to be used from a list
of established meanings a word ALREADY HAS which you can find in a
dictionary which reports usage. Context does not dictate the available
meanings of a word. Usage does that. Start using a dictionary properly.
If you have your own idea of what a word means FORGET IT AND STICK TO
THE DICTIONARY]
[But what the available meanings of that word are must be in accordance
with usage / as reported in the dictionary. You must not invent what words can mean,
which you seem to be doing. It is not about you, but about how words
are used]
[Ray] I understand, but do you understand see my point?
[Yes I see your point but it is wrong. Your point does not follow the
normative rules of language, context and logic. You cannot make up your
own rules of interpretation and expect God to go along with you, nor
man to have an accurate understanding of the author’s words]
[Ray] Do you see how the context influence[s] what the word typically means?
[It does not influence what a word means, it simply dictates which
already established meaning is to be applied. Check your dictionary and
limit yourself to what it provides as usage has dictated. On the other
hand, there are words that a particular communication provides but that
context will give you the definition of that word such as “ekklesian”
meaning more than an assembly which the context coins the word
establishing such a new meaning which is now included in dictionaries
of today. See the newly coined meaning of the word in the first century
was picked up in later dictionaries. It’s not up to you to make up your
own meanings]
[The best available meaning
for Sozo is preserved – longevity of the temporal life is in view not eternal life. Eternal
life is not based on human doing]
[Ray] Assuming that you are right, the also makes that clear, but do you
understand why I've used Sozo as an example as to why words do not
always mean what is defined or what we think it means?
[No. You are wrong. There is no context in the Bible that coins a
special meaning for Sozo that you have decided the word has. The
dictionary meaning is the one to use since it reports how words have
been used in the time, place and amongst the people living at that
time. Stop trying to remake the rules, you are fighting God. Context of
a passage depends upon you following the rules. If a context properly
interpreted does provide a new meaning of a word such as assembly
meaning “church” then that rare circumstance provides for a new meaning
of that word. BTW the bible was written a good number of years again
and the dictionaries provide for those new meanings. Check your local
dictionary on church]
[Again, you refuse to go to the dictionary and restrict yourself to
available meanings. Christ was water baptized symbolizing His real
baptism of being immersed in the sins of the whole world = two
baptisms, one symbolic, one actual. There are seven baptisms in the
Bible. You have not done your homework BIBLE STUDY MANUALS:
BAPTISM]
[Ray] OK..., so is Baptism here in Luke 12:50 used symbolically, or was Jesus
actually very anxious to get water baptized, again?
[You are not paying attention to my answers so I have to repeat them over and over again.
[The context dictates which definition of a word is applicable. You
keep missing that. No verse such as Lk 12:50 can be used to violate the
normative rules of language, context and logic. THOSE ARE THE RULES
THEY CANNOT BE BROKEN BY YOUR IDEA OF WHAT A SENTENCE SUCH AS LK 12:50
SAYS. Your ideas DO NOT COUNT!!!!!!!
You have misinterpreted Lk 12:50 and want to use your misinterpretation
to change the rules of reading / language AGAIN!!!! Another baptism is
in view Christ’s baptism / immersion into the sins of the whole world
which were symbolized by His previous water baptism by John]
[Again you missed the point. To change the mind, one must have a
mindset to begin with which one changes one’s mind to another mindset]
[Ray] Which does not strictly rules out a mind to no longer live in sin...
right? From the beginning you limited the definition to only mean
believe.
[Again you missed the point. To change the mind, one must have a
mindset to begin with which one changes one’s mind to another mindset.
Whatever the mindset which might be that one can live in sin which THE
CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE ESTABLISHES NOT YOUR PARTICULAR PERCEPTION, THE
CONTEXT, THE CONTEXT THE CONTEXT is what the passage is saying is then
what one must repent from. Jn 3:16 has the context of whoever believes
is what one must repent to, from a context of unbelief: repent of not
believing to believing. Acts 2:1-38 same context same repentance.
Turning from sin NOT in the context, turning from not believing to
believing is. I DID NOT LIMIT REPENT TO BELIEVING. READ MY ANSWERS AND
I WON’T HAVE TO REPEAT THEM! That’s part of the normative rules of
language, context and logic]
In some contexts, namely those about how to have eternal life, the
mindset of not believing is changed to one of believing this is implied
for example in Jn 3:16. I never said that the word repent is restricted
to this. It is all about context, context, context. You are
trying to pin me down to saying something I did not say.]
[Ray] So. why object to our calling to unbelievers to repent and believe?
[AGAIN context, context, context. Repent in that passage has in view
not believing in order to arrive at believing!! Wow, are you that
dense!!!! Since repent can mean a number of things to change the mind
from, then it is necessary to convey what one is repenting to which is
believe from not believing. Furthermore, hundreds of salvation unto
eternal life passages indicate that salvation unto eternal life is by
faith alone. So if the one in Mark is correct according and repent
means turn from your sins, then you must destroy all those other
passages that say you must repent in the sense of change your mind from
not believing to believing in Jesus as they are all in error - for
example, Jn 3:16]
[Ray] That is why we've begun this debate in the first place. Why
did you also object to my interpretation of Mark 1:15?
[Mk 1:15 context: entrance into the kingdom of God = eternal life is in
view. Repent from what to what is the question - there are a number of
meanings of repent as determined by the context in which that word
repent is located in.
There is no mention of
living in sin or anything to that effect. In the context of the
previous verse: the gospel of God is in view plus the context in 1:15
of the imminency of the arrival of the Kingdom of God = eternal life is
in view. Repent therefore is to change the mind in order to believe, so
what one is to change the mind from is NOT BELIEVING. This is why Mk
1:15 reads repent and believe and not repent and turn from sin. This is
not
rocket science]
If you want to have a constructive conversation stop trying to
find fault in what I am saying and use your reading skills that you
began to learn in school: the normative rules of language, context and
logic.]
[Ray] With respect, you were the one objecting to me, saying, that no where
in scripture does it say that we need to repent and believe in order to
be saved, that 400 times the bible used the word faith and not to
repent.
[I did not say that. Learn to read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The implication
is no where in Scripture does it say that we need to repent IN THE
SENSE OF TURN FROM COMMITTING SINS IN ORDER TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!!!!
But we do need to repent in order to have eternal life to believing in
Christ, the implication being that one is not believing any longer, but instead changed the mind to believing – compare Jn
3:16, Acts 2:38, Mk 1:15]
[Ray] Furthermore, you answered my usage of Mark 1:15 by adding John the
Baptist as a context which he tells them to produce fruits of faith.
[Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Wow. Learn to read. You have
already repented meaning you already have changed your mind from not
believing in Christ as Messiah / Savior Who is here to bring in the
Kingdom of God, Whereupon, i.e., THEN YOU ARE COMMANDED TO PRODUCE
FRUIT i.e., turn
from sin and do godly works that are consistent with your repentance
unto faith in Christ. Learn to read]
[Ray] It was only when I pointed out what they were called that you began to acknowledge exceptions.
[Wow. Learn to read. This is NOT an exception Producing fruit is not
the same thing as repenting from not believing to believing. Get it??]
[Ray] But then, you objected to my usage of Matthew 7:15-20, saying that it
is apples and oranges. Did you understand that the word "Fruit"
used by both Jesus and John are traits, of?
[Fruit is not a guaranteed trait / characteristic of being a Christian
automatically. It is a work in progress and most Christians are not
very successful at being faithful. Some will have little to show for it
at the end of their temporal lives: hay, wood and stubble. Neither
Jesus nor John taught this. You are reading that into the passage as
usual. If John scolded the Pharisees to produce fruit in keeping with
repentance
then fruit is not automatically going to be produced. Otherwise why say
it? There are no
guarantees that a Christian will bear fruit. There are many passages
that indicate that believers will have little if anything faithful to
show at the Judgment Seat of Christ and all they will produce is hay,
wood and stubble which will be burned up. And notice that nevertheless
they will still make it to heaven. No passage guarantees that a
believer will be faithful at all. As a matter of fact the New Testament
contains multiple instructions to Christians to learn and obey which
imply that such instruction is necessary BECAUSE FAITHFUL BEHAVIOR IS
NOT AUTOMATIC WHEN ONE BECOMES A CHRISTIAN.]
[Ray] It seemed that you either ignoring the explanation, or Gaslighting me.
[Have no idea what you mean here]
[Ray] Unfortunately, I cannot copy and paste your words because earlier
emails seemed to have been lost, but I know what I've read from you.
[So what? I still find what you have said here is incomprehensible]
[No it does not disagree. The fault lies in using Strongs Greek Lexicon
of the kjv which limits itself to the kjv translation and does not
include the overall language usage of koine Greek in the 1st century
throughout the world at that time. Try looking up a koine Greek
dictionary not affiliated with one particular translation. A good
dictionary on this is [The New Analytical Greek Lexicon which is a
dictionary of the koine Greek language of the Bible, (Wesley J.
Perschbacher, Editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Ma; 1992, p.
329), ]
[Ray] Thank you, I'll try to find one online.
[NO again. You did not read what I wrote. Stop imposing your thoughts
on what I said or the Bible says. John and Jesus’ message was not to
turn from sin but to believe in the coming Messiah the Lamb of God. The
context never focuses on Israel’s sinfulness, but on Who Jesus
is.]
[Ray] This is why I believe you narrowed your definition of repentance to only mean "Believe".
[Wow. I never NEVER defined repentance to only mean believe. You don’t
seem to read very well. It means to change the mind from one thing to
another. The context will decide what that is and you then must select
available meanings from the dictionary and from grammar books to
determine what the context is – who, what, where, when, how, to whom,
why - and then apply the available meaning of the word in question.
Dictionaries to a good job in reporting how words are used. You cannot
make up your own meanings, nor misapply an established meaning to the
wrong context. For we are talking about Who Jesus is not about sinful
behavior that must be corrected]
[Ray] Here, you cannot even acknowledge that repentance in vs 10 of ch 3 is
repentance from sin. So tell me, why did he call them "Brood of
Vipers" rather than infidels, and then instructs them to bear the
fruits is consistent with repentance?
[It is NOT repentance from sin at all. Futhermore, I have no idea what
you are referring to. That’s part of your problem. You expect me to
read your mind. If you are speaking of Mt 3, you did not bring up v. 10
to me at all. So how can you accuse me of not acknowledging something you have not told me.
After John exclaimed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, "Brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits
worthy of repentance," (Mt 3:7-8);
[NOTICE BEARING FRUIT IS A SEPARATE THING FROM REPENTANCE WHICH THE LATTER REFERS TO FAITH NOT TURNING FROM SIN]
John told them "And do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham
as our father,' " (Mt 3:9a), which further corroborated that they did
not choose to believe in John's message, nor did they think they had to
produce fruits worthy of repentance to avoid the temporal wrath to
come. This implied that they believed that since they were physical
descendants of Abraham, then they were automatically qualified for
entrance into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven without having to repent to
exercise a moment of faith in the Messiah or produce fruit in keeping
with that repentance. But they were mistaken and would be disqualified
as true children of Abraham to enter the Kingdom until they believed in
John's message - repent here means believe. Furthermore, they evidently did not produce fruits of
godly works and hence were subject to God's temporal wrath when He came
to establish His Kingdom. John went on to say, "God is able to raise up
children to Abraham from these stones," (Mt 3:9b), evidently referring
to stones nearby or in the waters of the Jordan. John implied by this
that the prophecy of the Kingdom of Heaven being fulfilled through the
descendants of Abraham would be fulfilled not with such as the
Pharisees and Sadducees or any physical descendant of Abraham who did
not believe, but with those children of Abraham by faith, even if the
LORD had to raise stones up to be Abraham's children. Evidently there
would be a remnant of children of Abraham who would be the people of
God who would dwell with Him in the Kingdom of Heaven by faith alone as
Scripture promised.
John went on to say, "And even now the ax is laid to the root of the
trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire," (Mt 3:10). Since this verse has as its
emphatic initial phrase, "And even now," with present tenses which
point to the time frame of John the Baptist; and since this verse
follows the context of previous statements of John: "Repent for the
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, i.e., imminent; "Brood of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mt 3:7b); and since the
word rendered "fire" in Scripture is often used to mean temporal
judgment depending upon the context; then one can conclude that the
Kingdom would bring with it the fire of temporal judgment for all those
who did not choose to believe in the coming Messiah and / or refused to
produce godly fruit having opposed Him in His establishment of His
Kingdom. So then temporal, not eternal punishment, i.e., early physical
death, is in view in Mt 3:10.
In the same way that orchard keepers cut down trees that don't bear
good fruit and immediately put them into the fire to be physically
destroyed; so in a figurative sense, those individuals in their mortal
bodies who did not produce good fruit - works of a righteous / godly
quality up to the inception of the Everlasting Kingdom of Heaven - will
immediately be cut down and figuratively "be thrown into the fire" of
temporal judgment at the time of the LORD's coming. They will be
physically destroyed; i.e., face early physical death. No one who has
refused to exercise a moment of faith alone in the LORD alone or who
has been characteristically unfaithful, who is in his mortal body at
the time of the LORD's coming when He begins His Everlasting Kingdom
can have a part in that Kingdom.
In the final analysis, whenever eternal judgment is in view, specific
modifying phrases or words such as "eternal," or "unquenchable" are
present. On the other hand, those that do not repent, i.e., change
their minds to express a moment of faith alone in the coming Messiah
alone to deliver them from their sins unto entrance into the
Everlasting Kingdom of Heaven will also suffer eternal judgment as
noted in verse 12 with the picture of the separation of wheat from
chaff, wherein those represented by the chaff, i.e., unbelievers will
suffer God's judgment in "unquenchable fire."
[I argue via the normative rules of language, context and logic. Not interested in Hebrew Parallelism.]
[Ray] Hebrew Parallelism is a Hebraic way of adding emphasis. You see
that in Proverbs with statements on the subject being repeated (The
wicked shall not... the wicked shall not... the wicked shall not...),
and Jesus in John 5:24 "Truly truly, I say to you..." then in John 6 "I
am the bread of life...".
This, is normative in Jesus' time, and times afore in Israel. Not
ours, so of course you do not see it in our world, but you do see it in
scripture. That is why one studies to understand the language,
grammar, and others used in scripture so as to better interpret
it. Use our present norm of ours it will not make sense to us,
unless we notice a certain pattern in our reading.
[Who cares. Actually the
pattern of emphasis is OBVIOUS in English without knowing any Hebrew or
Jewish customs. All one needs to know is how to read a good English
translation. The emphasis is obvious. Knowing about Hebrew Parallelism
is not needed to properly
read God’s Word. Actually English has it’s own parallelism and so does
koine Greek. All three are so similar that all you have to know is how
to read in English. If Hebrew Parallelism were needed and it radically
differed from English / Greek parallelism then that would disqualify
99% of the world’s population who will never study Hebrew
Parallelism because they would not be educated about this. Don’t you
get that?? Besides this, learning to read English includes an
understanding of this concept which is sufficient in English, or
French, or German, etc without going to Seminary and learning Hebrew]
[Ray] This, is normative in Jesus' time, and times afore in Israel. Not
ours, so of course you do not see it in our world, but you do see it in
scripture. That is why one studies to understand the language,
grammar, and others used in scripture so as to better interpret
it. Use our present norm of ours it will not make sense to us,
unless we notice a certain pattern in our reading.
[Totally wrong. If you had to have in mind every point of
ancient
cultures from Adam & Eve, preflood period, postflood age, Abraham
& the patriarchs, the time of Moses and Israel, the church age that
would effect the meaning of the text, since such
information is NOT largely available for people around the world to
learn today, or even available at all given cultures that go back
thousands and thousands of years, such as in Moses' time, Noah's time,
the time of Adam and Eve and even those times BEFORE THE FLOOD which
flooded over the entire planet destroying all kinds of cultural
evidence - with
little records archeological or otherwise discovered so far, then the
Bible is completely useless. On the other hand, today's cultural points
throughout the world are effectively similar / even the same as needed
- especially considering those particular cultural descriptions
stipulated in Scripture itself - to determine the
proper meaning of every verse, regardless of the lack
of detailed information of every single culture that is in view in
every single verse in the Bible. This familiarity with all the signficant points of
ancient cultures is simply not needed for a proper
interpretation of God's Word. If it were needed then God is not the God
of the Bible but a god who is an idiot for not knowing this.
Furthermore, the interpretation of Mk 1:15 does not need to allow for Hebrew parallelism BECAUSE THE CONTEXT
RULES IT OUT. There IS nothing in the context leading up to Mk 1:15
which has in view sinful behavior. The rest of the Bible also does not
stipulate that turning from sins is required in order to have eternal
life. Eph 2:8-9 and many passages rule out human doing such as turning
from sins. SO IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT HEBREW PARALLELISM AT ALL which
is in view in Mk 1:15. It is simply telling you to what one changed
ones mind to: to believing from NOT BELIEVING – and thereby changed ones mind FROM not
believing, just as says in Jn 3:16-18]
[Ray] So, if you so chose, you could have cited the parallelism in Mark 1:15,
if you hold to the belief that Jesus is only telling them to believe.
[I don’t have to cite Hebrew
parallism here in Mk 1:15. Mark did not write
his gospel in Hebrew, he wrote it in Greek with the expectation that
his audience would not be limited to Hebrews or need a knowledge of
ancient Hebrew customs. BTW most languages have
similar parallelism because that’s they way most languages work -
humans are creatures of habit. Besides there is NO EMPHASIS THROUGH USE
OF DIFFERENT WORDS SUCH REPENT AND BELIEVE TO EXPLAIN THE THING. This
is so because the word repent refers to the change of mind to believing
two different concepts not the same concept. One is a change of mind,
the other is what one changed ones mind to: believing]
[Because you don’t impose such things on the text, you simply read from
the words not into the words some idea of hermeneutics. People should
not apply such rules on the text but read the text as it stands in
accordance with how you learned to read in school. Hence all people of
accountable age can understand God’s Word, not limited to those who went to
Seminary]
[Ray] OK, so tell me why did he mention their idolatrous practices if he
simply wanted them to believe in the right God? Did he not
correct them in vs' 24-25? In fact, in vs 16 he was not dismayed
by their unbeliefs but their... idolatry.
[vv. 24-25, 16 of Mk 1???? What are you talking about. You’ve got your
verses mixed up. You are running me all over the bible with no detailed
exegesis at all and without telling me what passage you are writing about. You make no sense and quote verses that are not part
of what we were talking about]
[Paul in his address on Mars Hill in Acts 16:22-32 [I figured out what
you are referring to. Next time mention the passage you are talking about]. Paul is not addressing their sins at all except
for the sin that they believe in idols and that they should repent of
believing in idols and instead believe in Jesus, the unknown God. He is
presenting Jesus to
them as the unknown God. Paul is not telling them to repent of all of
their sins. You have read that into the text. They
are told to repent of the sin of worshipping / believing in idols and
instead to worship / believe in Jesus the Unknown God for their
salvation; i.e., to repent of believing in idols and believe in Jesus.
The same format you have in Mk 1:15!!!!!]
You are not an editor or coauthor.
[Ray] It maybe hard for you to believe it, but I interpreted that passage
exegetically, which is why I've included the many verses preceding vs
30.
[You don’t know what exegesis
means. Where is your complete verse by
verse exegesis????? Where are your citations of each verse and a word
by word interpretation - point for point explanation for each
interpretative statement? So far all I have is a little here and a
little
there without adequate explanation ]
[Besides that Paul wrote many times that salvation unto eternal
life is by grace through faith, not of yourselves, gift of God, not by
works such as repenting of sins. So if you are right, you have
uncovered a serious contradiction in the Bible, so burn it and become a
Buddhist which religions permits contradictions]
[Ray] It is no contradiction.
[You don't seem to understand
the definition of contradiction. Look it
up. If one passage like Jn 3:16 says believe and you have eternal life
and
another says you have to do something else that’s a contradiction. If
you cannot see that, then we are done. That is so elementary that you
have to be mentally incompetent to go further. But I think you are just
stubborn and want to have your own concept of what the Bible says
because you do not accept what God's Word actually says. One sentence
says
believe and you have eternal life, another sentence in another passage
says turn from sin and you have eternal life – THAT’S A CONTRADICTION]
[Ray] There is a reason why Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, etc,
commanded people to repent and believe... is the same reason why you
call on the hearers to believe, and that is if they don't do it, they
won't do it.
[Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, Mark, the Apostle John, Peter, Luke
made statements to repent and believe either literally or by
implication in order to have eternal life. The context of each and
every one of these statements indicates a change of mind from not
believing to believing - never from committing sins to not committing
sins. Since there are a number of meanings for the word repent in the
usage of Greek, Hebrew, English, etc; then one must stipulate what one
must change ones mind from doing to what one must do, such as believe.
Notice you wrote, "you call on the hearers to believe" not to repent of
their sins. You left out the turning from sins as part of what one must
do to have eternal life; and rightfully so because that is not what one
must do in order to have eternal life. Consider Acts 16:30-31 NASB:
30 and
after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 They said,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."]
THERE
IS SO MUCH WRONG WITH YOUR STATEMENT. You call people to believe, your
call people to repent, you are not responsible for the
results. The phrase “if they don’t do it, they won’t do it” is
incomprehensible and
irrelevant. Your statement does not make sense. You are not responsible
for their choices. So why make this statement? We are not responsible
nor is Paul, Peter, Apollos, et al. It is the individual who makes up
his own
mind, hence the whoever in Jn 3:16]
[Ray] You can argue that our approach is unnecessary because they'll repent
anyways as the Holy Spirit will have already convict them of their
sins.
[Nonsensical. Your whole approach is full of contradictions, does not
follow Scripture. Don’t even know what your approach is. The bible
teaches us to share our faith especially the gospel. We are not
responsible for the results. That’s God’s job yet He leaves it up to
the individual not imposing His will upon us to believe. Not everyone
is going to be convicted of sins. No one is capable nor is going to repent of his sins
unto righteousness. There is so much wrong with this that it is not
worth addressing]
[Ray] Well, using that rationale, I can argue that against your approach as
well. That is, if they hear the Gospel message, then you do not
have to tell them to believe for they will naturally do so upon hearing
the Gospel.
[That does not make sense. I never said / wrote that. The Gospel
message is one which says to
believe in Christ’s payment for one’s sins and you will have eternal
life - as in Jn 3:16 and hundreds of other passages. There is no
‘naturally do so.’ They have to hear the message /
read it and decide of their own volition to believe it or not. It's up
to them. If it does not include being accurate then there is no point
in sharing anything. You are totally not making sense]
[There is NO OVERALL. It is true PERIOD.
[Ray] I say that because one wouldn't repent in the first place unless there
is a reason to do so, and so with regard to the Gospel there is no
better reason to repent.
[Which repent are you talking about??????? Change your mind and believe or change your
mind and don't sin, or change your mind and walk in a different
direction, etc., etc. You don’t know what the gospel is. The gospel is
NOT a message which
requires you to turn from sin, that’s bad news because man cannot turn
from sin in order to have eternal life, that requires God’s
justification / declaration of His perfect righteousness not your
attempt to act better, that’s works, not grace.]
[Ray] But to you, that is all they need to do, to believe.
[Correct. Now you have it!!!! Jn 3:16 and hundreds of passages say so]
[Ray] You can argue that once they believe, they will naturally repent,
[Irrelevant. There are no passages in the bible that says this and I
NEVER SAID THIS. Even for a believer they do not / cannot naturally
repent. The natural man is hopelessly enmeshed in sin even when he
becomes a born again child of God]
[Ray] but I say that unless you also tell them to repent then they will not.
[That’s not the gospel. You cannot repent. Besides salvation is by
grace not by works. Repentance from sin is a work and works disqualify
one from receiving the free gift of salvation unto eternal life. BTW
when you tell someone to do something there is no guarantee they will
do it or not. This idea is not in Scripture]
[Ray] In fact, in their carnal state if they're only told to
believe then they will, not because that is the most important thing
the unbelieving should do, that is, believe in the Lord Jesus
[Not in the Bible. You don’t know this. Not in the bible. The gospel is
telling one they only have to believe. Wow!!! And the Bible does not
say that when people are told something they will not do it, or do it]
[You cannot change the meaning and usage of a word according to usage
and context. The believing is in Jesus paying for your sins, that is
the context / content of what the passage indicates one is to believe
IN ORDER TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, AND NOTHING ELSE. That is how the word
believe is used.]
[Ray] That is the wider context, I know, Mr. Robert;
[There is no wider context there, it is only the context of a passage
be it a verse, word, chapter paragraph. Stop making things up]
[Ray] but that does not cancel or dismiss the fact that words can have different meanings.
[More often than not words
have a number of meanings. So select the meaning of a word that best
fits into the context FROM A DICTIONARY, NOT FROM YOUR OWN PERCEPTION.
I did not say that they cannot. You are rambling all over the place.
Ever consult a dictionary???? The trick is to apply a meaning of a word
according to universally accepted meanings as reflected in dictionaries
to a passage that fits the context]
[Ray] You know that even in our English language we have words that
means one thing in a sentence, but quite another with a different
sentence.
[I did not say they did not have different meanings. I've been
repeatedly saying this over and over and over and over and over again.
Shall I say it again/???? You apply a
meaning of a word that is established according to usage which is best
applicable to the context in a
sentence FROM THE AVAILABLE MEANINGS ACCORDING TO USAGE AS IT CAN BE
READ FROM A DICTIONARY. That’s called proper reading]
[Ray] For example, the word Light means in one usage means brightness, but in another use, it means of little weight.
[Agreed. Why are you telling me this???]
[Ray] In fact, do you know how many meanings in Greek for the word "Eis"? You've been in seminary, you should know this.
[I don’t care. I know how to read. To answer this question is simply to
consult a dictionary. What does seminary have to do with it. Most
people who went to seminary have memorized a lot of garbage that has
little to do with accurately reading the Bible]
[Ray] [you must believe in Christ in order to have eternal life. However, that is not all that they must do.
[Yes it is all that one must do because the context of every salvatioin passage indicates that the result
of believing in Christ’s payment for sins AND THAT ALONE results in
that passage in eternal life PERIOD. You cannot add anything else / any
other stipulation into that passage or any passage. You are not an
editor. Stop changing the rules of reading or the words in the text.]
[Ray] The words used in verse 10 is exactly the words used by Jesus when He
warned his disciples against false teachers in Matthew
7.
[Don't know what you are referring to.
It seems you are comparing Mt 3 with 7. Mt 3 is another passage another context. False teachers who
do works that indeed are supernatural in Jesus’ name but not under His
power and He never knew them, in the sense of never BELIEVED IN HIM and
therefore were never saved is the context not believing in Christ as
Savior / Messiah so that the Kingdom will commence with all of a
generation of Israel being saved unto eternal life and becoming a
nation of priests to serve as a priesthood for the nations of the world
in that Kingdom. You are mixing your contexts once more. And when you
compare two passages you have to do your homework and prove out your
case - verse by verse]
[Ray] OK... well here's my case:
Cross referencing vs 10 of Matthew 3 with Matthew 7:15-20, when Jesus
says "You shall know them by their fruits" where do you see in that
that the fruits Jesus spoke of, is unbelief?
Let's say that it does mean what you claimed? So there are no
other traits of false prophets we should know of, such as they
characterized by greed (Philippians 3:19), teach false doctrines
(Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Galatians 1:6-9, & 1 John 4:1-2), utter false
prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:19-23). Or that they often seem
perfectly righteousness in terms of look and speech so don't be fooled
(2 Corinthians 11:14-15)?
[You cannot add to Mt 7 from some other passage. Matthew wrote what he
wrote. Consider a contract you make with someone to build an addition
onto his house. You cannot go back and add to that contract from
another contract.]
[Ray] Mr. Robert..., telling me that I cannot add Matthew 7 to chapter 3, as
if it is a basic hermaneutical rule, does not answer how Jesus and John
the Baptist used the word "Fruit", and I proved that, exegetically.
[The
contexts are different. You have proved that you don’t know how to
read: the who, what, where, when, how, to whom DO NOT LINE UP. That's
not exegetical. You have to list each and every word in each passage
and explain it as you learned how to read]
[Ray] You need to prove to me that both used the word "Fruit" differently.
[One produced fruit which was godly the other produced fruit that came
from an ungodly source not of Jesus’ power in Mt 7. Jesus said He never
knew those who produced miracles they claimed were in Jesus name. You
still don’t know how to read. Check out what I have written on these
two passages verse by verse and see biblestudymanuals.net/indxm.htm and this time do
your homework. Maybe you’ll learn something]
[Ray] Claiming that both were in different context as John was talking to
Pharisees and Jesus to His disciples is both wholly insufficient and
silly.
[One was commanded to produce fruit which was godly the other produced fruit that came
from an ungodly source not of Jesus’ power in Mt 7. Jesus said He never
knew those who produced miracles they claimed were in Jesus name. You
still don’t know how to read. Go here and read properly:
biblestudymanuals.net/mt3_observe.htm#IC and
biblestudymanuals.net/mt7_observe.htm#IG]
[Ray]You need to show me that John is telling them to believe when He
used the word "Fruit" opposed to Traits, otherwise, my cross reference
of ch. 7 valid.
[Your sentence is incomprehensible. I cannot answer nonsense. John told
them to produce fruit in keeping with their having believed. He wasn’t
telling them to believe. Your phrase “”Fruit” opposed to Traits” does
not make any sense. Your cross reference is not valid because those who
performed miracles were not believers. Those in Mt 3 were presumed to
be believers because they were declared by John to have repented /
believed.]
[Ray] If it is as you claimed it be then all we have to do is ask them if
they believe in Jesus, and once they say "Yes we do" like the LDS often
claimed, also Catholics, then we can go our way with assurance that
they are of us.
[YUP. That’s what the context
implies IF THEY DID BELIEVE. You can say
you believed, but you have to actually express a moment of faith alone
in Christ alone + nothing else. BTW 1 Jn 5:9-13 the message of
assurance of ones salvation unto eternal life is solely based on ones
expression of a moment of faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing
else. Go read it.]
[Ray] Not in Matthew 3 when John commands them to bear the fruits in keeping or consistent with repentance.
[Again, to produce fruit in keeping with repentance presumes you have
believed because producing fruit means doing godly works, i.e., turning
from sin toward doing godly works. It is redundant to say produce
fruits in keeping with having produced fruit. Don’t you get that? If
you don’t then you are beyond my help]
[Ray] And if you claim wider context, then you're ignoring that passage.
[There is no such thing as wider context. There is only context: who,
what, why, where, to whom, how. The context of a passage only has it’s
context. The context of a whole book has it’s context. Stop making things up]
Read 1 Jn 5:9-13: assurance come solely from recalling that you believed and that alone]
[Ray] Good point, but I say it is a given that a believer repented of
their sins, just as it is a given that the same already believes in the
Trinity.
[You cannot say anything. You can only report what the passage says.
There is no given that the believer repents of his sins, because the
passage rules that out. There is no given at all. You cannot say good
point because then you refuted the good point. Don’t you get that???
You cannot say that the believer even believes in the Trinity, because
the passage does not say that either. You cannot rewrite the Bible. You
are not an editor, only a reader. You never learned that when you were
being taught to read.]
[It’s not the case because the words indicate it’s not the case. You
cannot add or read into the passage, you can only read from that
passage and add nothing. That’s how the rules of reading work. So you
cannot add a second stairway to your housing contract if it is not
stipulated in that contract]
[Ray] Then you will have to prove to me, that the word Fruit in Matthew 6:15-20, doesn't mean traits of, but belief.
[Already did numerous times over!!!!The word “fruit” does not appear in Mt 6:15-20. Your reading capacity
and reasoning is so far off that you are beginning to waste my time.
Follow the rules of reading. Stop editing and adding to a passage and making things up. Just
read the words that are there and report what they actually say.]
[There is no such thing as a true believer, that is redundant. Can you falsely believe or just not believe.
[Ray] So what do you call one who claimed to believe, or who thinks they
believe, but really they do not? As the basis of their claim is
that they grew up in a Christian congregation, participate in
congregational activities, but privately lived like an unbeliever?
[You tell me. You either believe or you don’t. You can say that you are
a believer but if you have not believed you are not a believer, you are
an unbeliever. Don’t you get that//???]
You are mixing your contexts once more. And when you compare two
passages you have to do your homework and prove out your case]
[Ray] Mr. Robert... if all you could do is tell me that I'm wrongly
"comparing passages again" and that "I have to do my homework" without
proving to me that the word "Fruit" is not the same a resulting
"Trait", then you are not only grasping at straws but committing
Ad-Homonym Circumstantial by making me look ignorant and
unqualified. I don't appreciate that.
[the word fruit is not a trait look it up in the dictionary]
[Ray] Once and for all, prove to me how the word "Fruit" used by John and
Jesus in Matthew 3 and 7 is the opposite of my claim, or humbly admit
you're wrong.
[Already proved it to you. YOU ARE WRONG. The fruit in one is godly fruit the fruit in the other is ungodly fruit:
FRUIT
That which is produced; the effect or consequence of any action;
advantageous or desirable product or result; disadvantageous or evil
consequence or effect; as, the fruits of labor, of self-denial, of
intemperance..
TRAIT
A distinguishing or marked feature; a peculiarity.]
[Ray] Since this is a constant response of yours I will ignore all other
points you've made - until - you prove me wrong on my understanding on
the word "Fruit".
[Already done that multiple times but you won’t accept it. You cannot make up your own rules of reading]