Reviving Biblical Christianity (The Way) Part 2

[IndianaRob]

I prefer the attitude of this david whose heart was AFTER GOD .
And yeah i know our weapons are not carnal but spiritual .
But when david saw that giant defying God
David was not gonna have it . Nor will i .
And much like david , I KNOW without GOD it would not be possible .
BUT WITH HIM , all things are possible unto He who believes .
We should expose all false doctrines and all false leaders who lead this people astray .
But IF that sounds a little too judgmental too you , Or maybe it DONT , but in case it does
READ what GOD told a church . YE ALLOW that f alse prophetess to t each and to seduce my people .
AND GOD was gonna have NONE of that . NOR WILL I . I am gonna expose it all my friend .
AND NOT because i THINK i am any better than any man . But because WHAT DISHONORS GOD
is abomination in my sight , AS it is in HIS own site .
AND IF WE truly had the love of GOD we would have LOOKED out for the good of this people and had warned
and even corrected them and have not allowed sin upon them .

What actually slew Goliath? Was it David's skill with a sling, or was it God working through David as His instrument because David trusted Him for the victory?

David was willing, and God gave the victory. Same for us—God slays the giants, but the believer must be willing to let the sin go. Our part isn't strength; it's surrender.

 

[bdavidc]

Here is AI on entering the promised land:

"The journey of the Children of Israel into the Promised Land is a major theological metaphor in Wesleyan-Arminian theology for entire sanctification (also called Christian perfection or the second work of grace). [1, 2]
Here is how the historical journey maps to the spiritual experience of a believer.

The Theological Analogy

• • Egypt (Slavery): Represents a person's life before salvation, enslaved to the guilt and power of sin. [1]
  • The Red Sea (Justification/Exodus): Represents the initial conversion or born-again experience, where a believer is delivered from the guilt of sin and enters the family of God. [1, 2]
  • The Wilderness (The Carnal State): Represents a period of wandering, spiritual instability, and internal conflict, characterized by a mix of faith and rebellion (the "old man" vs. the "new man").
  • The Jordan River (Entire Sanctification): Represents a second, distinct work of grace where the believer completely surrenders to God, dying to self. [1]
  • The Promised Land (Canaan): Represents the life of entire sanctification—not a place of final heaven without conflict, but a state of rest, spiritual maturity, and victory over indwelling sin. [1, 2]

Key Parallels Between Canaan and Entire Sanctification

• • A Second Crisis: Crossing the Red Sea was the first crisis; crossing the Jordan River was a second, separate crisis required to enter the land. Entire sanctification is viewed similarly as a second definite work of grace after justification. [1, 2]
  • A Gift Received by Faith: The Israelites did not earn Canaan; they had to walk into the parted waters of the Jordan by faith. Entire sanctification is received instantly by faith, not achieved gradually by human effort. [1, 2, 3]
  • Deliverance from Internal Enemies: In the wilderness, Israel's biggest problem was their own murmuring and unbelief. Entering the Promised Land represents the cleansing of the inherited sin nature (carnality). [1]
  • Not the End of Warfare: Canaan was full of battles (Jericho, Ai, etc.). Entire sanctification does not mean freedom from temptation, mistakes, or spiritual warfare; it means having a heart fully unified and empowered by the Holy Spirit to fight those battles victoriously. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

---

The question is not whether someone can build an impressive analogy from Israel’s journey. The question is whether God Himself gives that interpretation.

Scripture never says Egypt represents the unconverted life, the Red Sea represents justification, the wilderness represents a carnal Christian state, Jordan represents a second work of grace, or Canaan represents entire sanctification. Those meanings have been assigned to the text.

Hebrews gives the inspired meaning plainly. Israel failed to enter because of unbelief, and believers enter God’s rest through faith:

“For we which have believed do enter into rest” (Hebrews 4:3).

Jordan is never called a second work of grace. Canaan cannot represent deliverance from indwelling sin, because Israel continued to sin after entering it. Achan sinned at Jericho, the nation repeatedly rebelled in Judges, and idolatry continued throughout Israel’s history. They entered a land filled with enemies, temptation, failure, discipline, and war.

The Bible does teach sanctification, growth, self-denial, and holiness. But it does not teach them through this invented chain of symbols. Sanctification is the work of God in everyone He has saved:

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

An analogy may sound spiritual and still go beyond what is written. AI can repeat a theological framework, but it cannot turn that framework into the meaning of Scripture.

 

[Hepzibah]

The question is not whether someone can build an impressive analogy from Israel’s journey. The question is whether God Himself gives that interpretation.

Scripture never says Egypt represents the unconverted life, the Red Sea represents justification, the wilderness represents a carnal Christian state, Jordan represents a second work of grace, or Canaan represents entire sanctification. Those meanings have been assigned to the text.

Hebrews gives the inspired meaning plainly. Israel failed to enter because of unbelief, and believers enter God’s rest through faith:

“For we which have believed do enter into rest” (Hebrews 4:3).

Jordan is never called a second work of grace. Canaan cannot represent deliverance from indwelling sin, because Israel continued to sin after entering it. Achan sinned at Jericho, the nation repeatedly rebelled in Judges, and idolatry continued throughout Israel’s history. They entered a land filled with enemies, temptation, failure, discipline, and war.

The Bible does teach sanctification, growth, self-denial, and holiness. But it does not teach them through this invented chain of symbols. Sanctification is the work of God in everyone He has saved:

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

An analogy mayv said, sound spiritual and still go beyond what is written. AI can repeat a theological framework, but it cannot turn that framework into the meaning of Scripture.

The deeper spiritual interpretation can only be understood by those who are on it or have been through it. Flesh v spirit. Plus the fact that followers of Christ who were disciples of the apostles, and those coming after, backed the spiritual process calling it via Triplex. As I have said, that interpretation coming to the west, had lost some of its teachings.

As time has gone by, the teaching has been denied and persecuted until it barely exists today, but it has been common teaching in times past.

St Maximus the Confessor is the clearest teacher of it.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yes, those events were examples for us, but Scripture itself tells us what the examples mean. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul applies them as warnings against lust, idolatry, fornication, tempting Christ, and murmuring. He does not turn the wilderness journey into a process of dying to self until believers become qualified to enter the kingdom.

The phrase “circumcise again the children of Israel the second time” in Joshua 5 refers to circumcising the nation again, not circumcising the same individuals twice. The text immediately explains that those born in the wilderness had never been circumcised.

A historical event may have spiritual application, but the application must come from Scripture, not from details being turned into an allegory that the text never gives.

I can't keep up here very well today but I'll try to answer this:

The Word made flesh (Jesus)..... speaks to us in parables and without a parable spake He not to them. That is an important key to understanding the word. That whole saga of the Israelites leaving Egypt, traversing through the wilderness and entering/possessing the Promised Land is a parable for us, the church, though it was literal for them. (I'm even convinced the bible is so chock full of parables (allegories/similitudes/ figures) that no one person could ever know them all in their lifetime. )


Hos 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Gal 4:23-25
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Heb 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Rom 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Heb 9:6-9
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Col 2: 16-17
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 8:4-5
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

 

[bdavidc]

The deeper spiritual interpretation can only be understood by those who are on it or have been through it. Flesh v spirit. Plus the fact that followers of Christ who were disciples of the apostles, and those coming after, backed the spiritual process calling it via Triplex. As I have said, that interpretation coming to the west, had lost some of its teachings.

As time has gone by, the teaching has been denied and persecuted until it barely exists today, but it has been common teaching in times past.

St Maximus the Confessor is the clearest teacher of it.

You have not answered the biblical objection. You have appealed to private spiritual experience, unnamed followers of the apostles, a historical teaching called “Triplex,” and Maximus the Confessor. None of those is Scripture, and none of them can establish the meaning of Scripture.

Saying that this interpretation can only be understood by people who have “been through it” makes the teaching impossible to test. Anyone who disagrees can simply be dismissed as too fleshly or spiritually inexperienced. That is not how biblical truth works. God commands believers to examine teachings by His revealed Word:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

The Bereans were called noble because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They did not accept an interpretation because someone claimed deeper spiritual insight or traced it to respected teachers of the past.

“Flesh versus spirit” does not give anyone permission to assign meanings to Egypt, the Red Sea, the wilderness, Jordan, and Canaan that God never assigned. Paul warned us “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). The question remains: Where does Scripture say that Jordan represents a second work of grace or that Canaan represents entire sanctification?

Hebrews 3 and 4 already gives the inspired spiritual application of Israel’s failure. They did not enter because of unbelief, and the warning is for us not to harden our hearts. “For we which have believed do enter into rest” (Hebrews 4:3). That interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit through Scripture. Your additional symbolic system comes from somewhere else.

Maximus the Confessor is not the final authority. Neither are ancient teachers, persecuted movements, forgotten traditions, or personal experiences. Even an apostle or an angel would be rejected if the message contradicted the revealed gospel:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

A teaching does not become true because it is old, mystical, persecuted, or understood by only a spiritual few. It is true only when it agrees with what God has written. You still have not shown this interpretation from Scripture.

 

[Lizbeth]

Brother, this teaching is meant for those who are not 'resting on their laurels' and have been convicted by the Spirit that their Christian walk is not the genuuine one - it is based on taking texts out of context which the church encourages.

It is very common to be mislead in the early stages of our spiritual jouney and the truth starts to break through, often at a crisis and none of us know what we have to face in the future.

There are just too many since the church began who witness to this truth, many went on to be killed for speaking of it.

We must see the scriptures through spiritual eyes not eyes of the flesh.

Sister I agree in principle with your post.....but I think it might be too harsh to say our Christian walk is not genuine....I consider it to be a walk with mixture, sometimes it's God, and other times it's us. There are times for sure when the Lord is working through the believer by His Spirit in a genuine and effective way, even though not "perfected" yet (if that's the right way to say it). While at other times the same believer can be in the flesh, not in spirit in a way that is perceived, just doing their best. God is blessing both our going out and our coming in. Like children learning to walk, we are not consistent or not walking in perfect rhythm perhaps (or something like that) until/unless in a mature state.

 

[Lizbeth]

You have not answered the biblical objection. You have appealed to private spiritual experience, unnamed followers of the apostles, a historical teaching called “Triplex,” and Maximus the Confessor. None of those is Scripture, and none of them can establish the meaning of Scripture.

Saying that this interpretation can only be understood by people who have “been through it” makes the teaching impossible to test. Anyone who disagrees can simply be dismissed as too fleshly or spiritually inexperienced. That is not how biblical truth works. God commands believers to examine teachings by His revealed Word:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

The Bereans were called noble because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They did not accept an interpretation because someone claimed deeper spiritual insight or traced it to respected teachers of the past.

“Flesh versus spirit” does not give anyone permission to assign meanings to Egypt, the Red Sea, the wilderness, Jordan, and Canaan that God never assigned. Paul warned us “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). The question remains: Where does Scripture say that Jordan represents a second work of grace or that Canaan represents entire sanctification?

Hebrews 3 and 4 already gives the inspired spiritual application of Israel’s failure. They did not enter because of unbelief, and the warning is for us not to harden our hearts. “For we which have believed do enter into rest” (Hebrews 4:3). That interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit through Scripture. Your additional symbolic system comes from somewhere else.

Maximus the Confessor is not the final authority. Neither are ancient teachers, persecuted movements, forgotten traditions, or personal experiences. Even an apostle or an angel would be rejected if the message contradicted the revealed gospel:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

A teaching does not become true because it is old, mystical, persecuted, or understood by only a spiritual few. It is true only when it agrees with what God has written. You still have not shown this interpretation from Scripture.

If I may just interject....we are thinking too highly of ourselves if we think it's possible to understand all scripture by simply reading/studying it. Our growth is organic...a living phenomenon......understanding generally tends to go hand in hand with actual spiritual growth I believe.......and it takes the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scriptures to our understanding. We all have things in the bible we are simply blind and deaf to until/unless the Holy Spirit illuminates them to our understanding when He gives us the eyes to see and ears to hear them.

And since the bible says to let everything be established on the strength of two or three witnesses (and as we are all called to be witnesses)....we shouldn't dismiss the value of witnesses. Just be careful of course to weigh what they are saying, while humbly realizing that there are things we may not be able to understand until we grow further.