The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save - Page 29

pelathais · #**281** 03-31-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You know what's funny about Paul? As smart as he was, and as prophetic a gift he had as an Apostle of the church, his hermeneutics were pretty sloppy at times! lol I think he'd flunk any of our university's Hermeneutics 101! Seriously... proof-texting nightmares, symbolism where he wished. Very much an ad hoc theologian. But we get his point quite clearly, so thankfully he was clear in that.

There was a methodology employed in antiquity that is quite foreign to our modern way of doing things. I began to get a glimpse of the "ancient method of hermeneutics" after an atheist threw Matthew 2:15 in my face.

"Matthew was a terrible 'Bible student'!" he railed. "The original verse [Hosea 11:1] wasn't a 'prophecy!' It was a history!"

True enough, Hosea was reminding his original audience that God had called His "son" [Israel] "out of Egypt" at a time many centuries after the fact, thus it was a history. However, the ancients viewed those events in which God had a direct hand as being a pattern or a "shadow" of things that would happen whenever the hand of God was seen to move again in the affairs of men.

Thus, when the Son of God was to be hailed from a foreign land, what other land would He be called from then Egypt? As Moses was in the wilderness, so also was the Son (Matthew 4:1).

I think that this is key also to understanding the necessity of baptism for the believer. As Jesus was buried following His death, so also must the believer be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism. If we are to follow Him in the new life that He gives us, we must first begin at the same "place" where His own new life began.

Everything happens according to the shadow of God's previous interactions with man (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). If you're ever stuck in a rut and need some sense of direct, don't ask "WWJD." Ask, what DID Jesus do?

*AQuietPlace* · #**282** 03-31-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sounds like people are going to believe what they initially stated in this thread, and nothing said can change them. So why discuss it? lol

Well, that would pretty much shut down the board.

berkeley · #**283** 03-31-2010, 11:14 PM

Paul had A.D.D.

Jeffrey · #**284** 03-31-2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

There was a methodology employed in antiquity that is quite foreign to our modern way of doing things. I began to get a glimpse of the "ancient method of hermeneutics" after an atheist threw Matthew 2:15 in my face.

"Matthew was a terrible 'Bible student'!" he railed. "The original verse [Hosea 11:1] wasn't a 'prophecy!' It was a history!"

True enough, Hosea was reminding his original audience that God had called His "son" [Israel] "out of Egypt" at a time many centuries after the fact, thus it was a history. However, the ancients viewed those events in which God had a direct hand as being a pattern or a "shadow" of things that would happen whenever the hand of God was seen to move again in the affairs of men.

Thus, when the Son of God was to be hailed from a foreign land, what other land would He be called from then Egypt? As Moses was in the wilderness, so also was the Son (Matthew 4:1).

I think that this is key also to understanding the necessity of baptism for the believer. As Jesus was buried following His death, so also must the believer be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism. If we are to follow Him in the new life that He gives us, we must first begin at the same "place" where His own new life began.

Everything happens according to the shadow of God's previous interactions with man (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). If you're ever stuck in a rut and need some sense of direct, don't ask "WWJD." Ask, what DID Jesus do?

Very interesting indeed! Thanks for that info!

Jesus did the same when he cited Scripture, and He WAS the Word.

That answers a lot. I heard a theologian discussing "ancient hermeneutics" before. It would be worthwhile to read about since we interact with that often. Unfortunately, some use that as an example to carelessly employ their own hermeneutic. But I simply don't give them the liberty afforded Christ and the Apostles.

Jeffrey · #**285** 03-31-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkley

Paul had A.D.D.

HE DID!! HA. Of course there was no BACKSPACE or DELETE key either. So when you got to writing, you best keep on going. His pen couldn't keep up with his mind at times. All in all, what a brilliant, and God-anointed man!

Pressing-On · #**286** 04-01-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Fair enough. You've never heard it.

Are we taking everything personal suddenly? Please don't. I don't know you.

Before you blow a hole through your head, look up "crisis experience." It's very common in theological circles, and is NOT a pejorative term.

I looked up your "crisis experience" terminology to get the gist of what the term is implying. We don't believe nor teach the "second blessing". My husband was under that teaching growing up in the COG as his grandfather was his pastor.

Quote:

Many Pentecostal denominations hold to what is called the second blessing. This doctrine suggests that there is a difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is received at the time of salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit received at a later date. The claim is that salvation is the first blessing but that to be empowered for ministry (to receive your Holy Spirit gifting), it is necessary to have the "second blessing" which is referred to as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Here is one explanation of this doctrine:

-------------
Perhaps the most important immediate precursor to Pentecostalism was the Holiness movement which issued from the heart of Methodism at the end of the Nineteenth Century. From John Wesley, the Pentecostals inherited the idea of a subsequent crisis experience variously called "entire sanctification,"" perfect love," "Christian perfection," or "heart purity." It was John Wesley who posited such a possibility in his influential tract, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (1766). It was from Wesley that the Holiness Movement developed the theology of a "second blessing." It was Wesley's colleague, John Fletcher, however, who first called this second blessing a "baptism in the Holy Spirit," an experience which brought spiritual power to the recipient as well as inner cleansing. This was explained in his major work, Checks to Antinominianism (1771). During the Nineteenth Century, thousands of Methodists claimed to receive this experience, although no one at the time saw any connection with this spirituality and speaking in tongues or any of the other charisms.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Stu...octrinal-1.htm

rgcraig · #**287** 04-01-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I looked up your "crisis experience" terminology to get the gist of what the term is implying. We don't believe nor teach the "second blessing". My husband was under that teaching growing up in the COG as his grandfather was his pastor.

I don't think it's "his" crisis experience terminology - - looks like a pretty old term to me.

*AQuietPlace* · #**288** 04-01-2010, 08:10 AM

You don't have to believe in "second blessing" to use the term "crisis experience".

Sam · #**289** 04-01-2010, 08:22 AM

and some holiness folks believe in a third blessing

They testify of being
saved
sanctified
and baptized in the Holy Ghost

rgcraig · #**290** 04-01-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You don't have to believe in "second blessing" to use the term "crisis experience".

That's right.

What always confused me in the past was if we believe "all three are one", then when you repent and ask Jesus in your heart (as my SS teacher would say), didn't the HG move in too?

So, in a way, I can see how this "second blessing" is taught without being taught. The real HG doesn't reside until you speak in tongues.