|
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
Many Christians
want to oppose those that accept the rendering of the KJV which speaks of Rightly Dividing the Word of truth. (2
Timothy
2:15), while at the same time wrongly dividing/interpreting the scripture themselves.
The only problem is that they
wrongly interpret the word of truth by not accepting the necessity of dividing the word of truth.
Ask any of them whether
we are still supposed to cut our beards or make animal sacrifices and they will say No.
The only reason they can say
this is because they have
divided/separated the OT scripture from the NT scripture.
Also ask them whether we are
still supposed to go only to the Jews as Jesus commanded the twelve and most of them will say no. (Matthew 10:5)
This
is because they have divided the scriptures so that they know that this applied at the beginning of the gospels but not now.
First,
to divide simply means separate.
For example: What was said to the Jews about not cutting ones beard doesn't apply
to me.
So in effect I have rightly divided the word of truth. I have
logically and scripturally determined that
this scripture doesn't
apply to me but that I can still learn why this was a command in the first place.
Now there
are many ways people wrongly divide/interpret the word of truth.
For example:
Many Jewish Wannabes take passages
like:
'And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, NEITHER ON THE SABBATH DAY: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning
of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.' , and then declare that this must mean that we should observe the sabbath.
They
don't see that:
1) This is speaking of the end
2) This is speaking to Jewish believers of that future time,
not
the body of Christ today.
3) That the rest of scripture teaches that sabbath observance is the shadow of the
reality that has come already THE FIRST TIME.
(Colossians 1; Romans 14)
They have divided/separated scriptures from
those for whom they were intended and applied them to the church.
This is wrongly dividing the word of truth.
Next,
Preterists
wrongly determine literal and allegorical
interpretations.
Without a logical reason they divide scriptures into
literal and
nonliteral. This is also wrongly dividing the word of truth.
For example: A literal Lord which has already
come back nonliterally to a non literal place, though scripture says he will come as he left. (Acts 1:11; Zechariah 12-14),
which by the way hasn't happened yet.
It would be more consistent to either reject the Lord completely or to accept
him and his coming as literal rather than having one foot in the truth and one foot in liberalism.
If we can do this
with prophecy then why shouldn't we do this with other scriptures regarding who Christ is.
In other words:
"When
Luke 1:32,33 is "spiritualized" the Modernist agrees
wholeheartedly. He agrees that the throne of David and the house of
Israel in this passage must be viewed in a "spiritual sense"--and so must the next few verses! Thus Christ was not really
born of a virgin. This picture is merely drawn to impress us with the purity of His person, etc.!"
All this because
they have failed to see the distinction between
prophecy regarding Israel and the body of Christ/ mysteries.
Instead
opting to wrongly divide scripture into believe it and not
believe it categories.
All this apostasy because of the
failure to rightly divide the word
of truth.
"Seeing that the fulfillment of prophecy apparently ceased shortly
after the crucifixion of Christ, and realizing that there was still much left to be fulfilled, these have supposed that God
could not have meant exactly what He said when He prophesied that Christ would sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem as
King of Israel. They have supposed that these things must have been intended in a "spiritual" sense and so have concluded
that Christ is now seated on "David's throne" at God's right hand, thus confusing earthly Jerusalem with "the Jerusalem which
is above." They have further concluded that the church of today is "spiritual" Israel, that heaven is Canaan, etc."
The
dispie consistently applies a literal/plain sense interpretation while the Preterist must resort to the eeny meeny miny mo
method which arbitrarily jumps between literally believing something and literally not believing it.
And contrary to
popular Preterist belief, the dispie literally
believes the time statements, which include the delay that was
clearly
taught in scripture. (Romans 11:24-27; Revelation 10; 2
Peter 3; Matthew 24:48)
Next, the Catholic fails to
rightly divide/interpret the word of
truth when He practices his faith as if Jesus didn't do enough to
take care of
sins forever. (Hebrews 10:12)
He fails to distinguish between scripture and fiction, the words of
men and corrupt
tradition.
He resembles the OT Jew or the Jew prior to the teachings of the
apostle Paul.
He wrongly divides
the scripture when he divides/separates Peter from Paul thereby robbing Paul to pay Peter.
You would think that the
Catholic would have made Paul their Pope because he actually was sent to the Gentiles. (Romans 16:25)
All because they
fail to RIGHTLY divide that which was spoken to
Israel (Acts 2), with what was spoken to all and instead replacing Israel
with the church.
The result being a gospel of works, baptism for salvation and
eternal insecurity.
Rather
than seeing that those that are saved will endure to the end. (Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 6:9), they consistently preach a fear
inducing message that has the believer wondering whether he will ever make it and forever dependent on priests.
If
we believe that scriptures doesn't mean what it says, as the
preterist and the peterist believe, then we can never be sure
as to what scripture actually say.
Which leaves us at the mercy of theologians.
"If the Scriptures do not mean
what they obviously, naturally seem to mean, who has the authority to decide just what they do mean? If theologians have that
authority, then we must agree with Rome that the Church, not the Bible, is the final and supreme authority. Nor will it any
longer avail us to turn to the Scriptures for light, for the Word of God does not mean what it says and only trained theologians
can tell us what it does mean."
Rightly dividing the word of truth is scriptural.
Tell me, why did James address
his letter to the twelve tribes
scattered abroad if there wasn't any message that was intended just for them?
"Because
of a failure to recognize the mystery, some have supposed it necessary to alter prophecy to account for the present condition
of Israel and the presence of the predominantly Gentile church of this age.
Seeing that the fulfillment of prophecy
apparently ceased shortly
after the crucifixion of Christ, and realizing that there was still
much left to be fulfilled,
these have supposed that God could not
have meant exactly what He said when He prophesied that Christ would sit on the
throne of David in Jerusalem as King of Israel. They have supposed that these things must have been intended in a "spiritual"
sense and so have concluded that Christ is now seated on "David's throne" at God's right hand, thus confusing earthly Jerusalem
with "the Jerusalem which is above." They have further concluded that the church of today is "spiritual" Israel, that heaven
is Canaan, etc.
But there is in fact nothing spiritual about this interpretation of
the Scripture. It is carnal,
not spiritual, to fail to take God at
His Word and to seek to explain away difficulties by arbitrarily
altering what
has been plainly written.
We vigorously object to this whole system of interpretation because:
1. It leaves
us at the mercy of theologians. If the Scriptures do
not mean what they obviously, naturally seem to mean, who has the
authority to decide just what they do mean? If theologians have that authority, then we must agree with Rome that the Church,
not the Bible, is the final and supreme authority. Nor will it any longer avail us to turn to the Scriptures for light, for
the Word of God does not mean what it says and only trained theologians can tell us what it does mean.
2. It affects
the veracity of God. It is a thrust at His very honor.
If the obvious, natural meaning of the Old Testament promises is
not to be depended upon, how can we depend upon any promise of God? Then, when He says: "Whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved," He may also mean something else. This is unthinkable of God, for it is only just that the promisee
should have a fair understanding of the promise, for promised something, he will have a right to claim exactly what he has
been promised. A little child is supposed to have said: "If God didn't mean what He said, why didn't He say what He meant?"
3.
It endorses apostasy. Indeed, it is the mother of apostasy. When Luke 1:32,33 is "spiritualized" the Modernist agrees wholeheartedly.
He agrees that the throne of David and the house of Israel in this passage must be viewed in a "spiritual sense"--and so must
the next few verses! Thus Christ was not really born of a virgin. This picture is merely drawn to impress us with the purity
of His person, etc.!
And the Modernist denies the resurrection in the same way.
Concerning Acts 2:30-32 it is argued
that since Christ will not
really occupy the throne of David, neither was He really raised from the dead! The Scriptures
which say so must be "spiritually"
interpreted!
And here comes one of "Jehovah's Witnesses," claiming to belong
to the 144,000. Ask what tribe he is from and he will explain that not physical, but "spiritual" Israelites are referred to
in the prophecy of the 144,000! Yet we are distinctly told that there are to be 12,000 from each tribe, and the tribes are
named!
Rome employs the same reasoning. She is seeking to establish the kingdom of Christ on earth! Because the Church
of Rome is really a political system, with a state and a ruler on earth it may seem at first that she leans rather to a literal
interpretation of prophecy, but this is not so, for the Church of Rome is not literal Israel, Rome is not Jerusalem, and Christ
Himself is not reigning.
Those who have resorted to the "spiritualization" of the prophetic Scriptures because they
cannot account for the seeming cessation in their fulfillment, will find the solution to their problem in the recognition
of the mystery. Recognize the mystery and there will be no need to alter prophecy."
http://geocities.com/protestantscot/ttd/chapter2.html
|
