Why? Because

[R7-12]

Fortigurn,

I will begin with your question at the end of your post.

By the way, what do you make of Romans 10:14-17?

It speaks of hearing being a prerequisite to believing, “for how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (v. 14b).

They received the word through teaching or preaching. Copies of Scripture in that day were very rare and very costly as I'm sure you know.

It then speaks of faith which follows hearing (v. 17). It's axiomatic isn't it? One must first hear the truth before it is possible to believe and then faith is manifested in them as they begin to live by what they believe. Faith comes by the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5), which is God's Spirit. Therefore, hearing and believing is not enough as it is written, but faith demonstrated by how one lives, thinks and speaks (trusting God explicitly) is required for this is how we are saved - by the grace of God through faith.

This shows that it doesn't happen automatically to all people upon hearing or reading the word of God, and that is precisely my question — why is it many read the Bible but many also reject it? If truth and repentance and conversion all come from just reading or hearing the word and not because the Holy Spirit has opened their minds, then why don't all men understand equally, why the significant extremes in opinion concerning the same written or spoken word?

What is quite telling about this sequence in Romans 10 are verses 20-21,

But Isaiah is very bold and says: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” 21But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.”

Israel had the gospel preached to them, they heard the word of God and in many cases directly from the agents of God such as the Angel of Yahovah, but they never got it did they? They never understood it enough to obey. Why not?

Why and how was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet they found Him?

I asked,

If people are drawn or guided and converted through the reading of words alone, without the power or spirit of God involved, then tell me how is the word of God alive? How is it able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? What is it's power that is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow”? If not the spirit of God?

The text was,

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12, NKJV).

Your response was,

It's the Word of God, which means it is both alive and powerful. See 1 Peter 1:22-25, which states explicitly that we are born again by the Word preached to us (not by the Holy Spirit).

Your reply merely repeats what I had asked and already quoted from Scripture but the question itself is not answered.

The text you give in your response, 1 Peter 1:22-25, speaks of being born anew by the living and enduring word of God, but this just takes us back to my initial question.

How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us? How can the printed or spoken words of the gospel of God be alive to those who hear and/or read it?

How is it some have ears to hear and eyes to see and thus understand and be converted but many who have eyes and ears do not?

R7-12

[Jbuza]

BW, you haven't provided any passages which say men cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but you haven't addressed the verses I've provided which demnonstrate that men can.

I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

The examples you provide are not insulated from the rest of scripture. Just because it doesn't say in those passages what you'd require it to say in order to believe doesn't mean that the 25+ verses that evidence that we are indwelt by the holy spirit, thus directing to an extent our behavior, and the verses that indicate that man cannot know anyting about God except by the Spirit of God.

You cannot take one peice of scripture and prove a doctrine that is contrary to other scripture, sorry that isn't how it works.

[Jbuza]

AS I recall the issue started out because I made the claim that I could know if a doctrine is false because I have the Holy Spirit within myself, and Fortigurn responded to the effect that we do not need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.


I actually wanted to respond to a comment that Fortigurn has made at least once, <paraphrase>"it would help if you can show me scripture that indicates that we can interpret the scripture only by the Holy spirit"

Romans 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

1 Conrinthians

2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

[B. W.]

AS I recall the issue started out because I made the claim that I could know if a doctrine is false because I have the Holy Spirit within myself, and Fortigurn responded to the effect that we do not need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.

I actually wanted to respond to a comment that Fortigurn has made at least once, <paraphrase>"it would help if you can show me scripture that indicates that we can interpret the scripture only by the Holy spirit"

Romans 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

1 Conrinthians

2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

To clarify my position - we need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.

Jbuzza has provided scripture proof of this as well as others.

The problem as I see it, is that in all due respect, Fortigurn, likes to swat at gnats and instead swallows a camel - Matthew 23:24.

This illustrates the problem of man alone interpreting the scriptures without the guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Next and foremost is the fact that Christadelphians do not believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit but rather hold the view that the Holy Spirit is some type of divine force of power and not the third person, or witness, of the Trinity.

Therefore, they cannot hold the view that the Holy Spirit, as traditional biblical Christianity teaches, is deity, and thus must base their concepts of faith in some other form of doctrine. This — IMHO — is where the confusion arises.

I will admit that Fortigurn is a prime example of why one needs God the Holy Spirit to teach, convict, convince, convert, inspire, etc, us and not rely on human understanding alone to interpret the things of God. The Holy Spirit, guides our understanding and not the other way around.

The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and makes one aware of his or her need for Christ in various manners, providence, circumstances, divine appointments such as the eunuchs, and most often through the spoken or written word (the Bible).

“Faith comes by Hearing, and Hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:17 NKJV

What faith in context with Romans 10:17 is Paul referring too?

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” NKJV

Fortigurn appears to place his salvation solely on Human works and not God's works and thus seems to interpret the bible in the same manner.

John 3:34 “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure…” NKJV

John3:34 “He was sent by God and He speaks God's Word. God gives Him all of His Spirit.” NLT

From what we can learn from John the Baptist here and how it applies for us today — God gives all of His Spirit to whom He sends and it is God's Spirit that:

John16:7-8 “But it is actually best for you that I go away, because if I don't, the Counselor won't come. If I do go away, he will come because I will send him to you. And when He comes, He will convince the world of its sin, and of God's righteousness, and of the coming judgment.” NLT

Notice that the Holy Spirit is described as a He and not an It.
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

Perhaps the problem here is that the discussion involves more than one concept that is being argued.

One says the Spirit of God is not required to understand the Bible.

...it is possible to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

That is a very blanket statement indeed.

The other says that the Spirit of God leads sinners to truly understand the crucial aspects of the gospel necessary for salvation.

I believe understanding comes from the Holy Spirit for the unbeliever whom he does not indwell.

That is more specific.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the discussion consists of two somewhat distinct or disconnected arguments that will likely never meet and find resolution, unless more accurate details are given for each position.

I've given several instances in which people read their Bibles and understood them, or in which they were led to understand them not by the Holy Spirit but by men.

I don't see any examples of instances in which people found themselves unable to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

I will begin with your question at the end of your post.

By the way, what do you make of Romans 10:14-17?

It speaks of hearing being a prerequisite to believing, “for how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (v. 14b).

They received the word through teaching or preaching. Copies of Scripture in that day were very rare and very costly as I'm sure you know.

Within the Jewish community there was not only almost 100% literacy, but the Scriptures were freely available (Acts 17:11).

Within the Gentile community, it wasn't a matter of them reading the Bible, it was a matter of them being preached to, as you rightly say. They had to hear of Christ before they could believe on him, and how would they hear? By men preaching to them (not by the Holy Spirit).

It then speaks of faith which follows hearing (v. 17). It's axiomatic isn't it? One must first hear the truth before it is possible to believe and then faith is manifested in them as they begin to live by what they believe.

Yes.

Faith comes by the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5), which is God's Spirit.

Whoa, now you've made a huge leap. That passage does not say that faith comes by the power of God, and the passage in Romans 10 says very clearly that faith comes from hearing the preaching of the gospel message:

Romans 10:
17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.

It baffles me that this concept is so offensive to some here.

Therefore, hearing and believing is not enough as it is written, but faith demonstrated by how one lives, thinks and speaks (trusting God explicitly) is required for this is how we are saved - by the grace of God through faith.

Yes, faith demonstrated by how one lives is necessary for salvation. But faith comes by hearing the preached word of Christ (the gospel), or by reading the Bible.

This shows that it doesn't happen automatically to all people upon hearing or reading the word of God, and that is precisely my question — why is it many read the Bible but many also reject it? If truth and repentance and conversion all come from just reading or hearing the word and not because the Holy Spirit has opened their minds, then why don't all men understand equally, why the significant extremes in opinion concerning the same written or spoken word?

Because some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding. The Ethiopian eunuch didn't understand what he was reading, and how was that solved? By sending him a preacher (Romans 10 again, you see), not by guiding him directly with the Holy Spirit.

What is quite telling about this sequence in Romans 10 are verses 20-21,

But Isaiah is very bold and says: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” 21But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.”

Israel had the gospel preached to them, they heard the word of God and in many cases directly from the agents of God such as the Angel of Yahovah, but they never got it did they? They never understood it enough to obey. Why not?

That's an inaccurate statement, because many of them did understand it, and did obey.

Why and how was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet they found Him?

Isaiah is speaking of the Gentiles, who found God when He was preached to them (see the context, which is the earlier part of Romans 10).

Your response was,

It's the Word of God, which means it is both alive and powerful. See 1 Peter 1:22-25, which states explicitly that we are born again by the Word preached to us (not by the Holy Spirit).

Your reply merely repeats what I had asked and already quoted from Scripture but the question itself is not answered.

The question is answered. The answer is that it is God's Word, which lasts forever and gives life when it is taken into our hearts and obeyed. It has a power which no other word has.

The text you give in your response, 1 Peter 1:22-25, speaks of being born anew by the living and enduring word of God, but this just takes us back to my initial question.

How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us? How can the printed or spoken words of the gospel of God be alive to those who hear and/or read it?

I believe you're committing the fallacy of equivocation by introducing a usage of 'living' which is other than the usage in this passage.

How is it some have ears to hear and eyes to see and thus understand and be converted but many who have eyes and ears do not?

Because some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding.

I know it feels a lot easier to just throw the whole issue into Calvin's lap and follow whatever he said about it, but Calvin is not Scripture.

[Fortigurn]

BW, you haven't provided any passages which say men cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but you haven't addressed the verses I've provided which demnonstrate that men can.

I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

The examples you provide are not insulated from the rest of scripture. Just because it doesn't say in those passages what you'd require it to say in order to believe doesn't mean that the 25+ verses that evidence that we are indwelt by the holy spirit, thus directing to an extent our behavior, and the verses that indicate that man cannot know anyting about God except by the Spirit of God.

You cannot take one peice of scripture and prove a doctrine that is contrary to other scripture, sorry that isn't how it works.

I am not doing any such thing. I have been quoting directly from the specific passage of Scripture which explicitly describe:

• The process by which people develop faith in Christ (hearing the Word of God preached to them)
• The process by which they come to an understanding of the Bible (personal reading, or personal instruction by a human)

I have presented specific passages which address these issues explicitly and clearly.

In return, I have received lots of passages about the Spirit of God (in various forms), indwelling and guiding us (in various ways), and an argument inferred from these passages which states that we cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit (which not only contradicts the passages I quoted, but is not the teaching of any of the passages you quoted).

Can you see the difference between an argument you present which you have inferred from passages which do not address the actual subject explicitly, and an argument I present from passages which address the actual subject explicitly?

[Fortigurn]

Notice that the Holy Spirit is described as a He and not an It.

In certain English translations (not in the Greek or Hebrew).

[Fortigurn]

AS I recall the issue started out because I made the claim that I could know if a doctrine is false because I have the Holy Spirit within myself, and Fortigurn responded to the effect that we do not need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.


I actually wanted to respond to a comment that Fortigurn has made at least once, <paraphrase>"it would help if you can show me scripture that indicates that we can interpret the scripture only by the Holy spirit"

Romans 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

1 Conrinthians

2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

The first passage is a hyperbolic passage speaking of the naturally rebellious tendency of man (it cannot be taken literally, because it is far from literally true). It does not say that no one can understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

The second passage says that no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. I agree, and I would like to point out that the Word of God is in fact also the Spirit of God, which I have said before.

I would also like to point out that it was the apostles who received the Holy Spirit of God in order to interpret and explain the Bible by inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:12-13), something which is not available to us today.

Furthermore, if everyone received the Holy Spirit of God in order to interpret and explain the Bible by inspiration, as you are arguing, then there would have been no need for teachers in the first place, and certainly no need for them now.

The fact is that there are thousands of Christians who believe that they are being guided into 'all truth' by the Holy Spirit, and they believe doctrines which are totally contradictory.

They anathematize and damn each other daily, and insist that they are correct whilst other allegedly 'Spirit filled' Christians are wrong - from the Catholics to the Evangelicals, the Charismatics to the Lutherans, the Pentecostals to the Presbyterians.

Here's one Christian site among others which condemns the whole idea (actually they condemn a lot of people, including Christadelphians).

But at least they are honest when they profess 'Sola Scriptura'.

[R7-12]

Fortigurn,

I wrote,

Faith comes by the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5), which is God's Spirit.

Fortigurn's response,

Whoa, now you've made a huge leap. That passage does not say that faith comes by the power of God, and the passage in Romans 10 says very clearly that faith comes from hearing the preaching of the gospel message:

Here's the text,

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

Paul's speech and preaching were in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that their faith should be in the power of God not in words thought out by the wisdom men for the purpose of persuading the hearers. Does not the demonstration of the power of God generate faith in the witnesses? The point however, is that the power of God is manifest by His spirit. How else does God demonstrate His power but by and through His Spirit?

I stated,

This shows that it doesn't happen automatically to all people upon hearing or reading the word of God, and that is precisely my question — why is it many read the Bible but many also reject it? If truth and repentance and conversion all come from just reading or hearing the word and not because the Holy Spirit has opened their minds, then why don't all men understand equally, why the significant extremes in opinion concerning the same written or spoken word?

Your response,

Because some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding. The Ethiopian eunuch didn't understand what he was reading, and how was that solved? By sending him a preacher (Romans 10 again, you see), not by guiding him directly with the Holy Spirit.

Let me get this straight. You assert the reason some understand and others don't, and the reason for the extreme differences in understanding the same written word, is that, some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding.?

I said,

Israel had the gospel preached to them, they heard the word of God and in many cases directly from the agents of God such as the Angel of Yahovah, but they never got it did they? They never understood it enough to obey. Why not?

You responded,

That's an inaccurate statement, because many of them did understand it, and did obey.

The Israelites who were led out of Egypt did not obey (Josh. 5:6). God tested Israel through other nations and Israel chose to serve other gods (Judges 3:1-7). The entire house of Israel will serve the only true God but have not and do not because they serve idols and foreign gods (Eze. 20:39ff). Israel has transgressed the law and do not obey God's voice (Dan. 9:11).

Romans 9:27 speaks of Isaiah crying out concerning Israel,

Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

If only the remnant will be saved then many did not believe.

Romans 9:31-33 says,

but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

With the exception of the faithful prophets and patriarchs, Israel neither believed nor obeyed God (Rom. 10:1).

But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.” (Romans 10:21, NKJV).

Clearly Israel was disobedient and contrary to God's word and thus could not be considered "beleivers."

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8Just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.” (Rom. 11:7)

Israeal did not obtain righteousness which is by faith because they were blind. How then were they blinded and how is it that God can casue one to see?

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25)

And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
10But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12“so that

'Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.' ”

13And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? (Mark 4:9-13, NKJV)

This is but a short list. Many more texts can be cited showing that Israel the nation never obeyed God and that the mysteries of God require revelation from God in order to be understood correctly. So the point isn't whether some believed because we know some did, rather the point is the vast majority of Israel both then and now do not. Is it your position that this is so because they weren't humble enough and did not have a level of understanding great enough to see and hear and be converted?

Concerning Romans 10:20 I asked,

Why and how was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet they found Him?

Your response,

Isaiah is speaking of the Gentiles, who found God when He was preached to them (see the context, which is the earlier part of Romans 10).

This is a non-answer. You have not directly addressed the point of the question. The question is not who but why and how was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet they found Him?

Regarding Heb. 4:12, I initially asked,

If people are drawn or guided and converted through the reading of words alone, without the power or spirit of God involved, then tell me how is the word of God alive? How is it able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? What is it's power that is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow”? If not the spirit of God?

Your initial reply was,

It's the Word of God, which means it is both alive and powerful. See 1 Peter 1:22-25, which states explicitly that we are born again by the Word preached to us (not by the Holy Spirit).

My response to this was,

Your reply merely repeats what I had asked and already quoted from Scripture but the question itself is not answered.

To which you replied,

The question is answered. The answer is that it is God's Word, which lasts forever and gives life when it is taken into our hearts and obeyed. It has a power which no other word has.

As I see this as another example of avoiding the point of the question.
The text is Hebrews 4:12 and this is what it says,

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (NKJV)

The fact that this is God's word is understood. The fact that it will last forever is understood. However, it does not give life to us if it is “taken into our hearts and obeyed”, although I'm not saying we mustn't do that, we are given life by the grace of God through faith because God has judged us righteous through Christ's blood and obedient to His word. But that is another matter and not what I was asking.

Also, in your answer you state concerning the word of God,

It has a power which no other word has.

If the power lies in the words themselves and not in the fact that the power behind them is the spirit of God working upon those who are called, then I can only conclude that must see the word of God from the perspective of Mysticism. This is not unlike the views of various Sacred Names groups, Kabbalism, and Magic regarding the alleged inherent power within specific words themselves. If the power behind the word of God is not the spirit of God, then what is the source of the power in the word of God and by what means does it impart understanding leading to repentance?

I will restate the question. What is the power of the written word that it is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow”? If not the spirit of God?

BTW, accepting that the power of the written word lies with the spirit of God does not in any way give ground to the doctrine of the Trinity — just in case that is where you assumed I was going with this.

The text you give in your response, 1 Peter 1:22-25, speaks of being born anew by the living and enduring word of God, but this just takes us back to my initial question.

How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us? How can the printed or spoken words of the gospel of God be alive to those who hear and/or read it?

Your response,

I believe you're committing the fallacy of equivocation by introducing a usage of 'living' which is other than the usage in this passage.

The text is,

having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

It says the word of God “lives and abides forever”
I asked “How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us?”

In my opinion I've not committed “the fallacy of equivocation by introducing a usage of 'living' which is other than the usage in this passage.” I believe the words “the word of God which lives” are understood to carry the same meaning as “the living word.”

If the text says we are born again through the word of God which lives and abides forever, then it is not an error to conclude that the word of God is living. Thus the question, “How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us?”
I'm not asking how it makes us alive but what is the nature of the life that makes it a living book?

The last question you addressed was,

How is it some have ears to hear and eyes to see and thus understand and be converted but many who have eyes and ears do not?

Your response was the same as above,

Because some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding.

Given your opinion on the matter, one can only conclude that hearing, understanding and being led to conversion depends on the individual humility of the person and his or her particular level of understanding. Is this your position?

Your final comment was,

I know it feels a lot easier to just throw the whole issue into Calvin's lap and follow whatever he said about it, but Calvin is not Scripture.

It may be true that you may know that it feels easier to “just throw the whole issue into Calvin's lap and follow whatever he said about it,” but the fact is you have made an erroneous assumption concerning my position. You see, I'm not a Calvinist, I don't subscribe to his brand of theology, I've never appealed to any of his writings, I've not mentioned him on this forum or any other, and I'm not a Protestant.

R7-12

[Jbuza]

Within the Jewish community there was not only almost 100% literacy, but the Scriptures were freely available (Acts 17:11).

Within the Gentile community, it wasn't a matter of them reading the Bible, it was a matter of them being preached to, as you rightly say. They had to hear of Christ before they could believe on him, and how would they hear? By men preaching to them (not by the Holy Spirit).

Good point Fortigurn! Have you now understood? I didn't think of that, so are you saying that those people that had it from tradition and tried to understand from themselves seeing were blind, and hearing were deaf, and crucified Jesus <Point of theology. The Jews didn't crucify JEsus He said that No man takes his life, but that he lays it down. And from love> Nevertheless the Jews in large part rejected him. The Bible teaches that therefore Salvation came to the Gentiles and that oneday when all the elect are fulfilled from the gentiles salvation will come back to the Jews. The point is the Holy SPirit worked through apostles, and did works through them revealing himself to the Gentiles and they believed, and were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Notice that the gentiles that knew less, that had less understanding of the scripture, beleived. The spirit of God brought the understanding, and I believe punished the Jews for rejecting his son, but the Bible containes a warning to the Gentiles that oneday the Jews will be grafted back into the living olive tree.

[Jbuza]

AS I recall the issue started out because I made the claim that I could know if a doctrine is false because I have the Holy Spirit within myself, and Fortigurn responded to the effect that we do not need the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.


I actually wanted to respond to a comment that Fortigurn has made at least once, <paraphrase>"it would help if you can show me scripture that indicates that we can interpret the scripture only by the Holy spirit"

Romans 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

1 Conrinthians

2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

The first passage is a hyperbolic passage speaking of the naturally rebellious tendency of man (it cannot be taken literally, because it is far from literally true). It does not say that no one can understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

The second passage says that no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. I agree, and I would like to point out that the Word of God is in fact also the Spirit of God, which I have said before.

I would also like to point out that it was the apostles who received the Holy Spirit of God in order to interpret and explain the Bible by inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:12-13), something which is not available to us today.

Furthermore, if everyone received the Holy Spirit of God in order to interpret and explain the Bible by inspiration, as you are arguing, then there would have been no need for teachers in the first place, and certainly no need for them now.

The fact is that there are thousands of Christians who believe that they are being guided into 'all truth' by the Holy Spirit, and they believe doctrines which are totally contradictory.

They anathematize and damn each other daily, and insist that they are correct whilst other allegedly 'Spirit filled' Christians are wrong - from the Catholics to the Evangelicals, the Charismatics to the Lutherans, the Pentecostals to the Presbyterians.

Here's one Christian site among others which condemns the whole idea (actually they condemn a lot of people, including Christadelphians).

But at least they are honest when they profess 'Sola Scriptura'.

Why are we being dishonest here? I think this is a bunch of empty claims. The vast majority of false teachings and even occults comes from people that claim to have some private revelation. Is thsi what you are saying, because if so than you continue to make my points. This is why it is better for me to rely on the spirit within me, the mind of Jesus Christ and the spirit of God are better witnesses than all these revelations and teachings that have come along the pipe.

[Fortigurn]

Why are we being dishonest here?

I don't believe that 'Sola Scriptura' means 'Scripture plus Holy Spirit enlightenment'.

I think this is a bunch of empty claims.

Feel free to prove it.

The vast majority of false teachings and even occults comes from people that claim to have some private revelation. Is thsi what you are saying, because if so than you continue to make my points.

No that is not what I am saying. The Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Baptists, and a large number of allegedly 'orthodox' Christian groups differ signfiicantly on critical theological issues, including the process of salvation.

Yet all of them claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. They cannot all be right, so what's the problem?

This is why it is better for me to rely on the spirit within me, the mind of Jesus Christ and the spirit of God are better witnesses than all these revelations and teachings that have come along the pipe.

But this is exactly the issue - how do you know that you are led by the Holy Spirit to accurate conclusions? And how do you know that the Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, or Baptists r anyone else aren't?

[Fortigurn]

Within the Jewish community there was not only almost 100% literacy, but the Scriptures were freely available (Acts 17:11).

Within the Gentile community, it wasn't a matter of them reading the Bible, it was a matter of them being preached to, as you rightly say. They had to hear of Christ before they could believe on him, and how would they hear? By men preaching to them (not by the Holy Spirit).

Good point Fortigurn! Have you now understood? I didn't think of that, so are you saying that those people that had it from tradition and tried to understand from themselves seeing were blind, and hearing were deaf, and crucified Jesus <Point of theology.

No, I am saying that those who had it from tradtion, or who hardened their hearts, and who did not try to understand from the Bible were blind and deaf, and crucified Christ as a consequence.

The Jews didn't crucify JEsus He said that No man takes his life, but that he lays it down.

They did in fact crucify Christ, here merely submitted to it (which is his point in the passage you quote).

And from love> Nevertheless the Jews in large part rejected him. The Bible teaches that therefore Salvation came to the Gentiles and that oneday when all the elect are fulfilled from the gentiles salvation will come back to the Jews.

Yes, I agree.

The point is the Holy SPirit worked through apostles, and did works through them revealing himself to the Gentiles and they believed, and were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Notice that the gentiles that knew less, that had less understanding of the scripture, beleived. The spirit of God brought the understanding, and I believe punished the Jews for rejecting his son, but the Bible containes a warning to the Gentiles that oneday the Jews will be grafted back into the living olive tree.

I agree with all of this, except that in many cases the Gentiles had more understanding of the Scripture, because they hadn't had centuries of rabbinical tradition shovelled into their heads in lieu of Scripture.

[Fortigurn]

Here's the text,

Quote:
And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

Paul's speech and preaching were in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that their faith should be in the power of God not in words thought out by the wisdom men for the purpose of persuading the hearers. Does not the demonstration of the power of God generate faith in the witnesses? The point however, is that the power of God is manifest by His spirit. How else does God demonstrate His power but by and through His Spirit?

I agree that Paul's preaching was with the demonstration of the power of the Spirit - he performed 'miracles, womders, and signs' through the Holy Spirit power, which authenticated his messsage (I do not see anyone doing this today).

But this passage says nothing of us being una le to understand the Bible without the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Let's remember once more that Romans 10 says nothing of the necessity of the direct involvement of the Holy Spirit in the process of conversion.

Let me get this straight. You assert the reason some understand and others don't, and the reason for the extreme differences in understanding the same written word, is that, some people humble themselves, and some don't, and because people have different levels of understanding.?

Yes. You'll find this stated repeatedly through Scripture. Israel in particular is condemned again and again for their pride (stiff of neck, hard of heart), as are others who refuse to humble themselves to God's Word (Pharoah, Balaam, Nebuchadnezzar, etc).

Likewise Israel is condemned repeatedly for their lac of understanding, which we are told explicitly is caused by their lack of personal application to the Word, or by the failure on the part of the Levites to teach them.

In the New Testament, both pride and ignorance are given as reasons why Gentiles will not believe.

If only the remnant will be saved then many did not believe.

I agree. And if a remnant will be saved, then clearly some did believe.

With the exception of the faithful prophets and patriarchs, Israel neither believed nor obeyed God (Rom. 10:1).

I thonk you're forgetting the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal, apart from others.

Clearly Israel was disobedient and contrary to God's word and thus could not be considered "beleivers."

Not all of them, no.

This is but a short list. Many more texts can be cited showing that Israel the nation never obeyed God and that the mysteries of God require revelation from God in order to be understood correctly.

I didn't see any passages which said that. I would go so far as to say that the nation of Israel was never wholly faithful to God, but the nation was not always completely apostate, and there were times of great spiritual strength within the nation.

So the point isn't whether some believed because we know some did, rather the point is the vast majority of Israel both then and now do not. Is it your position that this is so because they weren't humble enough and did not have a level of understanding great enough to see and hear and be converted?

Yes. That is what the Bible says.

This is a non-answer. You have not directly addressed the point of the question. The question is not who but why and how was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet they found Him?

I answered the question directly. How was God made manifest to those who did not seek Him yet found Him? He was preached to them (see the context, which is the earlier part of Romans 10).

Why? Because God sent preachers (again, the earlier part of Romans 10). We aren't left guessing here. The answers are right there in the chapter.

The fact that this is God's word is understood. The fact that it will last forever is understood. However, it does not give life to us if it is "taken into our hearts and obeyed", although I'm not saying we mustn't do that, we are given life by the grace of God through faith because God has judged us righteous through Christ's blood and obedient to His word. But that is another matter and not what I was asking.

You are trying to disagree with me, whilst actually agreeing with me:

* Me: it is God's Word, which lasts forever and gives life when it is taken into our hearts and obeyed.

* You: we are given life by the grace of God through faith because God has judged us righteous through Christ's blood and obedient to His word

My emphasis. You're saying what I'm saying.

If the power lies in the words themselves and not in the fact that the power behind them is the spirit of God working upon those who are called, then I can only conclude that must see the word of God from the perspective of Mysticism. This is not unlike the views of various Sacred Names groups, Kabbalism, and Magic regarding the alleged inherent power within specific words themselves.

I have never said the words have such power of themselves. But you introduce a false dichotomy by claiming that if the Word doesn't take effect through the empowerment of the Spirit, then the only alternative is that it has power of itself.

If the power behind the word of God is not the spirit of God, then what is the source of the power in the word of God and by what means does it impart understanding leading to repentance?

I want to be certain of what you are saying here. Are you saying that God's Word is incapable of enlightenment and instruction, reproof and correction, without God acting on us first with His Spirit?

I see the power of the Word as a metaphor, just as its life is a metaphor. It is a living word because it gives life, and it has power in that it pricks the heart and renews our minds (we are reborn by the Word, remember).

I will restate the question. What is the power of the written word that it is "sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow"? If not the spirit of God?

Its effedt on our conscience (which is what this is describing).

BTW, accepting that the power of the written word lies with the spirit of God does not in any way give ground to the doctrine of the Trinity - just in case that is where you assumed I was going with this.

I agree. The trinity is irrelevant to this discussion.

In my opinion I've not committed "the fallacy of equivocation by introducing a usage of 'living' which is other than the usage in this passage." I believe the words "the word of God which lives" are understood to carry the same meaning as "the living word."

If the text says we are born again through the word of God which lives and abides forever, then it is not an error to conclude that the word of God is living. Thus the question, "How is the word of God a living book? In other words, what is the mechanism or means by which it is alive for us?"

I'm not asking how it makes us alive but what is the nature of the life that makes it a living book?

It gives life by convicting the conscience, renewing the heart, and changing our life. Which is what Peter says (here and elsewhere). You seem to think that 'living' applies in some ontological sense to the word itself.

Noteworthy also is the fact that Peter says nothing about the Word being inadequate without the Holy Spirit.

Given your opinion on the matter, one can only conclude that hearing, understanding and being led to conversion depends on the individual humility of the person and his or her particular level of understanding. Is this your position?

Yes. See Psalm 119 for further detail.

It may be true that you may know that it feels easier to "just throw the whole issue into Calvin's lap and follow whatever he said about it,"...

I don't know from personal experience, since I've never followed Calvinism.

...but the fact is you have made an erroneous assumption concerning my position. You see, I'm not a Calvinist, I don't subscribe to his brand of theology, I've never appealed to any of his writings, I've not mentioned him on this forum or any other, and I'm not a Protestant.

Yet your position is the same as his. You reject the perspicacity and efficacy of the Word, you insist on the enlightenment which comes only from the Holy Spirit, and if you don't actually believe in Prevenient Grace, it's not easy to see how you differ from it.

You may not be a Protestant, but your position on this matter agrees completely with the standard position of Reformed Theology, especially as articulated by Calvin.