How does God lead?

[Dave L]

I don't doubt scripture, nor have I given you any reason to say such a thing. I just don't make it my god, as you are doing, choosing the scriptures first over the Spirit who inspired them.

But this is about me, it's about you preaching that the scriptures are above God rather than God above the scriptures. God made the scriptures, not the other way around. And if God made the scriptures and He also makes other forms of revelation which He has said He would - you have no business rejecting one while choosing the other. This you do against God and the very scriptures you have idolized.

I'll stick with scripture.

 

[ScottA]

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) (KJV 1900)

That is only part of what the scriptures say, and for you to pick it out and have no regard for the rest is a disservice to God and His Word. The scriptures also say, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God", and that "the spirit of God inspired men to write." But it does not say (as you do) that the written word is our God, or in the beginning was the [written] word. That's just wrong.

 

[ScottA]

I'll stick with scripture.

The pot, instead of the Potter (whom is God). Excellent. Good luck with that!

 

[Dave L]

The pot, instead of the Potter (whom is God). Excellent. Good luck with that!

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave L]

The pot, instead of the Potter (whom is God). Excellent. Good luck with that!

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:11–13) (KJV 1900)

 

[1stCenturyLady]

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) (KJV 1900)

You are reading this verse wrong. It is not talking about the Bible (Logos), but the spoken word (Rhema) from God. That takes one of the "hearing" gifts you don't believe in.

 

[Dave L]

You are reading this verse wrong. It is not talking about the Bible (Logos), but the spoken word (Rhema) from God. That takes one of the "hearing" gifts you don't believe in.

But without the bible, you don't have the word of God to speak.

 

[ScottA]

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) (KJV 1900)

So...since that says "speak"...how is it that you have come to believe and preach it as if it said "write?"

 

[Dave L]

So...since that says "speak"...how is it that you have come to believe and preach it as if it said "write?"

The source material is from the bible that we preach.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

But without the bible, you don't have the word of God to speak.

I'm just talking about that verse you like to use. I know you don't take any value to learning Semitic writing styles and rules, let alone Greek which hinders your understanding. You make me think of the two guys in the pub discussing the meaning of one of Lord Byron's poems.


Lord Byron, romantic poet of the early 1800’s, walked into a pub and sat down at a table by the fire. Sitting at the table next to him he overheard the heated conversation of two gentlemen discussing the meaning of a poem – one written by the poet himself. He listened with amusement as they debated over the meaning of the poem, both completely missing the point. Finally, he chimed in with the true meaning of the poem, introducing himself as the author. Even so they stood their ground preferring their own interpretations, and both argued with Lord Byron over the meaning of the poem.

 

[Dave L]

I'm just talking about that verse you like to use. I know you don't take any value to learning Semitic writing styles and rules, let alone Greek which hinders your understanding. You make me think of the two guys in the pub discussing the meaning of one of Lord Byron's poems.


Lord Byron, romantic poet of the early 1800’s, walked into a pub and sat down at a table by the fire. Sitting at the table next to him he overheard the heated conversation of two gentlemen discussing the meaning of a poem – one written by the poet himself. He listened with amusement as they debated over the meaning of the poem, both completely missing the point. Finally, he chimed in with the true meaning of the poem, introducing himself as the author. Even so they stood their ground preferring their own interpretations, and both argued with Lord Byron over the meaning of the poem.

But the letter kills the meaning of a passage, no matter how much of the original language a person knows (ask the pharisees). But the Spirit gives life. How many of the prophets knew what they were saying or writing about? Jesus tells us what he meant when he had them write it.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

But the letter kills the meaning of a passage, no matter how much of the original language a person knows (ask the pharisees). But the Spirit gives life. How many of the prophets knew what they were saying or writing about? Jesus tells us what he meant when he had them write it.

Don't you think Paul knew what he meant when he used the word, rhema, and not logos? After all, he wrote 1 Corinthians 12.

 

[Dave L]

Don't you think Paul knew what he meant when he used the word, rhema, and not logos? After all, he wrote 1 Corinthians 12.

How do you know you understand Paul?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

How do you know you understand Paul?

By the meaning of the words he chooses to write his meaning. Also knowing he was a Hebrew and wrote in Semitic writing styles, such as parallelisms and contrasts. For instance,

Contrasts
1 John 1 and 3 are both written in contrasts. Chapter 1 is light vs. darkness; and chapter 3 is Jesus vs. the devil. Every other thought is a contrast, whereas a Greek style would bunch all of one in one paragraph, and all of the other in another separate paragraph, not back and forth, back and forth. This is how we know that verses 6, 8 and 10 are NOT about Christians, but are about the Gnostic teachings John wrote about in chapter 4:1-3. They did not believe their sins of the flesh were sins at all, thus they said, they were without sin. But the very next verse shows how to become a Christian (1 John 1:9), light.

Parallelisms (1)

1 Corinthians 1: 6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus the revelation is equated to the day. You make the mistake of believing the writing about the day of the Lord, is the same as the day of the Lord, so wrongly dismiss the gifts of the Spirit from 7a. This is also from a lack of knowledge of covenant rules. Nothing in a covenant ends until the covenant, itself ends, and the gifts are part of our covenant. But like everything they are based on faith.

Parallelisms (2)
Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

Thus the true meaning of God's grace is the power of God coming upon us. This is how we are dead to sin, whereas those who believe grace is unmerited favor believe God's grace covers our sins while we keep committing them. IOW powerless. Not!

Not discerning what the author's mean from what they said, is the reason for false teachings from the Reformation. This is especially true in western thought, vs. middle eastern thought.

"My people perish for lack of knowledge."

 

[Dave L]

By the meaning of the words he chooses to write his meaning. Also knowing he was a Hebrew and wrote in Semitic writing styles, such as parallelisms and contrasts. For instance,

Contrasts
1 John 1 and 3 are both written in contrasts. Chapter 1 is light vs. darkness; and chapter 3 is Jesus vs. the devil. Every other thought is a contrast, whereas a Greek style would bunch all of one in one paragraph, and all of the other in another separate paragraph, not back and forth, back and forth. This is how we know that verses 6, 8 and 10 are NOT about Christians, but are about the Gnostic teachings John wrote about in chapter 4:1-3. They did not believe their sins of the flesh were sins at all, thus they said, they were without sin. But the very next verse shows how to become a Christian (1 John 1:9), light.

Parallelisms (1)

1 Corinthians 1: 6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus the revelation is equated to the day. You make the mistake of believing the writing about the day of the Lord, is the same as the day of the Lord, so wrongly dismiss the gifts of the Spirit from 7a. This is also from a lack of knowledge of covenant rules. Nothing in a covenant ends until the covenant, itself ends, and the gifts are part of our covenant. But like everything they are based on faith.

Parallelisms (2)
Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

Thus the true meaning of God's grace is the power of God coming upon us. This is how we are dead to sin, whereas those who believe grace is unmerited favor believe God's grace covers our sins while we keep committing them. IOW powerless. Not!

Not discerning what the author's mean from what they said, is the reason for false teachings from the Reformation. This is especially true in western thought, vs. middle eastern thought.

"My people perish for lack of knowledge."

This is impressive but most of our theology today stems from the Reformation.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

This is impressive but most of our theology today stems from the Reformation.

There has since been a reformation of the Reformation. The letter to Sardis in Revelation 3 is about the age of the Reformation - the dead church. Philadelphia, the next church age was the age that started keeping the actual Word of God and led to holiness. We are now in the lukewarm age of Laodecia that is affecting many.

 

[Dave L]

There has since been a reformation of the Reformation. The letter to Sardis in Revelation 3 is about the age of the Reformation - the dead church. Philadelphia, the next church age was the age that started keeping the actual Word of God.

This is pure conjecture. The 7 churches are not church ages, they are 7 churches that existed in the first century.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

This is pure conjecture. The 7 churches are not church ages, they are 7 churches that existed in the first century.

The Book of Revelation is full of PROPHECIES. That includes the letters to the seven churches. But I can see why you wouldn't want to know that and heed its warnings - unless you're smart.

 

[Dave L]

The Book of Revelation is full of PROPHECIES. That includes the letters to the seven churches. But I can see why you wouldn't want to know that.

You go beyond scripture, adding to Revelation if you say the 7 churches are 7 church ages.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

You go beyond scripture, adding to Revelation if you say the 7 churches are 7 church ages.

They are in order and accurately describe what happened in church history.