IF GOD SO LOVED "EVERYONE", THEN WHY DID HE HATE ESAU?

[Eddie Ramos]

It seems like John 3:16 is by far the most widely memorized verse among people who know anything about the Bible because it speaks about God loving the world. While this verse may seem like "good news" to everyone who reads it, it does not stand alone from the rest of the scriptures. No verse does.

So, as most people are glad to memorize that verse, what happens when they come across a verse like this?:

Romans 9:13 (KJV) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD:
yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Psalms 5:5 (KJV)
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 5:6 (KJV)
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:
the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

How does John 3:16 look in light of these passages? Did God change? No, God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This teaches us that we can't just focus on John 3:16 and conclude that God's love for the world, in the giving of his Son, is actually not referring to every individual in the world (because there are passages that tell us about God hating others), but rather John 3:16 is referring to certain people within the world. These certain people are also known as God's beloved which means to be loved.

1 John 4:10-11 (KJV) 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

The beloved are thise who were chosen for salvation, those who were called to be saints.

Romans 1:7 (KJV) 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question for this thread is: Can you see that the Bible, on one hand, speaks of God's love in conjunction with those whose sins were laid on Christ? And on the other hand, can you see that those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ? This is what it means to be hated. It means that you have to pay for your own sins by your own death.

[Eddie Ramos]

That last sentence sums it all up. Without the Spirit of God, what can the natural man learn and understand by reading and studying the Bible? He can learn historical and moral truths. But not spiritual truths, because in order to learn this, one must have the Spirit of God and study the scriptures by the method which God instructs us, by comparing spiritual with spiritual. But this method is foolishness to those who have not the Spirit because God has designed his Word to be spiritually discerned.

What you are terming “spiritual” here, sounds more like “allegorical” at times. My approach isn’t straight human understanding; but it’s looking at the spiritual truths and comparing the biblical with the biblical. The biblical writings are a mix of literal, historical, symbolic, etc., all of which I would include in what I mean by the “plain” reading of the text, rather than this deeper “spiritualizing” approach you are taking.

Whether one calls it "spiritual" or "allegorical, or even "parabolic", it's all the same in the scriptures. It says one thing on the surface, yet it 's concealing a greater spiritual (allegorical, parabolic) truth. We can go over as many examples as you'd like and see that at times, God spells things out for us, then he begins to let go of our hand more and more until we finally get it and understand that this is what he wants us to do throughout all of His Word, which is spiritual. Again, that which is spiritual in the Bible is spiritually discerned only buy those who truly possess the Spirit of God, not by those who do not. The "spiritual truths" you speak of are not found in the historical nor the moral writings of the biblical text, as anyone, saved or unsaved, can grasp them. But the spiritual truths the Bible always refers to are the truths which are concealed within the literal, Historical and moral text (as I demonstrated with Numbers 20). This is God showing us how we are to find the spiritual meaning of His Words.

You have reworded 2 Corinthians 2:13 to say "biblical with biblical" so as to give yourself permission to include the literal and the historical with the symbolic in order to claim that this is the way to find the spiritual truth. But that's not what the text says. God is telling us that the Holy Ghost teaches when we compare spiritual things with spiritual, and not by any other method man has developed. This is why I began by telling you that there are no scriptures that you can put forth in order to show that God expects the reader to approach and understand His Word in a literal, historical and grammatical method. Yet it seems you have accepted such method without any biblical support, but why, when God has emphatically given us instructions on exactly how to do it. And the emphasis is on the spiritual understanding, not on the historical, literal or grammatical. Again, you can disagree, but please do so with some scriptures to show us where your authority for this hermeneutic comes from.

So, if we go back to the historical account in Numbers 20, and I told you that the rock spiritually pointed to Christ, would I be accused of inserting into the text that which is not plainly stated? Yes, I would. But then if I showed you from the scriptures (as I did) that the Bible itself teaches us that the rock represents Christ, then it's no longer my interpretation but it's the Bible's own teaching. And this is God's basic way of introducing us to the fact that there is spiritual truth hidden within every part of the Bible. The more examples he provides, the more we learn that he doesn't always spell it out so plainly like he did in this example. Other times we have to do our own due diligence and make the connection. Like the water that flowed from the rock typifies the gospel of salvation. And that the water (gospel) could not flow until Moses smote it. And the word "smote" is mostly translated as "killed". Now, why would God use that particular word to describe what Moses did to a historically inanimate object like a rock? Because that rock spiritually pointed to Christ and Christ had to be killed in order for the gospel to go forth.

And God does this enough times throughout the Bible for God's people to get it.

There is a difference between later scripture pointing out a truth like this and individuals then going in and claiming that such-and-such is doing the same thing, when there is no additional scripture that says that.

It allows for people to “spiritualize” whatever philosophy they want out of a passage. You’d be against the one who agrees with you up to this point, takes the exact same approach as you, but then goes in an unorthodox path, but I’m not sure you would have much ground to stand on because of this approach. You seem to pick and choose what is spiritualized. You do it with sheep because it fits your Calvinism. You would reject any similar spiritualizations that disagree with Calvinism. Thus, your Calvinism determines the meaning of passages, not the passages determining your Calvinism.

First, it doesn't help to categorize anyone with a particular teacher like John Calvin. I know very little about the man and just because he has learned and taught some truths from the scriptures, doesn't mean that anyone who agrees with what he has found, is automatically associated with all the teachings of Calvin. That would be like associating a Christian with a Catholic simply because they agree that God is one God who reveals himself in a Godhead of three. If you taught some truth from the scriptures that may have not been noticed by anyone before and people search out what you have found by looking into the scriptures, and they find that the scriptures as a whole agree, then does that associate them with you in any way or with the Bible itself? Hopefully, you say the Bible, because it's God who reveals truth, not any man. Therefore, if any man is teaching a biblical truth, then that man is only teaching that which he himself is taught by the Spirit of God. And the man himself gets no credit nor recognition for putting forth that truth. So, if we believe any truth proclaimed by man, then we are actually believing God. As an example, God sent forth Jonah to proclaim time and judgment upon Nineveh, and whose words did Nineveh believe? Not Jonah's.

Jonah 3:4–5 (KJV (WS))
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Upon their repentance
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

So, now, regarding your comment above. It's like I was taught of my pastor when I was young when he said, "it's not a parable unless the scriptures clearly state that it's a parable". I later learned that my former pastor's claim was very incorrect.

Matthew 16:5–12 (KJV (WS))
And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Was Christ using leaven as a parable here? Of course. Did we read the word "parable anywhere in this account? No.

Your statement is similar to my former pastor's, where you said, "There is a difference between later scripture pointing out a truth like this and individuals then going in and claiming that such-and-such is doing the same thing, when there is no additional scripture that says that". Like I said earlier, there are many more examples we can go over if you'd like. And like I also said, that God does this enough times so that his people finally get it, and when they continue doing what they have been taught by the scriptures, the scriptures open up in a way that we never thought possible. We learn that the message of the gospel is the thread that runs through every passage of the Bible, and when we look for it (As God has taught) we find agreement after agreement.

And as far as you later concern that this method allows anyone to spiritualize any philosophy they want out of any passage, and that's true, but it doesn't mean that there is no way we can determine what the spiritual truth actually is because God has established the biblical principle of agreement. The record of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one and agree in one (1 John 5:7-8). Therefore, there have been and will always be people who spiritualize the Bible incorrectly, just like there are people who approach the Bible using your method and also come to vastly different conclusions. Yet in the Bible, there is only one truth which agrees with every other part. Therefore, the examples I gave you (in my previous posts) using the word "sheep" and "goats" can be taken by anyone and compared against the scriptures. And anyone who finds disagreement with what was taught can put forth those scriptures for all of us to examine. But the main reason for rejecting the truth about how God uses lost sheep, sheep and goats in the Bible, is because that truth disagrees with the free will/universal atonement doctrine, while confirming the truth about election and particular atonement. And this happens everywhere we look in the scriptures.

Correct, it's not, but I wasn't addressing this verse to prove salvation through election, but who Christ is interceding for, and it's not for the world, but for those who were given to him. It's important to understand that the Word of God is one cohesive truth and we can see God choosing a people for himself to be his holy people as he first did this with the nation of Israel, but they were only a figure of the true people of God, of the true holy nation, the Israel of God. The law (the Word of God) was only given to the nation of Israel, not to the rest of the world at the time. Every high priest (who was a spiritual picture of Christ), only interceded for the people of Israel and not for the rest of the world. That pattern never changed, this is what we learn from John 17:9 when we see that Christ only intercedes for those that are his.

The whole point of the nation of Israel was for it to be a nation of priests to the world, pointing the world to God, to be a blessing to the nations, as God promised Abraham. The Levites were to be priests to the rest of Israel and the nation, in turn, was to be priests to the world. Christ called His disciples to do the same, praying for one’s enemies, exemplifying that when He prayed for those who were crucifying and terrorizing him.

I don't recall any scriptures declaring that the priests of the nation of Israel were to be priests to the world, but rather only to the nation of Israel itself. However, I don't mind being corrected in this if you could point me to the correct scriptures that teach this. Did not the gospel officially go out to the rest of the world in the New Testament era? And certainly not by way of the nation of Israel.

But this verse couldn't be more specific on who Christ is laying his life down for. How can this possibly not be addressing atonement? What then was the purpose of Christ, if not to lay his life down for the sins of his people? His sheep.

I didn’t say it wasn’t about atonement. I said it’s not addressing whether atonement was for the elect or open to everyone who then chose to be one of Jesus’ flock or reject the offer. The context of this passage seems to me to be contrasting Jesus against the Jewish leaders of the day who were acting like thieves and robbers towards the people they were supposed to be pointing to God.

It's specifically addressing that the atonement is for sheep. Our task, as faithful students, is to then figure out who does the Bible consider to be "the sheep". We then learn that he's referring to "the lost sheep" (Mt 15:24). We also then learn that God makes a distinction between a sheep that is lost (still unsaved) with a sheep that is finally found, meaning he has been given salvation (Lk 15:4-7). And all the while, we also learn that there are those (unsaved people) who are categorized as "goats". And there is no passage that can be put forth that remotely teaches that there is such a thing as a lost goat, or a lost any animal, but only a lost sheep. But why? Because God is the one who likens the sheep to his people. This is yet another way in which the Bible reinforces the doctrine of election, because there were only two types of unsaved people in the Bible, those who were lost sheep and those who are goats. Christ's task was to bring in the lost sheep (save his people), but no scripture about seeking goats or any other animal, why not? Can you explain from the scriptures where your doctrine places all of mankind as "lost sheep" who can choose to "join the flock" of sheep. And if all of mankind is a lost sheep, how do they become goats at the end? These are answers you should seek to harmonize with your doctrine because these are truths that come from the Bible.

John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He (meaning God) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him (This is God).

Thus the lost sheep of the house of Israel is speaking about everyone who has ever been chosen for salvation, the Israel of God. The fact that they are called "lost sheep" means that they have a shepherd who is seeking them. That shepherd is Christ. Christ never sought for the goats because he never paid for their sins.

Why isn’t this passage using rhetorical language to make a point? Like if I told my son “Go ahead, don’t practice, and don’t eat well, and I’m sure you’ll still get better at football? Or why isn’t it an allusion to idolatry, as idols are described as deaf and dumb; where Isaiah would be claiming that you become what you worship? Why isn’t this about foreknowing that some will reject Jesus? Why isn’t it about preparing Isaiah (and Jesus preparing His disciples) for their ministry and the real situation of what they would be coming up against? Why do you think this isn’t about the national rejection of Jesus as Messiah by Israel, rather than about all individuals rejecting Jesus? Why does Isaiah preach repentance later in his book, if he felt it was just about God choosing some and not others?

From looking at Jesus’ use of Isaiah’s passage in Matthew 13, why isn’t this Jesus’ way of testing the Jewish people, that those truly interested will be granted the knowledge. It speaks that the people’s heart has grown dull, not been dull from birth, unchosen by God. Matthew 13:15 talks about how if they saw and heard and understood, they would turn and God would heal them.

Our job as Bible students isn't to seek for how many different ways we can view this or any passage of the Bible, but to try and seek what the actual truth of any particular scripture is, even if the truth disagrees with what we currently hold to be true. When we go back to see why God had blinded Israel as a nation, we discover that it was because of their consistent rebellion as a nation and the fact that God was minded to end his use of the nation of Israel as stewards of the gospel.

Isaiah 6:8–12 (KJV (WS))
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

And the more we read, the more we learn that God was done with the nation of Israel, yet this wouldn't become official until the veil of the temple was rent. God here is telling us that he is the one who shut their eyes so that they would not see (doesn't this violate man's "free will"?). God is the one who prevented the Word of God from entering into the hearts of the nation of Israel for the specific purpose of not bringing salvation unto them. And then he tells us how long this would be for, till the end. This was not done as a test for the Jewish people, but as a punishment for their rebellion as a nation who would be cut off by God. The chosen nation of Israel, was used by God as a parable (allegory, if you will) to represent the true people of God. This is why even though they were spoken of as elect, chosen, holy, peculiar people, etc, they constantly acted like rebels. Because what they typified and what they actually were, were 2 different things.

1 Kings 9:7 (KJV (WS))
Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb (a parable) and a byword among all people:

And God's blinding was not of the nation of Israel alone, but of all those to whom the light of the gospel was hid as a result of being blinded by God, just like the nation of Israel.

2 Corinthians 4:3–4 (KJV (WS))
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the GOD of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

If you look in Google, you will find that there is just about a 100% consensus that the "god of this world" is a reference to Satan rather than God himself, because, logically, why would God send people to preach the gospel in all the world if he intended to blind them? The answer is because the gospel was intended only for the elect to hear and be saved thereby, yet it was preached to everyone because no person knew who any of God's elect was, therefore we preached to everyone and God applied his gospel of salvation and saved his lost sheep, each in their proper time. If you study the topic of blinding, you will see that there is no instance in which we're told that Satan had the power or authority to blind anyone. But we have plenty of scriptures that teach us that blinding is done by God. So, 2 Corinthians 4:4 must be understood in light of comparing the whole of the scriptures, not in light out the doctrine we hold to be true.

Romans 11:7–8 (KJV (WS))
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

[The Tanager]

Whether one calls it "spiritual" or "allegorical, or even "parabolic", it's all the same in the scriptures. It says one thing on the surface, yet it 's concealing a greater spiritual (allegorical, parabolic) truth. We can go over as many examples as you'd like and see that at times, God spells things out for us, then he begins to let go of our hand more and more until we finally get it and understand that this is what he wants us to do throughout all of His Word, which is spiritual. Again, that which is spiritual in the Bible is spiritually discerned only buy those who truly possess the Spirit of God, not by those who do not. The "spiritual truths" you speak of are not found in the historical nor the moral writings of the biblical text, as anyone, saved or unsaved, can grasp them. But the spiritual truths the Bible always refers to are the truths which are concealed within the literal, Historical and moral text (as I demonstrated with Numbers 20). This is God showing us how we are to find the spiritual meaning of His Words.

And you think 1 Cor 2:13 tells us this? “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” I don’t see this verse telling us every passage of scripture should be interpreted this way, much less that specific ones should be.

Paul is talking about how he didn’t blow them over with his speaking prowess (v. 4), but focusing on Jesus (v. 2), so that they’d truly rest in trusting the truth of who Jesus was and what He did, rather than Paul’s rhetorical skills. Paul then talks about how this wisdom is different from other philosophies (v. 6). God was doing something unexpected in the literal, historical Jesus (v. 13). God reveals these things through His Spirit (v. 10). Paul then says we teach other people these truths, about Jesus crucified (historical fact) and what it means for us, not allegories about sheeps and goats, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (v. 13). Being spiritual here is a call to a different way than how we used to follow our own fleshly desires, now seeking after God; it’s not about allegory.

How we interpret something as allegory, symbolism, literal, etc. depends on the intended meaning of the text. We get this from the context of the text itself, the culture of the original author/audience, or a later Biblical statement directly about that.

You have reworded 2 Corinthians 2:13 to say "biblical with biblical" so as to give yourself permission to include the literal and the historical with the symbolic in order to claim that this is the way to find the spiritual truth.

I didn’t use that phrase as a rewording of 1 Cor 2:13.

Yet in the Bible, there is only one truth which agrees with every other part. Therefore, the examples I gave you (in my previous posts) using the word "sheep" and "goats" can be taken by anyone and compared against the scriptures. And anyone who finds disagreement with what was taught can put forth those scriptures for all of us to examine. But the main reason for rejecting the truth about how God uses lost sheep, sheep and goats in the Bible, is because that truth disagrees with the free will/universal atonement doctrine, while confirming the truth about election and particular atonement. And this happens everywhere we look in the scriptures.

A certain philosophical position is the main reason to accept or reject a truth about the Bible? I think it’s the other way around. I think an analysis of the Bible in this way leads to a free will position, but this is the point of the whole discussion, so I’ll let our posts stand on that.

First, it doesn't help to categorize anyone with a particular teacher like John Calvin.

Labels are helpful to a point. I was referring to your view on election, which sounds Calvinistic. I wasn’t claiming you agree with him on everything.

I don't recall any scriptures declaring that the priests of the nation of Israel were to be priests to the world, but rather only to the nation of Israel itself. However, I don't mind being corrected in this if you could point me to the correct scriptures that teach this. Did not the gospel officially go out to the rest of the world in the New Testament era? And certainly not by way of the nation of Israel.

When God calls Abram he says in him all the earth was to be blessed (Gen 12:3, 18:18, 22:18). In the Exodus God calls Israel a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). For the whole nation to be a kingdom of priests would seem to mean they are meant to mediate between God and other humans, which (if all were fulfilling their role) would necessarily mean towards non-Isrealites. Now, they largely failed in this, as God told them they would. It takes the Messiah to fulfill this calling. Isaiah 61:6 seems to speak to this, which is played out in the New Testament.

It's specifically addressing that the atonement is for sheep. Our task, as faithful students, is to then figure out who does the Bible consider to be "the sheep". We then learn that he's referring to "the lost sheep" (Mt 15:24). We also then learn that God makes a distinction between a sheep that is lost (still unsaved) with a sheep that is finally found, meaning he has been given salvation (Lk 15:4-7).

Who the “sheep” is here depends on this text’s context unless you have justification for other texts to be included.

In Matt 15, Jesus is talking to a Canaanite woman who came for mercy. Jesus says he came for the lost sheep of Israel, but she shows her trust in her response and Jesus says she is healed because of her faith. While His ministry was largely to the Jews, He did reach out and give healing and salvation to Gentiles. If you took this verse as you seem to be, then Jesus didn’t come for her, much less any Gentile sheep. John 10 isn’t using “sheep” in the same way Matt 15:24 was.

In Luke 15, Jesus uses the imagery of sheep to talk about sinners who repent and how those in the kingdom should rejoice over that because the Pharisees and scribes weren’t doing that (15:1). This is using “sheep” differently than John 10 does.

John 10 talks about the Jewish leaders, who think they are shepherds of God’s flock. Jesus says they are thieves and robbers (v. 1). Those in the kingdom listen to the true shepherd, Him (2-3). It’s about Jesus being the rightful shepherd, not about electing sheep or sheep and goats. They don’t understand (6). So, Jesus speaks again, saying He is the door of the sheep (7). He then continues to compare himself to them, talking about how Jesus is the way of salvation and abundant life (9-10). He won’t abandon His sheep like the Jewish leaders have and will do (11-14) but will die for them (15). He will bring in other sheep as well so there will be one flock (16). Nothing there about sheep versus goats, election, etc.

Can you explain from the scriptures where your doctrine places all of mankind as "lost sheep" who can choose to "join the flock" of sheep. And if all of mankind is a lost sheep, how do they become goats at the end? These are answers you should seek to harmonize with your doctrine because these are truths that come from the Bible.

No, these are misunderstandings of the context of various verses in order to read election into them.

Our job as Bible students isn't to seek for how many different ways we can view this or any passage of the Bible, but to try and seek what the actual truth of any particular scripture is, even if the truth disagrees with what we currently hold to be true.

You need to know all the options out there to consider which one(s) make best sense of the passage. If the ones I mentioned don’t, you should be able to show why they don’t make sense as well as provide positive support for your preferred option.

If you look in Google, you will find that there is just about a 100% consensus that the "god of this world" is a reference to Satan rather than God himself, because, logically, why would God send people to preach the gospel in all the world if he intended to blind them?

Plenty of them hold the same view on God blinding in the other passages as you do, so that can’t be the reason. For 2 Cor 4 they look at how Paul uses “the world” as those not acting in accordance with God in places like Romans 12:2, 1 Cor 1:20; 3:19, etc. The immediate context of 2 Cor 4 talks about how we aren’t to walk in trickery, distorting the word of God (v. 2). If God wanted to speak of Himself here, why not how Paul always talks of God, why the qualifier of “god of this world”?

Romans 11:7–8 (KJV (WS))
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Paul goes on to urge the Gentile Christians to continue in God’s goodness or they will be cut off (22) and that Isrealites can come back in if they don’t continue in their unbelief (23). Why would he say these things if your view of election is true?

[Eddie Ramos]

And you think 1 Cor 2:13 tells us this? “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” I don’t see this verse telling us every passage of scripture should be interpreted this way, much less that specific ones should be.

Paul is talking about how he didn’t blow them over with his speaking prowess (v. 4), but focusing on Jesus (v. 2), so that they’d truly rest in trusting the truth of who Jesus was and what He did, rather than Paul’s rhetorical skills. Paul then talks about how this wisdom is different from other philosophies (v. 6). God was doing something unexpected in the literal, historical Jesus (v. 13). God reveals these things through His Spirit (v. 10). Paul then says we teach other people these truths, about Jesus crucified (historical fact) and what it means for us, not allegories about sheeps and goats, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (v. 13). Being spiritual here is a call to a different way than how we used to follow our own fleshly desires, now seeking after God; it’s not about allegory.

There are many factors which can affect our understanding of any particular text. One of them in particular, is reading from a modern translation which is not as faithful to the original text as it could be. You seem to be reading from the ESV, and that's fine, that's your choice, but that just makes your job that much more time consuming in verifying and correcting what the translators did. For instance, 1 Cor 2:13 doesn't say, "interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual". This translation has taken away the method declared here, by which the Holy Ghost teaches. If you look in an interlinear, it helps to see what words God actually used here. And we can see that the original text, places the same words side by side "Spiritual things with spiritual comparing". And the word translated as "interpreting" in the ESV is actually the word "comparing". We can see this if we look up this word and see that this Greek word is only used 3 times in the New Testament and even the ESV translates it as "comparing" twice in 2 Cor 2:10.

God has a word which he uses to teach us about "interpreting", and it's not the the word used in 1 Corinthians 2:13 like the ESV has put forth. The correct translation of 1 Cor 2:13 is therefore "....the Holy Ghost teaches, spiritual things with spiritual things comparing". In this instance, the KJV has the more faithful translation. And if you took the ESV's translation as what God intended to say, then that explains why your explanation reflects your plain reading of that text when you explained verse 13 as, "(v. 13). God reveals these things through His Spirit...... interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual". I hope you can see the difference between your explanation of verse 13 and what it's actually saying. And that is that the Holy Ghost teaches by following the specific method laid out in the same sentence, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual". That means comparing the Word of God with the Word of God, because the Word of God is spiritual.

How we interpret something as allegory, symbolism, literal, etc. depends on the intended meaning of the text. We get this from the context of the text itself, the culture of the original author/audience, or a later Biblical statement directly about that.

As I mentioned a few posts back, a proper hermeneutic is really the foundation of each of our doctrines. And while you continue to state the rules or guidelines by which the Word of God is to be understood, I noticed that you have chosen not to answer my question and provide any scripture(s) that lead you to those guidelines that you use. I don't mind asking again, since this really should get sorted out in order to be sure that we are studying the scriptures the way God has intended it. Where does the Bible teach us that the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation is the correct method? Yet I have shown you from the scriptures, over multiple posts, that the objective of the true child of God is to search out the spiritual meaning of the scriptures which is concealed within the literal, Historical, moral and parabolic language of the Bible. And that these truths, as well as the method God established by which these truths are taught by the Spirit of God, can not be understood by the natural man without the Spirit of God, because God's words must be spiritually discerned (examined).

I have also showed you that one's understanding of the immediate context of any passage must still be compared against the context of the whole Bible for agreement because there is only one author (God) not many. And if the context of the Bible disagrees with our understanding of any immediate context, then we have to accept and make correction to our understanding.

I can continue to provide more scriptures where God teaches us how to arrive at correct doctrine if you feel it would help.

Isaiah 28:9–10 (KJV (WS))
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? (the Word of God) them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

In other words, here God is declaring unto us that there is a way which he has established in His Word by which he teaches knowledge and makes one to understand the Word of God. The KJV translated this word as "doctrine", but it's better translated as "tidings" or "report" which identifies with the Word of God being heard.

Isaiah 53:1 (KJV (WS))
Who hath believed our report(tidings)? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

So, to whom shall God make to understand the Word of God? Not to babes (those who are carnal), but to, "them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.". This method of God teaching knowledge is for those who are no longer on the milk of the word, which are the basic principles of the Bible, but to those who have moved on to strong meat, the true child of God.

Hebrews 5:11–14 (KJV (WS))
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Now why did I jump from Isaiah to the book of Hebrews just like that? Who gave me permission to do this? Well, let's go back to Isaiah to see how God teaches knowledge of his word.

Isaiah 28:9–10 (KJV (WS))
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? (the Word of God) them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

The principle of reading one passage and examining that passage in light of the rest of the Bible is also taught here. Commandment must be upon commandment, meaning that no commandment is to be left out in our search for understanding the Word of God as one cohesive truth. The same with "line upon line" as God uses this same Hebrew word to also identify with the Word of God.

Psalm 19:1–4 (KJV (WS))
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

So, when God applies the language of Isaiah 28 to the understanding of His Word, he's telling us that God teaches knowledge by using every part of the Bible, "here a little, and there a little".

There is a hermeneutic that states that if we want to learn about what the letter to the Romans (for example) is teaching, then we don't turn to another book of the Bible to understand the book of Romans, but we stay in the book of Romans. This is taught with no biblical authority and yet it is widely accepted. But because the Bible is one cohesive truth, teaching the same spiritual truth throughout (the message of the gospel), then God is the one who allows us to go "here a little and there a little" (throughout the Bible) in order to properly divide and connect those truths, just as he has given us plenty of examples.

And because God has established the method by which he is going to teach knowledge of his Word, it's this same method that confounds those who approach the Bible on their own terms to obtain understanding. Here is the next part of Isaiah 28.

Isaiah 28:11–13 (KJV (WS))
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Ultimately, in every biblical discussion, the reason for disagreement is in the Hermeneutic used. And since we're using completely different hermeneutics, then our end result in every discussion will reflect that. My position is to rely on the Bible to teach me just how God wants me to approach, understand and study the Bible. And I feel I have given plenty of scriptures to show that throughout the course of our dialogue. So, rather than continue addressing the remaining subjects, I'll await for the scriptures that teach you about your hermeneutic.

[The Tanager]

There are many factors which can affect our understanding of any particular text. One of them in particular, is reading from a modern translation which is not as faithful to the original text as it could be.

Modern translations are, generally speaking, more faithful to the original text. Most of the texts the KJV uses come from something like the 11th, 12th, 16th centuries. We have since discovered older and more reliable manuscripts to base a translation off of.

For instance, 1 Cor 2:13 doesn't say, "interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual". This translation has taken away the method declared here, by which the Holy Ghost teaches. If you look in an interlinear, it helps to see what words God actually used here. And we can see that the original text, places the same words side by side "Spiritual things with spiritual comparing". And the word translated as "interpreting" in the ESV is actually the word "comparing". We can see this if we look up this word and see that this Greek word is only used 3 times in the New Testament and even the ESV translates it as "comparing" twice in 2 Cor 2:10.

I often look at multiple translations, not just one, as well as biblehub.com’s interlinear. I put the ESV because it has Reformed/Calvinist leanings and they don’t offer a translation close to what you are saying.

The Greek word is synkrinontes, a form of sugkrino, which (like many words) has multiple meanings and uses in the Greek language. It can mean combine, compare, interpret, explain, etc. The context of 2 Cor 10:12 seems to make “compare” a good translation there, but that doesn’t mean it should be translated the same everywhere it appears. In that context Paul is talking about people measuring themselves against themselves and showing their lack of understanding.

The context of 1 Cor 2:13 is different. The focus of the words isn’t some ancient scripture that Paul then allegorizes about. The focus is on contrasting human attempts at figuring things out or persuading others with God’s choice to bring salvation through a crucified and risen Jesus. That is the focus of Paul’s statement at the end of the verse. That’s not comparing spiritual with spiritual.

Some translations therefore talk of combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. Some translate it as explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. Some as interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual persons. All of these seem to center around the concept of communicating truth to people via spiritual means, not human rhetorical skills and definitely not giving us an approach on how to study the Bible.

As I mentioned a few posts back, a proper hermeneutic is really the foundation of each of our doctrines. And while you continue to state the rules or guidelines by which the Word of God is to be understood, I noticed that you have chosen not to answer my question and provide any scripture(s) that lead you to those guidelines that you use. I don't mind asking again, since this really should get sorted out in order to be sure that we are studying the scriptures the way God has intended it. Where does the Bible teach us that the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation is the correct method?

I’m not sure any verse directly addresses the question of which exact hermeneutic to use. 1 Cor 2:13 doesn’t address this question for the reasons I mentioned above.

Neither does Isaiah 28. It starts off talking about the drunkards of Ephraim and how God will humble them, while being a crown of glory to His people. Then it’s about the priest and prophet getting drunk. So, who will God teach (v. 9)? It will come through foreigners (v. 11), but the Israelites will still fall backward, be broken, etc. (v. 13). They have taken refuge in lies (v. 15). But God will lay the cornerstone (16), which will bring justice, righteousness, truth (17), and this will destroy their refuges (18-20), so listen to God (23). This isn’t teaching an allegorical hermeneutic.

I have also showed you that one's understanding of the immediate context of any passage must still be compared against the context of the whole Bible for agreement because there is only one author (God) not many. And if the context of the Bible disagrees with our understanding of any immediate context, then we have to accept and make correction to our understanding.

I agree the whole context is important. I agree that we need to understand other books when trying to understand Romans because it draws on things and themes found elsewhere. I think a more Arminian view fits the immediate and overall contexts much better than your view on election.

[Eddie Ramos]

Modern translations are, generally speaking, more faithful to the original text. Most of the texts the KJV uses come from something like the 11th, 12th, 16th centuries. We have since discovered older and more reliable manuscripts to base a translation off of.

Perhaps a good topic of discussion for another time.

I often look at multiple translations, not just one, as well as biblehub.com’s interlinear. I put the ESV because it has Reformed/Calvinist leanings and they don’t offer a translation close to what you are saying.

The Greek word is synkrinontes, a form of sugkrino, which (like many words) has multiple meanings and uses in the Greek language. It can mean combine, compare, interpret, explain, etc. The context of 2 Cor 10:12 seems to make “compare” a good translation there, but that doesn’t mean it should be translated the same everywhere it appears. In that context Paul is talking about people measuring themselves against themselves and showing their lack of understanding.

The context of 1 Cor 2:13 is different. The focus of the words isn’t some ancient scripture that Paul then allegorizes about. The focus is on contrasting human attempts at figuring things out or persuading others with God’s choice to bring salvation through a crucified and risen Jesus. That is the focus of Paul’s statement at the end of the verse. That’s not comparing spiritual with spiritual.

Some translations therefore talk of combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. Some translate it as explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. Some as interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual persons. All of these seem to center around the concept of communicating truth to people via spiritual means, not human rhetorical skills and definitely not giving us an approach on how to study the Bible.

Looking at multiple translations is the same as getting other's opinions on spiritual matters, and since no translation is inspired of God, it only helps to look at the original text for ourselves. Also, the multiple ways a Greek or Hebrew word can be translated, doesn't change the fact that the Bible is it's own dictionary as well as its own commentary. I agree that the context in a translation determines how a word should be translated in order to best make sense in the context, but that's exactly why we can't rely on the words we read in the translated text as a way to define how God intended that particular Greek or Hebrew word to be defined. For example:

Genesis 6:14 (KJV (WS))
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

This makes good grammatical sense in English, yet when we dig deeper, we realize that the first word "pitch" was only translated as "pitch" here, but this word is mostly translated as "atonement". Yet, to put that word in this verse would make no grammatical sense to the reader, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word God used here. The use of this word here regarding the ark, teaches us that the ark represented atonement. And the second word "pitch" is also only translated as "pitch" here, but this word is most commonly translated as "ransom". And this helps us complete the spiritual picture the ark represented, atonement with a ransom. The spiritual picture is always the gospel. But if we look up the word "pitch" in a secular or even a biblical dictionary, you will not find the word "ransom" as a definition, but rather, "slime" or "tar". So, when people rely on man's definition of biblical words, they totally miss the meaning God had intended for his children to understand. But this was by design.

So, the biblical definition comes into view when we search out how God uses that same word throughout the Bible and then attempt to understand the meaning of the word in places where it's not so clear on how it's to be understood. Here's another example:

John 6:44 (KJV (WS))
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

What does this word "draw" here mean? Well, if we look in a biblical dictionary, we'll get many definitions that we can choose from and place whatever definition suits our understanding upon that word. But, that's not how to define biblical words. We need to let the Bible define God's own words. So, when we come to a passage like this, whose context doesn't allow us to make a definite conclusion on a definition, then people rely on their doctrinal positions to define it. For example, someone who hold to a free will doctrine will define this word "draw" as "compel". Why, because it allows for someone to exercise their free will. But a person who believes in election may read this and say that the word "draw" means that God will bring them and save them without a doubt. I although I agree with the second position, I would like to walk you thorough how the Bible defines this word to show that it has nothing to do with the position I hold, but rather with how each and every word if defined in the Bible, by the Bible.

This Greek word is used by God 8 times in the Bible. And besides John 6:44, there is one more place where the context is vague at best to allow us to understand just how God wants us to define this word.

John 12:32 (KJV (WS))
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Now here are the more clearer contexts that will help us define the more vague passages.

John 18:10 (KJV (WS))
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

The word "compel" doesn't match as a possible definition. Peter was in full control of what action he took with his sword.

John 21:6 (KJV (WS))
And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

When fish are caught in a net, the last thing they want to do is to swim to the one who caught them. By nature, they swim away as hard as possible. And it's not by coincidence that God likens people to fish. Well, in this context, God is using the same Greek word to take on the definition of a forceful pull (like Peter did with his sword).

Then the next passage gives it the same meaning.

John 21:11 (KJV (WS))
Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

And when we look at the remaining uses of the same word, we can get more and more confirmation that God is defining this Greek word in a particular manner, thus we can understand that this Greek word translated as "draw" in John 6:44 and John 12:32, takes on the meaning opposite that of "to compel", but take on a meaning of "forceful". And so, when we ask ourselves, why would God say that no man can come to him unless the Father draws him (and that, by force)? Because before salvation, men love darkness rather than light.

So, when we define the word "compare", it doesn't matter what biblical dictionaries put forth as possible choices for one to pick from, but it matters how God uses that word throughout His own Word. And that's how we can be sure that the word "comparing" is the correct translation in 1 Cor 2:!3.

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV (WS))
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I’m not sure any verse directly addresses the question of which exact hermeneutic to use. 1 Cor 2:13 doesn’t address this question for the reasons I mentioned above.

Neither does Isaiah 28. It starts off talking about the drunkards of Ephraim and how God will humble them, while being a crown of glory to His people. Then it’s about the priest and prophet getting drunk. So, who will God teach (v. 9)? It will come through foreigners (v. 11), but the Israelites will still fall backward, be broken, etc. (v. 13). They have taken refuge in lies (v. 15). But God will lay the cornerstone (16), which will bring justice, righteousness, truth (17), and this will destroy their refuges (18-20), so listen to God (23). This isn’t teaching an allegorical hermeneutic.

What you are saying then is that everyone is free to understand the bible the way that best suits them because God has provided no way of developing a proper hermeneutic of his word. This means that the literal historical grammatical method is just the a way of developing a proper doctrines, but not the only way. And it certainly can't be proclaimed as the best way because that's relative to each person. I'm ok with people not seeing what I've been trying to explain here, it was never my intention to convince but to inform from the scriptures. But at least we agree on the importance of having a proper hermeneutic.

[The Tanager]

Looking at multiple translations is the same as getting other's opinions on spiritual matters, and since no translation is inspired of God, it only helps to look at the original text for ourselves.

We don’t just accept others’ views, but it’s foolish to think we can’t learn something from those who study the languages and texts for a living.

Also, the multiple ways a Greek or Hebrew word can be translated, doesn't change the fact that the Bible is it's own dictionary as well as its own commentary.

So, the Bible only ever has one real meaning for every word? So, in Genesis 20:14, when Abimelech gives Abram some sheep, God is really teaching us that some of Abimelech's people became part of the elect?

I think God used human language to reveal His truths, words that had particular (and multiple) meanings in those cultures. Part of our job, helped by experts of the fields but who may have their own biases and so it helps us to not just trust one, nor just trust ourselves, is to try to understand those in order to help us understand God's message to us. This is something we still need God to guide us in.

Obviously the ark would need physical pitch. Later, the word chosen to get across the concept of atonement was built off of this physical picture because of a feature God wanted them to understand in their own language. We can get the idea of the ark as a type of God’s salvation and atonement without translating pitch as “ransom” just fine. The immediate context of the flood story, the broader context of the whole Torah, and the even wider context of the cohesive thread in all of scripture shows this to be true even if a different word would have been connected to atonement or used for tar.

What you are saying then is that everyone is free to understand the bible the way that best suits them because God has provided no way of developing a proper hermeneutic of his word.

I said no such thing. You argued that God did provide an exact hermeneutic and offered two passages that seem to be misunderstandings of the context of those passages. I shared why I thought they were misunderstandings. You didn’t reply to any of those points to maintain support for your claim that we have an exact hermeneutic laid out for us, but you still can.

As for developing a proper hermeneutic, since no passage directly teaches the answer to that question, I think one must turn to philosophical arguments, ones that take into account the Biblical texts, not one devoid of the texts.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #40]

Ps 5:5 is speaking about the non elect, not the elect. God Loved the elect while ungodly and doing iniquity Rom 5:6-8

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

God showed the ungodly elect much Love.

[Eddie Ramos]

Also, the multiple ways a Greek or Hebrew word can be translated, doesn't change the fact that the Bible is it's own dictionary as well as its own commentary.

So, the Bible only ever has one real meaning for every word? So, in Genesis 20:14, when Abimelech gives Abram some sheep, God is really teaching us that some of Abimelech's people became part of the elect?

You're confusing the definition of a word with types and figures. Types and figures can represent more than 1 thing, but we must rely solely on the scriptures to show us how to understand them. For example, a serpent is a type and figure (a spiritual picture) of Satan, but can also at times be a type and figure of Christ.

Revelation 20:2 (KJV 1900)
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

John 3:14 (KJV 1900)
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Then our job is to try and understand what God is trying to teach us by using those comparisons.

I think God used human language to reveal His truths, words that had particular (and multiple) meanings in those cultures. Part of our job, helped by experts of the fields but who may have their own biases and so it helps us to not just trust one, nor just trust ourselves, is to try to understand those in order to help us understand God's message to us. This is something we still need God to guide us in.

I realize that that is what is commonly taught as a way to understand the scriptures. This is why commentaries have been put forth by so many scholars. And which commentary is used, depends on which scholar each person holds in high regard. But what if that scholar is incorrect in his conclusions on certain passages? Well, some may check out three or four commentaries to see who agrees with one another, but that still doesn't solve the problem of coming to truth. The only way to know if someone's commentary on any particular passage is faithful to the scriptures, is to examine it in light of the scriptures as a whole. But it still boils down to using the proper hermeneutic to do so.

Now, your first sentence here is correct as long as you're referring to the literal, historical and moral truths of his word. That he did use human language to reveal, and by human language, I mean he communicated it in a way that the natural man can read and grasp. But when it comes to his spiritual truth (which is the most important truth in the bible) God used those same literal, historical and moral truths of his word to conceal his spiritual truths. That is the whole purpose of parables.

Obviously the ark would need physical pitch. Later, the word chosen to get across the concept of atonement was built off of this physical picture because of a feature God wanted them to understand in their own language. We can get the idea of the ark as a type of God’s salvation and atonement without translating pitch as “ransom” just fine. The immediate context of the flood story, the broader context of the whole Torah, and the even wider context of the cohesive thread in all of scripture shows this to be true even if a different word would have been connected to atonement or used for tar.

I'm pretty sure if we were having this discussion and I told you that the ark typified salvation (atonement) with a ransom, yet if God didn't use the word "ransom" (Strong's 3724) here, but instead used the actual word he uses for "pitch" (Strong's 2203) which has nothing to do with "ransom", you would have told me that I can't make such connection by taking a word that has nothing to do with the word "ransom" and forcing my own meaning upon it. That's what I would do if the shoe was on the other foot, and rightfully so, because that shows that no one can just apply a meaning to a word that the Bible does not permit. This is why God chose this very specific word. Thus, atonement and ransom go hand in hand. And what's more, is that if we pay even closer attention, we can see that there is more than 1 reason God used the word "ransom" to describe the covering of the ark. When we read his instructions carefully, we see that God tools Noah to pitch (atone) it within and without with "ransom" (pitch). This is because the debt that the law of God required was paid for on both sides of the ark. For those within the ark, atonement was made by Christ ("pitch it within..."). And for those outside the ark ("...and without..."), atonement was paid by the own ransom of their own lives, thus satisfying the requirements of God's law (Rom 6:23). This is just one way (of many) by which God confirms the correct doctrine of limited atonement. This is the gospel message hidden in a historical account. This is how parables work.

What you are saying then is that everyone is free to understand the bible the way that best suits them because God has provided no way of developing a proper hermeneutic of his word.

I said no such thing. You argued that God did provide an exact hermeneutic and offered two passages that seem to be misunderstandings of the context of those passages. I shared why I thought they were misunderstandings. You didn’t reply to any of those points to maintain support for your claim that we have an exact hermeneutic laid out for us, but you still can.

Sometimes it's difficult to communicate properly via texts which may result in misunderstandings. When I said, "What you are saying then is...", I meant it more as, this is how I understand what you are saying by the statement you made earlier when you said, "I’m not sure any verse directly addresses the question of which exact hermeneutic to use". This gave me the impression that since there is no set biblical way (according to what you said), then what makes your hermeneutic better than someone who uses a totally different hermeneutic and arrives at a totally different conclusion?

As for developing a proper hermeneutic, since no passage directly teaches the answer to that question, I think one must turn to philosophical arguments, ones that take into account the Biblical texts, not one devoid of the texts.

Here again, you're reinforcing your position that the Bible does not teach us proper hermeneutic, yet you understand and acknowledge that using a proper hermeneutic is vital to coming to truth, right? Yet, you're convinced that God hasn't provided his own method in his word. And so, you have adopted the one that suits you best, because when you apply that hermeneutic to the scriptures, you're satisfied with doctrine that it produces. If I'm incorrect about those statements, then feel free to correct me.

The problem is that God has charged us with a very important task regarding the study of His Word.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV 1900)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

So, how can one possibly rightly divide the word of truth without having been given any instructions on how to do it from the one whose giving the command? (That would be God, not Paul). If God had left it up to each reader to come up with their own way of "rightly dividing" the word of truth, then we would end up with many different and opposing doctrines from the same book because different people, from different backgrounds and different cultures, would come up with a hermeneutic that each one feels is right. And lo and behold, that's exactly what we have in the world today. All because they failed to understand that God has indeed provided his own hermeneutic in his very word. And all the passages I shared with you, teach that very thing.

Yet, I know I can't convince anyone of this truth, that's God's business. As I'm sure you feel the same way about those who don't see that your hermeneutic is the right one. And this reminds me of Christ, who was the greatest teacher to walk this earth (because he is God), and yet the Bible scholars of his day totally disagreed with his doctrine, but that's because they could not hear the truth, because they were not true children of God, even though they were sure that they were. And that's the most humbling part of that lesson, that while we all claim (including me) to belong to God and believe that we are saved, we all believe that the method we are using to understand the truth of the Bible, is the method God would have us to use, and as a result, we believe that the doctrines we develop because of our hermeneutic must also be true and faithful. So, may all of us (including me) be humble enough to accept correction where needed, so long as that correction comes from the scriptures.

[Diogenes]

Many misunderstand John 3:16 and take it to mean God has affection for every individual in the the world, but in reality it means that God has a principled love (agape) for every individual. This allows Him to act kindly even towards those individuals that he does not like.
....
His personal affection/friendship, is reserved for the faithful alone.

Putting aside these partially conflicting sentiments, the "Word of God" says he HATED Esau.

It's long past time to quit pretending the Bible is the "Word of God." It is a collection of writings by largely anonymous human beings and there are hundreds of conflicting statements contained therein. 'God,' the character portrayed in conflicting ways in the Bible, apparently hated Esau. Why? Why would he allow Jacob to steal Esau's birthright and thereby reward Jacob's deceit? Why did 'God' champion and support the liar Abraham? Why choose the Jews as his special tribe?

Because the 'God' of the Bible is not a god at all and certainly not the God. He is a character made up by an ancient tribe of nomads to justify the tribe's conquests and to encourage the individuals of that tribe to obey laws the tribal leaders thought important for their survival and for the interests of the priesthood of the tribe. This is the function of all gods for all tribes.

Trying to make sense of all this as if there really were a universal God of all is a fool's errand.
There is no God, and if there were it would have NO resemblance whatsoever to this laughably anthropomorphic caricature presented in the Old Testament.

I am constantly astonished that anyone could believe in such a character. Really? You really believe this 'god' of the Bible (or Quran) actually exists?

[The Tanager]

You're confusing the definition of a word with types and figures.

You said the Bible has its own dictionary and that sugkrino only has one meaning in the passages it is found in. I argued that there are words in the Bible that clearly have different meanings. Like probatan for “sheep”. At times it clearly speaks of the animal, at other times it speaks to Israelites that Jesus and the disciples are seeking to teach the truth of the kingdom about. So, why not with a word like sugkrino? Why must it always mean “compare”? It’s not because the Bible is its own dictionary and, therefore, it can only have one meaning. So, what’s the reason(s)?

But even if it could only be translated “compare,” it still wouldn’t be justification for an allegorical approach. The context of the passage is about contrasting the power of Christianity with other worldviews; of the Spirit’s role in our faith and how salvation came about (Christ crucified), versus human attempts at persuasion. Where is it talking about allegory?

But when it comes to his spiritual truth (which is the most important truth in the bible) God used those same literal, historical and moral truths of his word to conceal his spiritual truths. That is the whole purpose of parables.

Parables are meant to draw people into a deeper search for truth, seeking God’s guidance, yes. Our faith isn’t just information transfer. That’s different from your allegorical approach, though.

I'm pretty sure if we were having this discussion and I told you that the ark typified salvation (atonement) with a ransom, yet if God didn't use the word "ransom" (Strong's 3724) here, but instead used the actual word he uses for "pitch" (Strong's 2203) which has nothing to do with "ransom", you would have told me that I can't make such connection by taking a word that has nothing to do with the word "ransom" and forcing my own meaning upon it. That's what I would do if the shoe was on the other foot, and rightfully so, because that shows that no one can just apply a meaning to a word that the Bible does not permit. This is why God chose this very specific word. Thus, atonement and ransom go hand in hand. And what's more, is that if we pay even closer attention, we can see that there is more than 1 reason God used the word "ransom" to describe the covering of the ark. When we read his instructions carefully, we see that God tools Noah to pitch (atone) it within and without with "ransom" (pitch). This is because the debt that the law of God required was paid for on both sides of the ark. For those within the ark, atonement was made by Christ ("pitch it within..."). And for those outside the ark ("...and without..."), atonement was paid by the own ransom of their own lives, thus satisfying the requirements of God's law (Rom 6:23). This is just one way (of many) by which God confirms the correct doctrine of limited atonement. This is the gospel message hidden in a historical account. This is how parables work.

Genesis is full of plays on words. In Genesis 6:14, Noah is told to kaphar (#3722, cover) the ark with kopher (#3724, ransom), which comes from kaphar. It makes sense to say a covering of the ark would be a way to refer to “pitch”. We don’t need kopher used to get the theory of atonement or ransom from the Bible. But I’m fine to say atonement and ransom go hand in hand.

But let’s assume your allegorical approach. Genesis 6:14 says “Make the ark and cover it inside and outside with pitch”. It’s the same pitch for both the outside and inside. It’s not mentioned twice. It’s not two different words. If anything, an allegorical approach here would be evidence against limited atonement.

Here again, you're reinforcing your position that the Bible does not teach us proper hermeneutic, yet you understand and acknowledge that using a proper hermeneutic is vital to coming to truth, right? Yet, you're convinced that God hasn't provided his own method in his word. And so, you have adopted the one that suits you best, because when you apply that hermeneutic to the scriptures, you're satisfied with doctrine that it produces. If I'm incorrect about those statements, then feel free to correct me.

On what do you base this accusation about my motives? I don’t pick my approach based upon what doctrine I want to be true. I base it on what seems to have the most merit as an approach, whatever doctrines they lead to. Direct revelation is not the only way God speaks to us. As far as I know, God doesn’t directly answer this question anywhere.