Beware Of The Crowd--The Many!

ScottA · Tuesday at 8:50 AM

IndianaRob said:
I don’t know where y’all get the idea that living for Christ is hard. Are you talking about persecution of what? Do you find it hard to walk with Christ. I’m being serious,

I truly don’t understand why you guys act like walking with Christ is such a laborious task.

No, you're right, it's like falling of a log!

What is hard is the finding and entering in. The "many" that Jesus said never do have a tough time giving up what they apparently value more about this world and what they have gotten comfortable with.

The big one, is the flesh. Heaven forbid one would have to give up this ragged and unholy tent that God only gave us to cover our nakedness. Which is a twist for "many" because we are like Adam and Eve thinking that's bad. But it's just a matter of seeing ourselves as we are in our fallen state. Remember, they didn't see things that way until after the fall. All of which means that those who hold onto these temporal "skins" that God has provided us--is because they are "hiding" (like Adam and Eve).

IndianaRob · Tuesday at 9:05 AM

markalan said:
We have to ask ourselves how many times we are willing to put family before worshiping God. If your young nephew's football final is on Sunday, can you skip church again? And if your brother's flight leaves for overseas on Sunday. do you skip church again?

It comes down to why we go to church.

Why do you go to church? Are you trying stay in favor with God through obedience?

From what we’ve discussed so far it seems that you go out of obligation, to please God.

ScottA · Tuesday at 9:06 AM

markalan said:
We have to ask ourselves how many times we are willing to put family before worshiping God. If your young nephew's football final is on Sunday, can you skip church again? And if your brother's flight leaves for overseas on Sunday. do you skip church again?

It comes down to why we go to church.

“Surely, as the Lord lives, you have been upright, and your going out and your coming in with me in the army is good in my sight. For to this day I have not found evil in you since the day of your coming to me." Samuel 29:6

TheOneHeLoves · Tuesday at 11:06 AM

interesting how people will argue over words but if people would look at context and overall scriptures and seek Heavenly perspective they would not argue.

From Noah and the world, Abram out of the pagens , Lot in Sodom, to the Hebrews in Egypt and all the way to Revelation. We see few will be on the path to Heaven and the rest will enter eternal judgement.

amigo de christo · Tuesday at 1:12 PM

IndianaRob said:
Can you give an example in your Christian walk that you find hard to do?

watching what many in christaindome now call love and the peace plan they do lock hands and sit under .
That has been one very hard and vexing thing to see .

ScottA · Tuesday at 1:19 PM

TheOneHeLoves said:
interesting how people will argue over words but if people would look at context and overall scriptures and seek Heavenly perspective they would not argue.

From Noah and the world, Abram out of the pagens , Lot in Sodom, to the Hebrews in Egypt and all the way to Revelation. We see few will be on the path to Heaven and the rest will enter eternal judgement.

We do need to be careful with context however, even Jesus broke context, and yet the modern exegesis used by the "many" has ruled against it.

TheOneHeLoves · Tuesday at 2:19 PM

ScottA said:
We do need to be careful with context however, even Jesus broke context, and yet the modern exegesis used by the "many" has ruled against it.

YHVH does not change so we look to the pattern He has spoken and shown us.

Oh how great is His WORD

bdavidc · Tuesday at 2:43 PM

There is a serious warning here, but I do not believe the text says that the narrow way is a hidden, difficult path that only a few people discover “within the church.”

Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). These are people who profess Christ, but a profession is not proof that someone belongs to Him. Jesus does not say, “I once knew you, but you failed to find the difficult path.” He says, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). They were never His.

Their religious works, prophecies, exorcisms, and wonders did not prove that they were saved. In fact, Jesus called them “workers of iniquity.” The warning is not that they were sincere Christians who chose comfortable doctrine. The warning is that outward religion, impressive works, and supernatural claims cannot replace actually knowing Christ.

The word translated “difficult” in Matthew 7:14 describes a narrow or constricted way. It does not mean that salvation is found by discovering complicated or unpopular doctrines. Jesus Christ Himself is the way. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

The same correction applies to John 6. The people did not leave merely because Jesus taught something intellectually difficult. Jesus plainly identified their real problem: “There are some of you that believe not” (John 6:64). Their unbelief caused them to reject His words.

We absolutely should examine ourselves, as 2 Corinthians 13:5 commands. But we must examine ourselves according to Scripture, not by asking whether our path feels difficult, uncomfortable, or unpopular. Hardship is not proof of truth, and comfort is not proof of error. False religion can be difficult, demanding, and uncomfortable too.

The biblical question is whether we have truly come to Christ in faith, whether His Word governs what we believe, and whether the fruit of a changed life follows. Salvation is not earned by works, miracles, sacrifice, or choosing the most difficult road. It is by grace through faith, and genuine faith produces obedience as its fruit.

bdavidc · Tuesday at 2:52 PM

ScottA said:
We do need to be careful with context however, even Jesus broke context, and yet the modern exegesis used by the "many" has ruled against it.

Jesus never “broke context.” That statement is false. Jesus did not misuse Scripture or remove passages from their intended meaning. He said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28, ESV), and, “I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment, what to say and what to speak” (John 12:49, ESV).

When Jesus used the Old Testament, He revealed its true meaning and fulfillment. Luke 24:27 says, “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Men break context. Jesus does not. He is the truth, and God’s Word is truth. We cannot defend an interpretation by claiming that Jesus disregarded context, especially while warning others about supposed errors in doctrine.

ScottA · Tuesday at 3:00 PM

bdavidc said:
Jesus never “broke context.” That statement is false. Jesus did not misuse Scripture or remove passages from their intended meaning

David's words and the context of his own suffering:

Psalm 22:1 "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Jesus's words, broken out of David's context and put into His own context:

Matthew 27:46 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

...and He is not the only one who the scriptures record doing so.

And yes, the users of the modern rule of exegesis would not have allowed it, saying David's context was "prophetic", and Jesus's context was "historical." And then they would argue about it being vice versa.

bdavidc · Tuesday at 3:11 PM

ScottA said:
David's words and the context of his own suffering:

Psalm 22:1 "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Jesus's words, broken out of David's context and put into His own context:

Matthew 27:46 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

...and He is not the only one who the scriptures record doing so.

And yes, the users of the modern rule of exegesis would not have allowed it, saying David's context was "prophetic", and Jesus's context was "historical." And then they would argue about it being vice versa.

That does not prove Jesus “broke context.” It proves that Psalm 22 was fulfilled in Him. David wrote from real suffering, but the psalm itself reaches far beyond David. It speaks of mockers saying, “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him” (Psalm 22:8), of hands and feet being pierced (Psalm 22:16), and of garments being divided and lots being cast for them (Psalm 22:18). Those details were fulfilled at the cross in Matthew 27:35, 39–43.

Jesus did not rip David’s words out of context and force them into another setting. He stood inside the fulfillment of the very psalm He quoted. The context of Psalm 22 includes suffering that ultimately points to Christ.

Jesus said the Scriptures testified of Him: “They are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). After His resurrection, He explained “in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). That is not breaking context. That is revealing the full meaning God placed in the text.

You are trying to use Christ’s perfect handling of Scripture to justify men ignoring context. That will not work. Jesus did not violate the meaning of Psalm 22. He fulfilled it.

Men break context when they detach words from what God actually said and insert meanings the text does not teach. Jesus never did that. He is the truth, and He handled Scripture without error.

ScottA · Tuesday at 3:31 PM

bdavidc said:
That does not prove Jesus “broke context.” It proves that Psalm 22 was fulfilled in Him. David wrote from real suffering, but the psalm itself reaches far beyond David. It speaks of mockers saying, “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him” (Psalm 22:8), of hands and feet being pierced (Psalm 22:16), and of garments being divided and lots being cast for them (Psalm 22:18). Those details were fulfilled at the cross in Matthew 27:35, 39–43.

Jesus did not rip David’s words out of context and force them into another setting. He stood inside the fulfillment of the very psalm He quoted. The context of Psalm 22 includes suffering that ultimately points to Christ.

Jesus said the Scriptures testified of Him: “They are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). After His resurrection, He explained “in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). That is not breaking context. That is revealing the full meaning God placed in the text.

You are trying to use Christ’s perfect handling of Scripture to justify men ignoring context. That will not work. Jesus did not violate the meaning of Psalm 22. He fulfilled it.

Men break context when they detach words from what God actually said and insert meanings the text does not teach. Jesus never did that. He is the truth, and He handled Scripture without error.

Not according to those who take up context to rule over their own idea of exegesis.

As for "ripping words out of context"--Paul did exactly that. But you have already rejected the idea that Jesus could or did break context, why would you believe anything different about one whom He has sent?

Stumpmaster · Tuesday at 4:43 PM

IndianaRob said:
Why does another persons actions or beliefs upset you? Especially to the point that you feel the need to be rude to them?

Ditto.

bdavidc · Wednesday at 1:44 PM

ScottA said:
Not according to those who take up context to rule over their own idea of exegesis.

As for "ripping words out of context"--Paul did exactly that. But you have already rejected the idea that Jesus could or did break context, why would you believe anything different about one whom He has sent?

That statement is false. Context does not “rule over” exegesis as though it were some human invention imposed upon Scripture. Context is Scripture. The words before and after a verse are part of what God said, and they establish what the passage means. Ignoring context is not deeper exegesis. It is how men force the Bible to say what they want it to say.

You still have not shown where Paul supposedly “ripped words out of context.” You have only asserted it. Quote the exact passage and demonstrate from Scripture that Paul made it mean something contrary to what God originally intended.

Paul, writing by the Holy Ghost, could reveal a fulfillment, implication, or application already intended by God. That is not the same as changing the meaning of the text. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), and holy men of God “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). Paul did not mishandle Scripture, and Jesus certainly did not.

Your argument appears to be that because Christ and His inspired apostles revealed the divine fulfillment of earlier Scripture, men today may detach verses from their setting and assign them meanings the text does not teach. Scripture gives you no such permission. We are commanded to be “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), not rewriting it through private interpretation.

Peter warned of those who “wrest” the Scriptures “unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). That is what happens when context is treated as an obstacle instead of part of God’s revelation.

So no, context is not ruling over Scripture. Context is exposing interpretations that did not come from Scripture in the first place. Until you produce the passage and prove your accusation against Paul from the text itself, you have not answered my objection. You have only repeated a claim that Scripture does not support.

ScottA · Wednesday at 6:00 PM

bdavidc said:
That statement is false. Context does not “rule over” exegesis as though it were some human invention imposed upon Scripture. Context is Scripture. The words before and after a verse are part of what God said, and they establish what the passage means. Ignoring context is not deeper exegesis. It is how men force the Bible to say what they want it to say.

No again--that is not true. Your understanding of how context works is incorrect. That is how those who practice exegesis define it too--and they are wrong too.

I gave you the scriptures where Jesus did not do what you describe about "establishing what the passage means"--and you rejected it. So, yes, I did not go on to show Paul also breaking context--because you are not ready to move on. You're still looking to context rather than God Himself using whatever He wants to confirm whatever He wants whenever He wants. But you have rejected God's sovereignty over His own word, wherein He has established that men's rules don't apply.

bdavidc · 2026-07-30T11:34:47-0500

ScottA said:
No again--that is not true. Your understanding of how context works is incorrect. That is how those who practice exegesis define it too--and they are wrong too.

I gave you the scriptures where Jesus did not do what you describe about "establishing what the passage means"--and you rejected it. So, yes, I did not go on to show Paul also breaking context--because you are not ready to move on. You're still looking to context rather than God Himself using whatever He wants to confirm whatever He wants whenever He wants. But you have rejected God's sovereignty over His own word, wherein He has established that men's rules don't apply.

God’s sovereignty over His Word does not give us permission to separate His words from what He actually said. Context is not a rule men have imposed upon God. It is the surrounding Scripture God Himself inspired.

When Jesus and the apostles quoted the Old Testament, they were speaking under divine inspiration. They did not “break context.” The same Holy Spirit who inspired the original passage also revealed its fulfillment and application. You and I do not possess that authority. We must handle the written Word faithfully.

Paul commanded Timothy to be “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Peter warned that people “wrest” the Scriptures “unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Even Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, but he used it falsely by removing it from its proper meaning and application (Matthew 4:5–7).

Saying that God can use whatever He wants, however He wants, does not prove that your interpretation is what God meant. The question remains: What does the passage actually say in its context?

I have not rejected God’s sovereignty. I reject the claim that God’s sovereignty gives a man permission to make Scripture mean something its words and context do not establish.

ScottA · 2026-07-30T16:25:43-0500

bdavidc said:
God’s sovereignty over His Word does not give us permission to separate His words from what He actually said.

You are so wrong I need to stop you right there.

On the contrary--God commands us to separate His words! He has set before us all, "life and death, blessing and cursing", which we are to be found "rightly dividing."

bdavidc · 2026-07-31T10:46:26-0500

ScottA said:
You are so wrong I need to stop you right there.

On the contrary--God commands us to separate His words! He has set before us all, "life and death, blessing and cursing", which we are to be found "rightly dividing."

No. God did not command you to separate His words from what He actually said. That is not “rightly dividing.” That is wrongly splicing Scripture together to manufacture a meaning that neither passage teaches.

Deuteronomy 30:19 says: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life.”

The command is “choose life.” Moses was setting obedience and rebellion before Israel. There is not one word in that passage commanding anyone to separate God’s words, detach them from their context, or assign them some hidden meaning. You ripped a phrase out of Deuteronomy, dragged it into 2 Timothy, and pretended the two verses define one another. They do not.

Second Timothy 2:15 says: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

A straight cut does not butcher the text. It handles the Word accurately. The immediate context warns against “strive about words to no profit” and commands Timothy to “shun profane and vain babblings” (2 Timothy 2:14, 16). Paul was not granting you permission to cut God’s words loose from their meaning. He was commanding you to handle them correctly.

You have now claimed that “even Jesus broke context,” and when I answered that error from Scripture, you escalated it by claiming that God actually commands us to separate His words. This is no longer an innocent mistake. It is a repeated method. When the context exposes your interpretation, you do not correct your interpretation. You attack the authority of context itself and then claim God’s approval for doing it.

That is how false teaching protects itself. The teacher invents a meaning, places God’s name upon it, and then treats anyone who tests it by Scripture as though he were opposing God. This is the same method the serpent used in the garden: take what God actually said, tamper with its meaning, and then confidently present the altered meaning as though it were God’s Word. “Yea, hath God said?” quickly became, “Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:1, 4). You are not denying that the words exist. You are separating them from what God meant and replacing His meaning with your own.

The Lord said: “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith” (Jeremiah 23:31).

You began this thread warning people about false prophets and those who cry, “Lord, Lord.” You should take your own warning seriously. A man does not prove that he speaks for God by loudly declaring, “God commands us.” He proves it by faithfully showing that God’s Word actually says what he claims.

You are not rightly dividing the Word of truth. You are twisting two passages, ignoring both contexts, and placing your own meaning into God’s mouth. Stop pretending that your private interpretation carries God’s authority. Repent of handling Scripture this way. And NO, you will not stop me as long as you twist Scripture and post it in a public forum trying to deceive people.

ScottA · 2026-07-31T14:18:22-0500

bdavidc said:
That is not “rightly dividing.” That is wrongly splicing Scripture together to manufacture a meaning that neither passage teaches.

It takes so little to spot your error!

Which is it "rightly dividing" or "wrongly splicing?" (Rhetorical) Dividing or separating is not "splicing"--meaning you are wrong from the get-go. Oh, and your opinion doesn't actually matter or count.

Jay Ross · 2026-07-31T16:26:42-0500

ScottA said:
It takes so little to spot your error!

Which is it "rightly dividing" or "wrongly splicing?" (Rhetorical) Dividing or separating is not "splicing"--meaning you are wrong from the get-go. Oh, and your opinion doesn't actually matter or count.

And, sadly, that is your opinion based on your particular bias and theological understanding, for you alone.

Others may form a very different view based upon what other people may post.

Shalom

Beware Of The Crowd--The Many!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads