God knows who He favors, God knows who He has chosen

[Stewardofthemystery]

To be saved by God’s grace means you have been saved by God’s favor. So God favors some over others. Jacob He loved, but Esau He hated.

And some think they have chosen God, but that means nothing if God has not chosen them. It is God who chooses whom He favors, it is God who chooses to have mercy on whomsoever He will. God has chosen His elect even before the world began.

In this we can see and understand there is no room for boasting in works on our part for being chosen by God, and saved by His grace.

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

[Eddie Ramos]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #40]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I was away for a few days and never finished up my part 3, but I think we have plenty to discuss with what we have. And that being the case, for the purposes of condensing all of your replies, I will choose what I feel would be the more important sections to reply to. But if you feel that I should have commented on something you said that I am not covering in this reply, then please bring it up and I will do so.

So, if I may, the more we dialogue, the more I believe I am understanding your position. You believe that God’s predestination was not of individuals to become saved, but of predestinating a way for anyone who desired salvation to become saved, and that way was Jesus Christ. I will not comment on this until I receive a confirmation or correction from you.

From reading your replies, I noticed two or three things that perhaps need addressing first before any progress can be made. And by progress, I mean finding that one truth from the Bible that brings the rest of the scriptures into harmony with whatever doctrinal position you or I hold to be true.

And I’m not sure if we’ve had this discussion before or not, but the foundation for any doctrine you or I develop from the scriptures rests on how we approach the Bible in order to arrive at that truth (Hermeneutics). This is ultimately why there are so many opposing views held by people who read the Bible. It’s because of the way they approach, study and understand the Bible. But as many people as I’ve spoken with about this topic, I have yet to have anyone offer me some scriptures which show them how they are to approach and study and understand the Word of God.

You stated that, “We are both trying to apply logic and good hermeneutics.”.

So, I will ask you the same thing I’ve asked others, can you provide me with the scriptures that have taught you that your method of hermeneutics is the method God has laid out for us? And for brevity, I will comment on my position from time to time but will get in more depth (and substantiate with the scriptures) later on in our discussion. Another reason I am asking for this is because in your replies, you laid out what is and isn’t allowed to be done when understanding the Word of God. You said:

“Your approach here (which is looking for the spiritual truth in every part of the Bible) seems to turn to a kind of secret code deciphering that we are not called to do in the Bible. Yes, we are meant to dig deep to find truth …., but it’s through clear connections, not just choosing that some person/event/passage secretly symbolizes this other truth we believe. If the context doesn’t make the connection, then we shouldn’t either.”

Now, I would like to declare that the context is ultimately the context of the whole Bible as it is one cohesive Word and Truth. You also said:

“If the text says it applies to individual election, then we can go with it, but if not, we can’t. You want to read that view into every text and your spiritualizing hermeneutic accommodates that, but it also allows for other, opposing views, to be read into texts because there is no way to adjudicate between the vague connections you pull together and the vague connections that, say, a panentheist will pull together to say we are all part of God. I’ve had this same discussion point with one of them on this board who used the same move you did.”

I can provide plenty of texts that don’t say what they actually mean. And of course anyone can distort the soiritual meaning of the Bible just as they do with the literal approach. But in the end, the Bible is the one who, as a whole, must agree with everthing we declare to be true. This is why presenting your scriptures for how we are to understand and interpret the Bible is so vital. Because if the Bible disagrees with you (by way of scriptural examples) then correction is needed, right? For example, as God was giving the nation of Israel His law, he inserts what appears to be a random law with zero context (other than it also being a law) before or after it, nevertheless a law that required keeping.

Deuteronomy 25:4 (KJV 1900)
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

So, because the nation of Israel took the words of God at face value, they obeyed the letter of the law just as it was written without any knowledge that God wrote the law (and the word of God) to conceal spiritual truths. This means that for over a thousand years the nation of Israel historically kept this law just as it was written. And they had to, else there would be punishments. And this is where God’s wisdom far exceeds our because had not God held us by the hand and showed us (multiple times) that we need to look for the spiritual meaning within the words on the surface, then we would never know to do that. And he does just that when he explains to us what the spiritual meaning of this commandment was.

1 Corinthians 9:9–11 & 14(KJV 1900)
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? …….14 Even so hath the Lord ordained (spiritually since he first gave that law) that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

The second thing I wanted to comment on regarding your posts is that you seem to believe in free will unto salvation. Meaning that anyone can hear the gospel and choose to believe. Or anyone accept the free gift of salvation. Is that correct? This of course also stems from one’s hermeneutics (as does election).

Now, ultimately, God had written His Words so that there is only agreement between them. Are we in agreement here?

1 John 5:8 (KJV 1900)
And there are three that bear witness (bear record) in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

And based on this, I would like to respond to some key points you addressed. I agree that both you and I are offering what we each believe to be scripturally true, but if we’re not in agreement, or I should say, if the Bible disagrees with one of us, then one of us has to make correction. And regarding “believing” or “accepting” unto salvation, one must first understand that the soul of man is dead upon conception. And because salvation is absolutely a spiritual work, then nothing we did physically could have ever initiated it, kept it, or see it to its completion.

But because of how God wrote the Bible, to confuse the casual reader and those who do not have the Spirit of God to understand its spiritual truths, then the words read on the surface are interpreted based on the understanding of each reader rather than on the way God has laid out for his word to be understood. This is why understanding the account of Lazarus and his resurrection from the dead must be taken into account when it comes to holding the doctrine of free will. Lazarus could not do anything the Bible commands a person to do. He could not believe, accept, repent, confess, call upon the name of, etc. Not until something happened first. Which is that he first had to be raised from the dead, which is exactly what being born again is.

This is why if someone trusts in the fact that they have accepted the gift of salvation, then they are trusting in a work of righteousness they have done in their flesh, and that could have never saved them. The same with any other work, like repenting, believing, etc.

The next point is regarding 1 Jn 3:23. These are in fact 2 commandments because God is listing each one as a commandment. The first commandment is to believe. The next commandment is to love. But even if you want to view these as one commandment, then the Bible allows for that view as well at times, because God refers to all of his laws as a singular law. In either case, we agree that God is giving a commandment here to believe and to love. And does obedience (which is a work) to any commandment of God save us? The Bible says no.

[The Tanager]

So, if I may, the more we dialogue, the more I believe I am understanding your position. You believe that God’s predestination was not of individuals to become saved, but of predestinating a way for anyone who desired salvation to become saved, and that way was Jesus Christ. I will not comment on this until I receive a confirmation or correction from you.

Correct.

So, I will ask you the same thing I’ve asked others, can you provide me with the scriptures that have taught you that your method of hermeneutics is the method God has laid out for us?

I agree with you that our hermeneutical approach is very important. But I don’t think any verses lay out any method explicitly. We have had this discussion before, but I’d love to reconsider your case.

For example, as God was giving the nation of Israel His law, he inserts what appears to be a random law with zero context (other than it also being a law) before or after it, nevertheless a law that required keeping.

Deuteronomy 25:4 (KJV 1900)
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Why do you think this verse is random? Why isn’t it a metaphor that applies to Deut 25:1-3?

And this is where God’s wisdom far exceeds our because had not God held us by the hand and showed us (multiple times) that we need to look for the spiritual meaning within the words on the surface, then we would never know to do that. And he does just that when he explains to us what the spiritual meaning of this commandment was.

1 Corinthians 9:9–11 & 14(KJV 1900)

Why is this Paul using your spiritualizing approach instead of Paul just applying the straightforward principle of Deut 25:1-4 to the situation he is talking about in 1 Cor 9?

The second thing I wanted to comment on regarding your posts is that you seem to believe in free will unto salvation. Meaning that anyone can hear the gospel and choose to believe. Or anyone accept the free gift of salvation. Is that correct? This of course also stems from one’s hermeneutics (as does election).

Correct.

And based on this, I would like to respond to some key points you addressed. I agree that both you and I are offering what we each believe to be scripturally true, but if we’re not in agreement, or I should say, if the Bible disagrees with one of us, then one of us has to make correction. And regarding “believing” or “accepting” unto salvation, one must first understand that the soul of man is dead upon conception. And because salvation is absolutely a spiritual work, then nothing we did physically could have ever initiated it, kept it, or see it to its completion.

These are claims; what is your support for man’s soul being “dead upon conception,” salvation being a “spiritual work,” and that we can play no role in a “spiritual work”?

But because of how God wrote the Bible, to confuse the casual reader and those who do not have the Spirit of God to understand its spiritual truths, then the words read on the surface are interpreted based on the understanding of each reader rather than on the way God has laid out for his word to be understood. This is why understanding the account of Lazarus and his resurrection from the dead must be taken into account when it comes to holding the doctrine of free will. Lazarus could not do anything the Bible commands a person to do. He could not believe, accept, repent, confess, call upon the name of, etc. Not until something happened first. Which is that he first had to be raised from the dead, which is exactly what being born again is.

This is reading the Lazarus story through your doctrine, not getting your doctrine from the Lazarus story. Lazarus doesn’t become a believer after Jesus resuscitates him.

This is why if someone trusts in the fact that they have accepted the gift of salvation, then they are trusting in a work of righteousness they have done in their flesh, and that could have never saved them. The same with any other work, like repenting, believing, etc.

This is a claim; what is your support for it being true? In Romans 10 Paul is clearly speaking against the Jews who think righteousness comes by the law (or by work). We agree there. But then, in verse 9, Paul says that if you confess Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Paul clearly doesn’t view confessing and believing as a work.

The next point is regarding 1 Jn 3:23. These are in fact 2 commandments because God is listing each one as a commandment. The first commandment is to believe. The next commandment is to love. But even if you want to view these as one commandment, then the Bible allows for that view as well at times, because God refers to all of his laws as a singular law. In either case, we agree that God is giving a commandment here to believe and to love. And does obedience (which is a work) to any commandment of God save us? The Bible says no.

The text doesn’t list each one as a commandment for a total of two commandments. In fact, it explicitly says it is one commandment. But there are two phrases used. To me that points to two phrases that refer to the same commandment. They are the same thing, in John’s usage here and in the whole letter. If we aren’t loving one another, then we simply aren’t believing in the name of Jesus. This isn’t about obeying a commandment to get salvation. If it was, then John would be saying that we must obey the commandment to get salvation and neither of us thinks he is saying that. Loving one another is the fruit of having salvation, of having the Spirit within us.

[Eddie Ramos]

So, I will ask you the same thing I’ve asked others, can you provide me with the scriptures that have taught you that your method of hermeneutics is the method God has laid out for us?

I agree with you that our hermeneutical approach is very important. But I don’t think any verses lay out any method explicitly. We have had this discussion before, but I’d love to reconsider your case.

I'm glad we agree on the importance of hermeneutics. That being said, do you really believe that God would allow thousands of years to transpire so that he could write his words down for mankind of various historical events, laws and principles, only to leave it to us to figure out how he expects us to understand what we are reading? What I'm about to say next will not be addressed directly to you, but I'll be speaking in general terms only.

The major reason virtually everyone who holds to the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation is because they are natural minded individuals who do not poses the Spirit of God (even though they are convinced they do). As such, when they approach a book like the Bible, they may claim it's a living book, but they reject any idea of it containing hidden spiritual truths. This concept goes against everything the natural mind can comprehend, thus they reject "spiritualizing" the Bible. And because of this, they also reject anything the Bible may say regarding the fact that it indeed its contents are indeed spiritual with deep hidden spiritual meanings. This is the reason they arrive at the same conclusion you did regarding God not providing any verses that lay out any method explicitly on how we are to study and understand God's Word.

It's because of this conclusion that they determined to put their most brilliant minds together and invent a method that seems logical to the natural mind. A method that follows suit with reading and understanding any other book written by man. This is also why these same people make it a point to acredit the writer (the scribe) as the author of the words they wrote. For example, you attributed the writtings of John and Paul to each person, rather than to God, whose words they spoke/wrote. The difference is that when we acredit the human beings with the words of the Bible, then we can try and relate to what they may have been thinking when they wrote these words. This is what the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation relies on, knowing the men and as much of their historical backround as possible, even if that means stepping outside of the Bible to learn it. But nothing can be further from the truth. The scribe does not get acredited with the book he wrote because he's a tool used by the writer who is God. God allows us to see this in the book of Romans which you acredited to Paul having spoken those words when you said, "Paul clearly doesn’t view confessing and believing as a work". Yet Paul didn't write the book of Romans, his scribe Tertius did (Rom 16:22). So then why is Tretius not acretided as the writer of the book of Romans? Why didn't you instead say, "Tertius clearly doesn’t view confessing and believing as a work". The answer is because the scribe is just a tool used by the one who spoke the words of God. And the one who spoke the words of God was given the words to speak.

1 Kings 17:24 (KJV 1900)
And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.

Isaiah 51:16 (KJV 1900)
And I have put my words in thy mouth,
And I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand,
That I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth,
And say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

This is why the scriptures testify that all of scripture is God breathed, not man breathed, even though God used men to speak His words. So, Paul gets as much credit as Tertius does when it comes to understanding whose words we are dealing with, God's words. And when we view the entire Bible under that light, we have to be very careful never to assume that any man-made hermeneutic like the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation (which cannot provide a single verse to support their claim that this hermeneutic is biblically based) is the corect method to use.

This means that God (who is Spirit) and gave us a spiritual book, most certainly also gave us a way to understand the spiritual truths contained within it. But before we get to that, God's wisdom is so far above our own finite understanding, that he wrote a spiritual book using actual historical events, that the natural minded reader will be able to glean much historical truth from it's pages. Even though these historical truths are in fact used as historical parables to hide spiritual truth. And it's this spiritual truth that the natural minded person will not even be inclined to look for. But why? Because spiritual truths from God's Word are foolishness unto the natural minded man. He'd rather stick to his historical facts. But God didn't only hide spiritual truths within historical events, but also within moral truths given to mankind. To the natural mind, moral laws are just that, moral truths to live by. Don't steal, don't kill, honor your parents, love God, etc.

But the spiritual level of the scriptures is what the natural minded man will not be able to see nor comprehend, because this level required the Holy Spirit of God within the man to be able to see and understand these spiritual truths. This is the reason why those who hold to the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation feel like God gave no specific scriptures to tell them how to study and understand the scriptures, because what they're looking for are logical instructions that anyone can relate to. And since God didn't supply any of those types of instructions, then men took it upon themselves to develop one. And once they came to an agreement, then this method was adopted worldwide and anyone who didn't follow it is flagged as not approaching the Bible "correctly". If someone violates their hermeneutic, they say, "you can't do this or that". All the while never questioning for themselves why their hermeneutic can't be shown from the Bible.

So, the first thing to point out is that God commands us to do something regarding His Word.
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV 1900)
Study (be diligent) to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed (ok, how do we accomplish this? God says by...), rightly dividing the word of truth.

So, God clearly expects us to rightly divide his Word, then why would he leave us with no scriptures to specifically teach us how to do this? But he doesn't leave us without the necessary scriptures. The next thing God teaches us is that the words spoken are spiritual words which are to be spiritually discerned through the Holy Ghost as we compare spiritual with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:1–16 (KJV 1900)
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom (meaning his own wisdom), declaring unto you the testimony (the witness) of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom (meaning his own words of wisdom), but in demonstration of the Spirit (because the Spirit spoke through Paul the words of God) and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (Do you see how many times God warns against following the wisdom of men when it comes to spiritual matters? Why then hold to a hermeneutic that has no biblical basis?)
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom (the hidden spiritual wisdom of God) among them that are perfect: (Now, who in this earth could possibly be perfect? Only those who have truly become saved have become perfect in their born again soul (Phil 3:15) And now God is going to specify what type of wisdom his people speak among them that are perfect). yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God (so, God's people were not speaking worldly wisdom among them that are perfect, but they were speaking the wisdom of God, or Godly wisdom. And now God explains how this wisdom was spoken) in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory (Why was God's wisdom spoken in a mystery? Why was it hidden and who was it hidden from? God answers that next): 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (The princes are the nation of Israel who were stewards of the Gospel for over a thousand years. They were given the Word of God in a mystery. This means that there was hidden wisdom concealed within the literal law as well as in everything that they experienced which was recorded) 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him (This is quoted from Isa 64, and verse 3 shows us that the nation of Israel is in the context as they experienced things that they did not understand. These things were hidden spiritually). 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (this word "deep" relates to the unsearchable wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom 11:33) And the next verse explains that these things are only unsearchable to the natural minded man). 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (and this is what separates the natural minded man from the spiritual minded man). 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things (the things of God) also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth (and how does the Holy Ghost teach?); comparing spiritual things with spiritual (Not by comparing historical with historical, or grammatical with grammatical, or literal with literal, but spiritual with spiritual. This is precisely what the natural minded man can't grasp). 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (The words of God are to be spiritually discerned). 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth (discerns) all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? (And this is the only reason that those who are spiritual can discern the spiritual word of God, because we have the mind of Christ) But we have the mind of Christ.

And as such, God has taught his people to carefully consider every word he has spoken because within his spoken Word, he has hidden spiritual truth. Why? Because the Word of God (which is the law of God) is spiritual.

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

This is why our desire is to be filled with spiritual understanding. Because it's the spiritual understanding of the Word of God that far exceeds the historical and moral understanding of it.

Colossians 1:9 (KJV 1900)
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

So, what does it mean to compare spiritual things with spiritual? Well, since the word of God is spiritual, it means to compare the Word of God with itself. This means that the Bible is ultimately one context and one truth. This is why God goes over His method for teaching doctrine to his people.

Isaiah 28:9–13 (KJV 1900)

9  Whom shall he teach knowledge?
And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? (This is exactly what we want to know how to do, right? Well, God first explains who this method is designed for and who will not be able to comprehend it).

Them that are weaned from the milk,
And drawn from the breasts. (In other words, those who are still on the milk of the Word are called unskillful in the Word of righteousness. This is not speaking of new believers, as many believe it is, but of seasoned "believers" who have never grown in their understanding of the scriptures. Heb 5:12-14) (And here is how we develop and understand doctrine).
10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little: (This means that we compare everything the Bible has to say with everything the Bible has to say.
Yet man makes his own rules and says you can't jump from one book to another unless the Bible specifically takes you there. Yet God allows us to go line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little in order to arrive at that one truth. Yet this very same method has been designed by God to also cause the unsaved to stumble.)
11  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.

And the final result, after we have examined everything the Bible has to say with itself is that we arrive at a conclusion that agrees with the Bible as one cohesive truth.

1 John 5:8 (KJV 1900)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

God also teaches us how he wants us to study and understand his word by principles we learn as we go through His Word (which we can cover later). So, everything I previously stated is why the natural minded person can't accept the fact that God spoke in parables and without parables he did not speak.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV 1900)
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

The Word of God (Christ) did not speak without parables. Yet this must be set aside for the sake of the literal method approach which is far more valuable in the eyes of men. Nevermind that the Bible tells us that the doctrine of Christ was a doctrine of parables.

Mark 4:2–3 (KJV 1900)
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

Mark 12:38 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto them in his doctrine (which is by parables), Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

This is why those who sin by not abiding to the doctrine of Christ (a doctrine of parables) do not have God. These are they who reject the doctrine of Christ and develop their own doctrines via their own methods.

2 John 9 (KJV 1900)
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Parables are alluded to all over the Bible with the intent that God's people will notice that this is where God has hid the meat of His Word, by writting the Word of God in the form of parables, by concealing them within historical events, laws, prayers and moral truths. And because God has done this with His Word, we undrstand that the entire Bible needs to be interpreted in order to find that spiritual truth.

Proverbs 1:6 (KJV)
To understand a proverb (a parable), and the interpretation;
the words of the wise (the Words of God), and their dark sayings.

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV)
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (a WORD):
but the honour of kings (true believers) is to search out a matter.(a WORD)

The word of God is all about parables and interpretation of parables. And what is the purpose of parables? To hide truth from the unsaved.
Incidentally, this is the very reason why someone would look at a historical law about not muzzling the ox when he treadeth out the corn and conclude that instead, it must be a metaphor.

For example, as God was giving the nation of Israel His law, he inserts what appears to be a random law with zero context (other than it also being a law) before or after it, nevertheless a law that required keeping.

Deuteronomy 25:4 (KJV 1900)
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Why do you think this verse is random? Why isn’t it a metaphor that applies to Deut 25:1-3?

The first 3 verses of Deut 25 are regarding the punishment of the wicked man who stands before the judges to be judged and beaten accordingly with no more than 40 stripes. Verse 4 is not a metaphor, nor is it related to this punishment of the wicked. Verse 4 was a law like every single other law which had to be literally observed. But reagarding how verse 4 ought to be viewed (metaphorically or spiritually), the Bible answers that for us when it explains the spiritual meaning behind this law.

1 Corinthians 9:7–9 (KJV 1900)
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

What God just quoted regarding the ox was law and had to be observed literally. Are metaphors taken literally? No, they're not. God gave this law, not because he cared for the ox who benefitted from this law as he got to partake in that which he was laboring for. Well, in like manner, the spiritual truth behind this literal law, was that he which preaches the gospel (treads out the corn) should live of the gospel (should be a partaker in that which he is labouring for).

1 Corinthians 9:14 (KJV 1900)
Even so (in like manner as the law of the ox) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Again, God didn't give this law way back when because he cared for the ox, but this was written long ago to conceal a spiritual truth which the Bible itself would reveal as we compare spiritual with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 9:10 (KJV 1900)
Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The ox threshing typified the man labouring for the sake of the gospel. That is the spiritual truth behind the literal law. And no, this was not a metaphor, it was spiritual.

1 Corinthians 9:11 (KJV 1900)
If we have sown unto you spiritual things (not metaphoric things), is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

And this is where God’s wisdom far exceeds our because had not God held us by the hand and showed us (multiple times) that we need to look for the spiritual meaning within the words on the surface, then we would never know to do that. And he does just that when he explains to us what the spiritual meaning of this commandment was.

Why is this Paul using your spiritualizing approach instead of Paul just applying the straightforward principle of Deut 25:1-4 to the situation he is talking about in 1 Cor 9?

Again, this is not Paul speaking but God and it is not Paul using my spiritualizing approach, it is God who designed this approach, not me. Again, the first 3 verses of Deut 25 are about the judgment of the wicked and his due punishment. The law of the ox is about being a partaker of the work of the gospel. God reinforces this fact when he quotes once again the law of the ox in regards to those who labor for the sake of the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17–18 (KJV 1900)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

So, the law of justifying someone who is judged and found innocent, as well as judging someone and finding them guilty and then metting out his due punishment, is in a completely different context than allowing the laborer of the gospel to be partaker of his labors, or the ox not being muuzzled when he treads out the corn. I hope you can see the difference.

[The Tanager]

I'm glad we agree on the importance of hermeneutics. That being said, do you really believe that God would allow thousands of years to transpire so that he could write his words down for mankind of various historical events, laws and principles, only to leave it to us to figure out how he expects us to understand what we are reading?

Not writing direct instructions of hermeneutics in scripture is not the same thing as leaving it to us to figure out how to understand what we are reading.

What I'm about to say next will not be addressed directly to you, but I'll be speaking in general terms only.

Thank you for sharing those thoughts. What I say is generally addressed as well.

The major reason virtually everyone who holds to the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation is because they are natural minded individuals who do not poses the Spirit of God (even though they are convinced they do). As such, when they approach a book like the Bible, they may claim it's a living book, but they reject any idea of it containing hidden spiritual truths. This concept goes against everything the natural mind can comprehend, thus they reject "spiritualizing" the Bible. And because of this, they also reject anything the Bible may say regarding the fact that it indeed its contents are indeed spiritual with deep hidden spiritual meanings. This is the reason they arrive at the same conclusion you did regarding God not providing any verses that lay out any method explicitly on how we are to study and understand God's Word.

We don’t think there aren’t any “hidden” truths; we seem to define “hidden” differently. I think properly understanding many things in scripture requires deep reflection, led by the Spirit.

It's because of this conclusion that they determined to put their most brilliant minds together and invent a method that seems logical to the natural mind. A method that follows suit with reading and understanding any other book written by man.

No, it came from our theology, where God wants his words (1) to be understood (although much of this takes deeper reflection and study) and (2) less able to be turned towards any doctrine man wants to “decode” because they are one of the few that truly have the Spirit.

This is also why these same people make it a point to acredit the writer (the scribe) as the author of the words they wrote. For example, you attributed the writtings of John and Paul to each person, rather than to God, whose words they spoke/wrote.

No, we credit both the human writer and the God that inspired the words they wrote. Humans aren’t just tools of God, puppets in some play.

God allows us to see this in the book of Romans which you acredited to Paul having spoken those words when you said, "Paul clearly doesn’t view confessing and believing as a work". Yet Paul didn't write the book of Romans, his scribe Tertius did (Rom 16:22). So then why is Tretius not acretided as the writer of the book of Romans? Why didn't you instead say, "Tertius clearly doesn’t view confessing and believing as a work". The answer is because the scribe is just a tool used by the one who spoke the words of God. And the one who spoke the words of God was given the words to speak.

Paul used the scribe as a tool (although maybe allowed some freedom or input on how to word something as well). That doesn’t mean God uses all human authors in the same way. Being a prophet and being an author are not the same thing. Prophets were given very specific words and, when they were reporting those, made it very clear. Yet, at other times, they don’t say “the Lord said” and stuff like that. Yet, those words are still inspired by God. How does your view account for that distinction? On your view, it is all “God said”.

This is why the scriptures testify that all of scripture is God breathed, not man breathed, even though God used men to speak His words. So, Paul gets as much credit as Tertius does when it comes to understanding whose words we are dealing with, God's words. And when we view the entire Bible under that light, we have to be very careful never to assume that any man-made hermeneutic like the litteral, historical, grammatical method of interpretation (which cannot provide a single verse to support their claim that this hermeneutic is biblically based) is the corect method to use.

The “spiritualizing” method of interpretation doesn’t have a single verse to support it, either.

The verses you seemed to offer in this regard:

1 Cor 2:1-16

Paul says he didn’t preach a gospel that he (or any other human) just thought up on their own (v. 1). He is distinguishing it from other worldviews and their narratives. His message was about Jesus’ crucifixion (2). Jesus’ death as the means for salvation was a demonstration of the Spirit (4), not what man could think up (5). That’s the context. Man’s wisdom here is about that, not about all issues that exist. It’s very narrow.

Paul, in verses 6-7, then uses a word (which does not mean ‘perfect’ as we mean it today but “complete in all its parts, full grown, of full age”) that was also culturally applied to an initiate of a mystery religion, because his audience would understand that and he’s trying to convey information to people with that background (linguistically and/or culturally). But he distinguishes between those who believe in God’s message and those who believe in the pagan mysteries and human worldviews/wisdoms.

Incidentally, some of these mystery religions would eventually use your spiritualizing approach to interpret Paul’s writings (and the rest of scripture) to support their erroneous views. They would be able to use your identical kind of moves to come to their interpretations, which you reject. But you reject it on the conclusion they reach, not the actual moves used to get there. That’s a very good reason why God would not want to use this approach to try to get his wisdom across.

Back to the passage. God’s wisdom (which is specifically focused on Jesus as the way to salvation) was chosen by God before the ages and hidden for a time (7). If it was plain to see, Jesus’ wouldn’t have been crucified (8). Jesus’ crucifixion was due to the actual Israelites and Romans involved in that process. The rulers of this age are not connected with the nation of Israel for the past 1000 years. No reason to connect this with wisdom concealed in the literal law. Might as well connect it with all humans who have not bought the truth of panentheism.

God comes up with grand things that we would never think of (9). This is exactly what Isaiah 64 is about. God does things that surprise us all the time. And this is the very specific context (i.e., Jesus’ death) of what the Spirit revealed to us (10). In Jesus, God has intervened in our situation and saved us through Jesus’ death, which was wildly unexpected and humans couldn’t have come up with on their own.

Then, Paul begins to widen the context beyond Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to spiritual understanding available to the one who has believed in Jesus and received the Spirit and the mind of Christ.

So, what does it mean to compare spiritual things with spiritual? Well, since the word of God is spiritual, it means to compare the Word of God with itself. This means that the Bible is ultimately one context and one truth. This is why God goes over His method for teaching doctrine to his people.

“Comparing spiritual with spiritual” is not an answer to the spiritual vs. historical-grammatical method question. Yes, we are to take the whole Biblical context into account. That doesn’t mean connecting two unconnected verses together to decode a hidden meaning. It means making sure we aren’t contradicting other passages. This 1 Cor 2 passage isn’t about methods of interpreting scripture. And the phrase isn’t just a straightforward “compare” concept, since it also has the idea of combining two things together. Synthesize is a related word to the Greek word used here. That gives it more the idea of “combining spiritual things with spiritual words,” talking about how the Spirit speaks to us in words and deeds.

Romans 7:14

The context here isn’t a method of interpreting scripture, but the battle between the kind of life the law calls us to and the kind of life our sinful flesh calls us to. Like Ezekiel prophesied, we can’t just consistently will the good on our own. We need a new heart, a new Spirit, guiding us from within, guiding us into true wisdom in any of these battles to live life the way God desires for us, not in our own short-sighted wisdom.

Colossians 1:9

Paul prays that God will lead these Christians into what God’s will is in every situation in their life, like what he talks about to the Romans in 7:14 (and surrounding verses).

Isaiah 28:9-13

I don’t think this passage is talking about your “spiritualizing” method (please let me know if you prefer a different term) at all, but if this passage is, then it would clearly be saying don’t do it. This passage is not about those who are still on the milk of the Word. It is those who aren’t followers at all. This passage is about Ephraim’s leaders being drunk and careless, not listening to God’s wisdom (the scriptures) and being judged by God allowing foreigners to have victory over them. They are acting like babies, with no knowledge (v. 9). God’s message is precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little to these people who are being judged. You don’t want to be like these people in your relationship to God’s wisdom. God isn’t allowing us to take this approach, much less calling us to do it. God is saying this is how those who don’t understand God’s message hear it. It sounds all disconnected to them (here a little, there a little), like gibberish.

1 John 5:8

John says that our faith has conquered the world (v. 4). The one who believes Jesus is the Son of God is the one who has conquered the world (5). Jesus came by water and blood (6a). The Spirit testifies to who Jesus is (6b). These three things all point to Jesus as true. This isn’t a verse about hermeneutics.

Matthew 13:34

Jesus is quoted, on many occasions, as directly teaching some things. It is obviously not true that everything Jesus taught was by parable. This isn’t setting this verse aside, but understanding it contextually. This talking in parables doesn’t happen until chapter 13. So, this teaching in parables is clearly not meant literally. Jesus has gotten a lot of crowds following him. He uses parables to get people to come to Him for deeper understanding. Matthew just finished talking about how his true family is his followers (12:46-50). He then tells his first parables in order to share wisdom that has been hidden up until now (13:35). Then the disciples come to Him to get more wisdom and Jesus explains directly what He meant. Some don’t come to ask Jesus further questions. Those in His hometown say He has wisdom but reject His message.

Mark 12:38

When Jesus says the scribes love to go in long robes, love elaborate greetings, like to be given the best seats, the places of honor, but then steal the property of widows and make long prayers, he is describing actual, literal things they did in that time.

You can “spiritualize” it to really refer to X, but the panentheist will spiritualize it in the same way to refer to Y. There is no way to distinguish between your two conclusions via the method.

Proverbs 1:6

The introduction to this book says the proverbs are given to us so that we can know what God’s wisdom is. It’s saying this is attainable. Not by “spiritualizing” the interpretation, but by the moral instruction Proverbs gives. But one must fear the Lord (v. 7) to be led into right understanding instead of just relying on their own wisdom.

Proverbs 25:2

I agree we must do some searching, turning to God for wisdom, but this doesn’t mean reject logic and try to decode this with a little here and a little there that one finds. It’s just about what is wisdom and what is not; it doesn’t decide between one method and another.

The word of God is all about parables and interpretation of parables. And what is the purpose of parables? To hide truth from the unsaved.

It includes parables and interpretations, but that is not what it is all about. And the purpose of the parables is not to hide truth from the unsaved. Matthew 13 quotes Isaiah 6, which is about people who aren’t open to hearing the truth, misunderstanding it. Isaiah is saying God is wanting them to repent, but that they aren’t listening.

Deut 25:4

Incidentally, this is the very reason why someone would look at a historical law about not muzzling the ox when he treadeth out the corn and conclude that instead, it must be a metaphor.

No, that is not why one would think this was a metaphor; that simply comes from the context.

The first 3 verses of Deut 25 are regarding the punishment of the wicked man who stands before the judges to be judged and beaten accordingly with no more than 40 stripes. Verse 4 is not a metaphor, nor is it related to this punishment of the wicked. Verse 4 was a law like every single other law which had to be literally observed. But reagarding how verse 4 ought to be viewed (metaphorically or spiritually), the Bible answers that for us when it explains the spiritual meaning behind this law.

1 Corinthians 9:7–9 (KJV 1900)
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

What God just quoted regarding the ox was law and had to be observed literally. Are metaphors taken literally? No, they're not. God gave this law, not because he cared for the ox who benefitted from this law as he got to partake in that which he was laboring for. Well, in like manner, the spiritual truth behind this literal law, was that he which preaches the gospel (treads out the corn) should live of the gospel (should be a partaker in that which he is labouring for).

The law (v. 8) is how they referred to the first five books of scripture, written mostly by Moses. There are plenty of metaphors in those books. Paul then explicitly says (v. 9) that this isn’t a literal law that was to be followed, but actually applies to humans (10). That’s directly saying it is a metaphor. It was a metaphor to the original context and one that fits Paul’s context in 1 Cor 9 about being financially supported (11b) for spreading the gospel (11a).

So, the law of justifying someone who is judged and found innocent, as well as judging someone and finding them guilty and then metting out his due punishment, is in a completely different context than allowing the laborer of the gospel to be partaker of his labors, or the ox not being muuzzled when he treads out the corn. I hope you can see the difference.

Deut 24:10-13 talks about not securing your loan at the price of someone’s warmth and health. Verses 14-15 is about not oppressing the poor, but paying him his wages immediately because his life depends on it. Verses 17-22 are about leaving some in your fields to provide for the foreigner, orphan, and widow. Deut 25:1-3 is about a person wrongly withholding or taking something from another. The metaphor is about allowing your ox to eat the grain while it is working. These are all about providing for people who don’t have other means. That fits Paul’s context of being financially supported for spreading the gospel perfectly.

Ultimately, I think this post is a great example of you reading your “spiritualizing” method into each of these verses; you don’t get the method from these verses. You come to the text with a view you hold and your spiritualizing method allows you to pick a little here and pick a little there, ignoring the narrative context. It is circular reasoning. You also do this with individual predestination to salvation.

In contrast, I admit these verses don’t teach the historical-grammatical approach and I don’t try to shoehorn it in. Instead I let the texts say what they actually say and come to the approach for separate considerations.

[Eddie Ramos]

Not writing direct instructions of hermeneutics in scripture is not the same thing as leaving it to us to figure out how to understand what we are reading.

Yet you keep instructing me as to what is and isn't allowed to be done. My question for you is to show me by which authority you are claiming what can and can't be done. If your authority is anything other than the scriptures themselves, then we will never be in agreement as how to arrive at bibliac truth. However, if your authority does come from the scriptures, then that's what I would like you to show me. Even if it's not a direct statement, because God teaches us how to study the scriptures by using various examples a swell.

It's because of this conclusion that they determined to put their most brilliant minds together and invent a method that seems logical to the natural mind. A method that follows suit with reading and understanding any other book written by man.

No, it came from our theology, where God wants his words (1) to be understood (although much of this takes deeper reflection and study) and (2) less able to be turned towards any doctrine man wants to “decode” because they are one of the few that truly have the Spirit.

So, your hermeneutic came from your theology (your study of God, meaning His Word). My question then is, what were these rules based on? Biblical research (of which I am asking for scriptures to show for). Yet, isn't the final result of your hermeneutic the same exact approach you use to understand any historical book? That's why is called, the literal, grammatical, historical method. This approach assumes that "God wants his words to be understood". Yet he spoke in parables all throughout the Bible. Yet he spoke in apparent contradictions all throughou the Bible. Yet he tells us that it's his glory to hide words, to keep them secret (Prov 25:2). From who and for what if God wants his words to be understood? Did God really have to be so cryptic when communicating his words to finite creatures like mankind? Couldn't we have written a much clearer and easier to understand book? Or could it be that God spoke and wrote the Bible the way he did for a specific reason? To allow the natural minded man (the man without the Spirit of God) to open the book, read and learn its literal history, as well as the moral truths stated within?

Can't anyone with an ability to comprehend and apply a literal, historical and grammatical approach to the scriptures understand what it says, literally, historically and grammatically? Of course they can, they've been doing it for thousands of years. So, naturally, when the Bible comes along, to apply that same approach just seems natural and logical. And that is really the only basis for that hermeneutic. And the only thing learned from the scriptures are the historical and moral facts that can be easily shown. This knowledge does not require the Spirit of God to grasp, many atheists speak on the historical facts as well as the moral teachings. They may not agree with them, but they understand what it plainly says.

But the Bible speaks of anothe type of understanding that far exceeds the literal and historical understanding. The spiritual understanding is the level of understanding that is foolishness to the man without the Spirit of God. So much so, that whenever they come across anything that speaks spiritually, they pass right by it. But why? Because they have already concluded that the logical method to study and understand the Bible is by the literal, historical, grammatical method they've developed. And obtaining the spiritual understanding doesn't come by that hermeneutic. Furthermore, any notion that God didn't want anyone to understand his words registers as an absurdity, because after all, their hermeneutic has led them to conclude that God wants everyone to be saved, therefore, the logical conclusion is that he must want everyone to understand. Regardless of the many scripotures that attest otherwise. Which brings up the purpose of parables.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV 1900)
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Here is your understanding of what Matthew 13:34 is actually saying:

Jesus is quoted, on many occasions, as directly teaching some things. It is obviously not true that everything Jesus taught was by parable. This isn’t setting this verse aside, but understanding it contextually. This talking in parables doesn’t happen until chapter 13. So, this teaching in parables is clearly not meant literally. Jesus has gotten a lot of crowds following him. He uses parables to get people to come to Him for deeper understanding. Matthew just finished talking about how his true family is his followers (12:46-50). He then tells his first parables in order to share wisdom that has been hidden up until now (13:35). Then the disciples come to Him to get more wisdom and Jesus explains directly what He meant. Some don’t come to ask Jesus further questions. Those in His hometown say He has wisdom but reject His message.

Let's see why Jesus spoke in parables and then we'll compare it to your conclusion.

Matthew 13:10–11 (KJV 1900)
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Let's make sure we're understanding this right, Jesus tells them that the reason he speaks in parables is because it is given to his disciples (those within the kingdom of God/saved) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. That doesn't imply that God wants everyone to understand His Word, does it? BUt that's not the only reason he speaks in parables, it's also because those them (that are outside of the kingdom of God ("without") it is not given for them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But it wans't just the fact that without a parable Christ did not speak, but much more than that. Here is what Christ says in the same exact context:

Mark 4:10–11 (KJV 1900)
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (outside of the kingdom of God/not saved), ALL [these] THINGS ARE DONE IN PARABLES:

Let's examine this statement a little closer. First, we need to remove the word "these" becasue it seems to focus on a few specific things, yet that word is not in the original text (you can check me on this). Second, Christ is not talking just about speaking here because he's using the word "ALL". All what? All things are done in parables. Well, while that may sound absurd, that's exactly what God is saying here. When both passages (Mt 13 & Mk 4) are taken into account, we can conclude that everything that Christ said and did was by way of parables. Of course, this goes beyond the literal, historical, grammatical method, nevertheless, it's right there if we are willing to take it all into account.

For example, every miracle of healing pointed (spiritually) to salvation. So, while the crowd was wowed by the physical healings they witnessed, they were done as parables to hide a much greater spiritual truth. Here is one passage that helps us see this:

Mark 2:5 (KJV 1900)
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

This was rather odd, since this man was brought to be physically healed. Why say "thy sins be forgiven thee"? Why not say, "rise up and take up thy bed and walk"? But he does, again, just not in the context we would expect.

Mark 2:9–12 (KJV 1900)
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (now we expect him to say, "thy sins be forgiven thee, yet he doesn't say that) (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

All things are done in parables. Now we have to address your conclusion that Jesus dind't begin speaking in parables until chapter 13 of Matthew. Your premise (I suppose) for saying that, is because you may be under the impression that unless text specifically says it's a parable, then it can't be considered a parable. To do so, would be to read into the text something that is not specifically stated. And these are "rules" that again, have no biblical basis. Not saying that this is what you said, but I grew up under this hermeneutic, so I'm well aware of the "rules". I just never found any of them come from the Bible.

Here is one example that I hope may get my point across regarding Christ always speaking in parables, not just starting in chapter 13.

Matthew 5:27–30 (KJV 1900)
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Up to now, the natutal minded reader has no problem with grasping what Christ is saying very literally. But what happens next? As the context of adultery continues.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Now, the natural minded reader has a problem. Did Jesus specifically say here that this was a parable? No. Does the natural minded reader take verses 27 & 28 at face value? Yes. What authority then gives them the right to reject verses 29 & 30 to be taken the same way, at face value? You may say, "well, logic does". And so, now man's logic becomes the determiner of what is to be taken at face value and what is to be taken figuratively. I hope you can see the problem. And not just here, but I've heard of some churches that focus on handling poisonous snakes or drinking poison. Why? Well, because the Bible says we could, and no where did Jesus say he was speaking in parables.

Mark 16:16–18 (KJV 1900)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe (specified at the beginning of this verse to apply to everyone that becomes saved); In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

BUt if the scriptures stand true, that without a parable Jesus did not speak, then we have no problem. BUt noe we are forced to seek for the spiritual meaning of what has been said. And as Matthew 5 shows, Christ spoke in parables long before chapter 13. Passages like those teach us that the text doesn't have to specify that Christ spoke in parables in order for us to know that Christ was speaking in parables. And the purpose of parables serves to hide spiritual truth from the ears of the unsaved. This is why they insist on the Bible being as approached as literal as possible, unless of course, it tells you to pluck out your eye or that it's safe to drink poison.

As I stated before, the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables. Why is this not factored in to your hermeneutics?

Mark 4:2–3 (KJV 1900)
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

And even though the Bible tells us that the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables, when the Bible tells us just a few chapters later that Christ spoke in his doctrine about the pharisees, why do you ignore the type of doctrine that the book of Mark tells you Christ spoke in? Instead, you conclude that it was only literal, not parabolic.

When Jesus says the scribes love to go in long robes, love elaborate greetings, like to be given the best seats, the places of honor, but then steal the property of widows and make long prayers, he is describing actual, literal things they did in that time.

No one is saying that he's not describing something that was literally taking place at that time, but within the historical fact that he stated is the parable. How do you think the entire Old Testament was written? Just as historical records? No. God recorded everything precisely as he wanted to, and within those literal historical records is woven the spiritual meaning. And, if I haven't specified before, the spiritual meaning in every page of the Bible focuses on some aspect of God's salvation program, the gospel.

So, let's see if we can recap this:
Christ did not speak without a parable: (Mat 13:34)
The doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables: (Mk 4:2)
All things are done in parables: (Mk 4:11)
Parables were spoken to hide spiritual truth from the unsaved: (Mat 13:13)
The law, (which is the whole word of God) is spiritual: (Rom 7:14)
We desire to be filled with spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
The Holy GHost teaches as we compare spiritual with spiritual: (1 Cor 2:13)
The rock Israel drank water from in the wilderness was a literal rock, but it was a spiritual rock also: (1 Cor 10:4)
The water itself they drank was literal water, but it was also spiritual water: ( 1 Cor 10:4)
The meat they ate in the wildreness was also literal, but it was also spiritual: (1 Cor 10:3).

Spiritual, spiritual, spiritual. I have zero problem with you addressing what I seek to do in the scriptures as "spiritualizing" because that is exactly what the Bible teaches us to look for. And the words of Christ are not just the words marked in red in the Bible, they are the whole Bible. That is why he is called the Word of God. And God conceals words.

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV 1900)

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (a Word):
But the honour of kings is to search out a matter.(a Word)

I know I didn't specifically addrdess everything on your last post, so if there's something you would like for me to specifically address, I would be happy to do so. This post was just getting too long.

[Eddie Ramos]

The next point is regarding 1 Jn 3:23. These are in fact 2 commandments because God is listing each one as a commandment. The first commandment is to believe. The next commandment is to love. But even if you want to view these as one commandment, then the Bible allows for that view as well at times, because God refers to all of his laws as a singular law. In either case, we agree that God is giving a commandment here to believe and to love. And does obedience (which is a work) to any commandment of God save us? The Bible says no.

The text doesn’t list each one as a commandment for a total of two commandments. In fact, it explicitly says it is one commandment. But there are two phrases used. To me that points to two phrases that refer to the same commandment. They are the same thing, in John’s usage here and in the whole letter. If we aren’t loving one another, then we simply aren’t believing in the name of Jesus. This isn’t about obeying a commandment to get salvation. If it was, then John would be saying that we must obey the commandment to get salvation and neither of us thinks he is saying that. Loving one another is the fruit of having salvation, of having the Spirit within us.

From reviewing some of your comments that I left unanswered, I'd like to address this one. Does the Bible refer to believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and loving one another as one commandment? All we have to do is keep reading.

1 John 3:23–24 (KJV 1900)
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment (2 commandments or one and the same?). 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

So, the keeping of the commandments (plural), like believing in the name of Jesus Christ and loving one another, never saved anyone. They were evidences that we had indeed become saved. The point here is that to believe in Jesus Christ is a commandment. What you seem to be doing is avoiding the fact that the Bible declares that to believe in Jesus is in fact a commandment of God. This is why no one ever became saved by making the choice to believe and so become saved, because they were trusting in a work of righteousness by thinking they could be justified by obeying this commandment. When obedience to this commandment as well as any commandment was the evidence our our salvation, not the cause of it.

So, if after you read 1 Jn 3:23 and 24, are you still going to hold to your position that believing in Jesus and loving one another are one commandment? Or each their own commandment which is why verse 24 says, in the very same context, "and the keeping of his commandments". You don't have to answer that, that is for your consideration. But it's clear that the Bible itself shows us that we can't make the Bible teach something it doesn't, because if we do, the Bible itself will show us our faults by contradicting us.

1 John 3:23–24 (KJV 1900)
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment (and the commandment to love one another was given to us many times independently of believing in Jesus. This is why the word "commandment" is listed twice. Because it's referring to 2 commandments. And verse 24 confirms that understanding for us).. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

John 15:12–13 (KJV 1900)
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[Eddie Ramos]

Isaiah 28:9-13

I don’t think this passage is talking about your “spiritualizing” method (please let me know if you prefer a different term) at all, but if this passage is, then it would clearly be saying don’t do it. This passage is not about those who are still on the milk of the Word. It is those who aren’t followers at all. This passage is about Ephraim’s leaders being drunk and careless, not listening to God’s wisdom (the scriptures) and being judged by God allowing foreigners to have victory over them. They are acting like babies, with no knowledge (v. 9). God’s message is precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little to these people who are being judged. You don’t want to be like these people in your relationship to God’s wisdom. God isn’t allowing us to take this approach, much less calling us to do it. God is saying this is how those who don’t understand God’s message hear it. It sounds all disconnected to them (here a little, there a little), like gibberish.

Let's read it once more.

Yes, the passage begins by God addressing Ephraim's sin of pride.

Isaiah 28:1 (KJV 1900)
Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim,
Whose glorious beauty is a fading flower,
Which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

But there are others mentioned in this context as well. A remnant from among them who typify the true believers.

Isaiah 28:5 (KJV 1900)

5  In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory,
And for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

So, now we have established that there are two sets of people in view in this context. Let's keep reading.

Isaiah 28:7–8 (KJV 1900)
7  But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way;
The priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink,
They are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink;
They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8  For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness,
So that there is no place clean.

So, Ephraim's sin is in departing from following the Lord, but not all of them. There is a remnant that is still faithful to the Lord. And departing from following the commandments of the Lord is like being drunk.

Proverbs 31:4–5 (KJV 1900)
4  It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine;
Nor for princes strong drink:
5  Lest they drink, and forget the law,
And pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

Now, God is going to get into the distinction between the two types of people he just spoke about. The ones that continue to follow the Lord and the ones who err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

Isaiah 28:9–13 (KJV 1900)

9  Whom shall he teach knowledge?
And whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

(This is a great question, given the context of the two types of people. Now God is about to answer that question.)

Them that are weaned from the milk,
And drawn from the breasts.

(This means that God will teach knowledge and make to understand doctrine to those who have moved on from the milk of the word. This means that there is growth and progression, just like when a child is growing properly. And that makes perfect sense being that there are two types of people in view in this context, not just one. Now Goes on to describe how he will teach knowledge and make one to understand doctrine (meaning the Word of God))

10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; (meaning commandment upon commandment)
Line upon line, line upon line; (this is not speaking about lines in a paragraph, but the word "line" is used to teach us that everything must be measured equally).
Here a little, and there a little: (And nothing is not to be measured, every word of God is pure and must be taken into account in order to obtain knowledge and understand doctrine. But there's a problem for those who try to do that with their own wisdom or their own understanding. Or we could say their own hermeneutics. The problem is that they don't realize that the word of God spoke in parables. That's what the next two verses are teaching).
11  For with stammering (mocking) lips and another tongue (another language)
Will he speak to this people. ( And the scriptures teach us that when someone speaks in another language, that language is not understandeable to those who don't recognize it. And that's the purpose for God speaking in parables.).
12  To whom (to this people) he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest;
And this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (This is because they have departed from following the Lord. This is why the method that God has designed by which he will teach his people knowledge and make his people to understand doctrine, is the same method that causes the unsaved to stumble. This is why God repeats the same instruction, but this time directs it to them who were rebellious).
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.

If all you focus on is the ending, then naturally you would have missed the purpose in God mentioning this twice. The same method that God uses to teach and make his people to understand doctrine, is the very same metod that God also uses to confound the unsaved.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #47]

I had a longer, more specific post posted, but then I realized we might be losing the forest for the trees. So, I’ve redone it here.

I am not instructing you; I’m sharing my thoughts just like you are. My hermeneutic, your hermeneutic, everyone’s hermeneutic is not taught in scripture, either directly or indirectly. Everyone’s hermeneutic comes from their philosophical (and for theists, theological) commitments.

One problem I have with your approach is that you seem to conflate spiritual truth with your spiritualizing method. Those are two different things, but since I don’t use your method, you think I can’t get spiritual truths. My approach gets us historical assertions, moral assertions, and spiritual assertions. That’s because the method is separate from the assertions it pulls out.

I also think you create a false dilemma when you (seem to) think something is either a parable or literal. I see ‘parable’ as a more narrow term than that. I don’t think everything is literal. Some would call what you are talking about hyper-literal. The term isn’t that important, but we need to see there are distinct approaches from taking everything literally or everything metaphorically. We both think there are both things going on in the scriptures. Plucking your eye out is hyperbole, not literal, but that doesn’t make it a ‘parable’ as I understand the term. If ‘parable’ includes that, then sure there are earlier ‘parables’. But that still doesn’t mean everything Jesus does is said and done in parable. There is a mix.

I also think your treatment of Isaiah 28 is a perfect example of why your approach isn’t a good one. You do the exact same kind of interpretation I do (calling upon the grammatical and historical context)...such as distinguishing two groups of people, that it talks to Ephraim, etc....but only up to the point that the actual passage doesn’t get you the belief you are bringing with you to the text. It’s at that point that you look for what could be used to get your desired doctrine. In this passage it’s the spiritualizing approach. You follow my interpretation as far as it can go and then spiritualize in order to argue the passage is teaching us to spiritualize. It’s circular and ad hoc. I think you do the same with individual predestination to salvation.

I think your treatment of 1 John 3:23-24 does the same thing. You think John saying to believe in Jesus is a commandment should be read hyper-literally. You do that with everything you can to get to your spiritualizing conclusion, but the parts that don’t, you bring in a “spiritualized” truth and read those parts in the complete opposite way from hyper-literalness. It's inconsistent and ad hoc. That kind of approach can get anyone any belief they want. Why would God want that to be the approach for humans to understand His message?

One thing from the earlier post you didn’t respond to, that I would like your thoughts on, is my point about how being a prophet is different from being a Biblical author. Even those who are both distinguish God’s direct words from the rest of their writing. That doesn’t mean it isn’t from God or isn’t true, but it is a nuance that your view doesn’t seem to account for.

[Eddie Ramos]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #47]

I had a longer, more specific post posted, but then I realized we might be losing the forest for the trees. So, I’ve redone it here.

I am not instructing you; I’m sharing my thoughts just like you are. My hermeneutic, your hermeneutic, everyone’s hermeneutic is not taught in scripture, either directly or indirectly. Everyone’s hermeneutic comes from their philosophical (and for theists, theological) commitments.

One problem I have with your approach is that you seem to conflate spiritual truth with your spiritualizing method. Those are two different things, but since I don’t use your method, you think I can’t get spiritual truths. My approach gets us historical assertions, moral assertions, and spiritual assertions. That’s because the method is separate from the assertions it pulls out.

I also think you create a false dilemma when you (seem to) think something is either a parable or literal. I see ‘parable’ as a more narrow term than that. I don’t think everything is literal. Some would call what you are talking about hyper-literal. The term isn’t that important, but we need to see there are distinct approaches from taking everything literally or everything metaphorically. We both think there are both things going on in the scriptures. Plucking your eye out is hyperbole, not literal, but that doesn’t make it a ‘parable’ as I understand the term. If ‘parable’ includes that, then sure there are earlier ‘parables’. But that still doesn’t mean everything Jesus does is said and done in parable. There is a mix.

I also think your treatment of Isaiah 28 is a perfect example of why your approach isn’t a good one. You do the exact same kind of interpretation I do (calling upon the grammatical and historical context)...such as distinguishing two groups of people, that it talks to Ephraim, etc....but only up to the point that the actual passage doesn’t get you the belief you are bringing with you to the text. It’s at that point that you look for what could be used to get your desired doctrine. In this passage it’s the spiritualizing approach. You follow my interpretation as far as it can go and then spiritualize in order to argue the passage is teaching us to spiritualize. It’s circular and ad hoc. I think you do the same with individual predestination to salvation.

I did get a chance to read your ealier post this morning, before you edited it. And it gave me something to think about all day at work which I am grateful for. And again, just to reiterate, although my discussion has been directly with you, I've tried to generalize as much as possible (as have you). But I'd like to address you direclty now, and none of what has been said on either side is in any way to be seen (nor has been seen by me) as a personal attack. Honesty from both sides sometimes just has a way making some words feel personal. But I assure you , it's not. That being said, I have noticed, from my part, that if you're convinced that the Bible provides no hermeneutic, directly or indirectly, then that is really just from your vantage point. What I mean is that, I at least asked you for some biblical evidence that led you do adopt the hermeneutic you decided to adopt, and you said you did it based on your theology (your study of God). And by that, I have to conclude that you meant, your study of the Bible, since that is the only place to learn theology from. And yet, in all your studies, you found nothing that provides you with any biblical assurance that your hermeneutic is the one God wants everyone to use, because, clearly, different hermeneutics lead to different conclusions, but so does using the same hermeneutic if it's not the right one, or if it is the right one but used the wrong way.

But I have to assume that you understand that God wants us to rightly divide the word of truth. Yet, I find it troubling that you don't find it strange that the same God who wants us to rightly divide the word of truth, has provided no biblical way (directly or indirectly) for us to figure out how to do it. And since thaty's the way you feel, then what evidence do you have that my method (or anyone's method) is incorrect, since the only way you are able to disarm any scriptue provied to you (as I have done for my hermeneutic) is by using your hermeneutic, that you know and admit doesn't come from the Bible, directly or indirectly?

I don't have a problem with the literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation becauase it's the very same method everyone in this world has been taught to read, study and understand books in general. In other words, that's a secular hermeneutic. And when applied to the Bible (as I've said), anyone can glean good moral truths from the Bible and apply them if they feel so inclined. One can also learn a great deal of history from the Bible with the very same method. But by the grace of God, I can see that the Bible is so much ore than that. It is a spiritual book because God is a spiritual being. So, when I come across a passage that tells me that the law is spiritual, I don't dismiss it while attemptiong to generalize a context. I pay attention to it as if though it were a piece of a puzzle (like I do with every doctrine of the Bible). And when I come across another passage that tells me that the words that Christ spoke are spirit and life (Jn 6:63), it means they are spiruitual and living. And that becomes another piece of the puzzle. And when I put together all the pieces (as in the scriptures I have provided), then to me, God has given me a detailed hermeneutic that I can then apply to the Word of God as I have let the Bible itself guide me in order to be able to rightly divide the Word of truth.

But not many people agree with this hermeneutic, and the only conclusion I continue to arrive at is that they can't see it. And to me, what I understand from the scriptures manifests itself as I continue to dialogue with people. That the spiritual understanding that God has resserved for his people, as well as the hermeneutic to understand it, is foolishness to them. The message of the gospel is the central thread that runs through every page of the Bible. That is the spiritual meaning that I seek in every passage. I was reminded of the teachers of the law who belonged to Israel, who thought they knew the law because they took it literally, yet they were spiritually blind and deaf to the spiritual truth the law pointed to. They could hear Christ literally, but at the same time they couldn't hear him spiritually. God even holds us by the hand and shows us many examples of literal events having spiritual meanings (water , meat, rock), yet people want nothing to do with it. Instead, they'd rather use the word "metaphor" which learned in English class, because somehow spiritualizing birds, water, a rock, Jerusalem, etc, doesn't feel right to them. Even though that's exactly what the Bible calls it. But I have no problem taking every piece that God provided in His Word in order to see the whole picture of how to properly spiritualize (meaning, how to look for the spiritual meaning) a passage. I can not, in good concience, abandon the fact that God unequivocally does provide his own hermeneutic, both directly and indirectly from the scriptures. Yet, even if someone did try to apply that very same hermeneutic to their study of the Bible, without the Spirit of God to teach them the truth, it avails them nothing because they arrive at false contradictory conclusions. But this doesn't mean that this hermeneutic is not biblical. Remember, the Pharisees were convinced that Jesus was a false prophet and a deciever, yet no matter how much of the Bible they thought they understood, they didn't understand the most important aspect of the scriptures, the spiritual side of it.

And ultimately, any hermeneutic can be tested agaist the scriptures for it's validity because only the hermeneutic that God has laid forth in the scriptures will lead to that one truth that agrees with the Bible as a whole. So, while you don't agree with my hermeneutic, nor my biblical evidence for it, I completely understand. All either of us can do is provide our evidences from the Bible for anything we hold to be true. At least, that's the way it should be.

That being said, I'd like to address your final comments.

I think your treatment of 1 John 3:23-24 does the same thing. You think John saying to believe in Jesus is a commandment should be read hyper-literally. You do that with everything you can to get to your spiritualizing conclusion, but the parts that don’t, you bring in a “spiritualized” truth and read those parts in the complete opposite way from hyper-literalness. It's inconsistent and ad hoc. That kind of approach can get anyone any belief they want. Why would God want that to be the approach for humans to understand His message?

No, I don't give the credit to John but only to God. Every word is God breathed, not a collaboration of God and man's thoughts. I showed you plenty of examples of how even though men spoke, God put His words in their mouths that which he wanted them to speak. That is what it means to speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Pe 1:21). So, what I think God is saying in 1 John 3:23-24 is that to believe in Jesus Christ is indeed a commandment, as well as to love one another. As a matter of fact, everytime God told us to do anything in the Bible, His word became law. He didn't need to specify each time that what he told us to do was a commandment in order for it to become a commandment. I have zero problem reading the Bible as it's written, call it literally or hyper literally, it means the same to me. And on top of that, I pay attention to every word of God becauase every word is pure (Prov 30:5), and yes, I take that super hyper literally, but there's also a spiitual meaning there. And I also understand that within the commandment to believe in the name of Jesus Christ, as well in the commandment to love one another, lies the wonderful spiritual meaning that points to the gospel. So, the spiriutual meaning actually helps us to reinforce our understanding of all the doctrines of the Bible that hold to be true. So, spiritualizing doesn't mean that we read what we want to read as literal as long as it suits us, and then switch to spiritual when it suits us. No, it's the Bible, as a whole that helps us determine what can be taken literally and what can't. Like the creation account, and the flood, and the parting of the seas can all be taken literally because these events literally took place in history, but God orchestrated everything so that he could record His word precisely as he wanted to. And within all these historical records and laws, is the hidden spiritual meaning of the gospel (of which I'd be glad to share some). So, these are essentially historical parables. They really happened, but they hide spiritual truth.

And, in answer to your last question here, the Bible doesn't teach that God wants everyone to know how to find the spiritual meaning becauase he has purposely concealed it by way of parables. That's the very reason he spoke in parables. It was for the benefit of those whithin the kingdom of God, not for those without. I believe it's your hermeneutic, not the Bible, that teaches you that God wants everyone to understand his message. The logic behind that way of thinking is, that since God wanted everyone to become saved (which he never did), then "clearly" he would have wanted everyone to understand his message. But that finds no harmony in the Bible.

One thing from the earlier post you didn’t respond to, that I would like your thoughts on, is my point about how being a prophet is different from being a Biblical author. Even those who are both distinguish God’s direct words from the rest of their writing. That doesn’t mean it isn’t from God or isn’t true, but it is a nuance that your view doesn’t seem to account for.

The prophet was the tool God used to speak His words, as I showed with Tertius, who wrote down the words Paul spoke. No theologian attempts to learn about what kind of man Tertius was, of his writting style. Why? Because he was just a pen. So, if the writer of a book gets no credit for having written down the words, then why does Paul get credit for writting the book of Galatians with his own hand. The important thing is whose words did the scribe write? Their own, or the one whose words they were given? Because that was the exact role of a prophet, to speak the words they were given to speak of God and not of thier own. Do you not realize that mankind, saved or not, is under the curse of sin. Therefore, anything we try to contribute of our own wisdom is tainted with sin.

Job 15:14–16 (KJV 1900)

14  What is man, that he should be clean?
And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15  Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints;
Yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
16  How much more abominable and filthy
Is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

This is all because of our sin cursed bodies.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 (KJV 1900)
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

This is why God gave so many examples of how exactly the prophets spoke the words of God. Again, it's the hermeneutic you follow that teaches you that man's own words also had a part in the scriptures, that's why the study of church history is also a very important part of your hermeneutic, but that doesn't improve biblical understanding, it actually further confuses it. All of scripture comes from the mouth of God, that's what "God-breathed" means. And while I agree that "All" doesn't always mean "all", the Bible as a whole teaches us that "all" is certainly "all" in this case.

Isaiah 51:16 (KJV 1900)
And I have put my words in thy mouth,
And I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand,
That I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth,
And say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

Isaiah 59:21 (KJV 1900)
21  As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee,
And my words which I have put in thy mouth,
Shall not depart out of thy mouth,
Nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
Nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD,
From henceforth and for ever.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.


Do you really need to see this same example mentioned for every prophet before you will conclude that no prophet spoke their own words? Even the lies that Satan spoke were dictated to the writers of the gospels by God, making every word in the Bible the Word of God. This means that God recorded it exactly the way he wanted it written down. This is the very reason we can implicitly trust every word spoken in the Bible in its original language, because there was only one author, God.

[The Tanager]

I did get a chance to read your ealier post this morning, before you edited it. And it gave me something to think about all day at work which I am grateful for. And again, just to reiterate, although my discussion has been directly with you, I've tried to generalize as much as possible (as have you). But I'd like to address you direclty now, and none of what has been said on either side is in any way to be seen (nor has been seen by me) as a personal attack. Honesty from both sides sometimes just has a way making some words feel personal. But I assure you , it's not.

Noted and agreed. I think challenging another’s view is one of the greatest ways one can love (will the good of) another person.

But I have to assume that you understand that God wants us to rightly divide the word of truth. Yet, I find it troubling that you don't find it strange that the same God who wants us to rightly divide the word of truth, has provided no biblical way (directly or indirectly) for us to figure out how to do it. And since thaty's the way you feel, then what evidence do you have that my method (or anyone's method) is incorrect, since the only way you are able to disarm any scriptue provied to you (as I have done for my hermeneutic) is by using your hermeneutic, that you know and admit doesn't come from the Bible, directly or indirectly?

Why would God need to provide a way from within the Bible? God wants everyone to rightly divide the word of truth, so it makes sense to me to use the type of understanding that humans apply in every walk of their life instead of some “secret code” only available to an elite few. God is the source of all truth. Thus, I see no ‘secular’ hermeneutic versus a ‘biblical’ hermeneutic. I know you think this leaves no room for the Spirit, but the complexity of life, especially of the spiritual life that we humans push back against in so many ways, does require studying texts with the Spirit guiding us into proper understanding. Sometimes the Spirit teaches more directly (not through the hermeneutic) but it won’t contradict what comes about from a proper use of that hermeneutic because God is consistent.

So, when I come across a passage that tells me that the law is spiritual, I don't dismiss it while attemptiong to generalize a context.

I don’t dismiss it at all; I just understand “spiritual” to mean something different from you.

I pay attention to it as if though it were a piece of a puzzle (like I do with every doctrine of the Bible). And when I come across another passage that tells me that the words that Christ spoke are spirit and life (Jn 6:63), it means they are spiruitual and living. And that becomes another piece of the puzzle. And when I put together all the pieces (as in the scriptures I have provided), then to me, God has given me a detailed hermeneutic that I can then apply to the Word of God as I have let the Bible itself guide me in order to be able to rightly divide the Word of truth.

And a pantheist will pay attention to that same thought “the law is spiritual” as though it is a piece of the puzzle and the John 6:63 passage, and then when they come across another passage that they think talks about the connection between a human (Jesus) and God, they put all the pieces together and get a completely different picture of God than you do. That’s the very real danger of your hermeneutic.

Yet, even if someone did try to apply that very same hermeneutic to their study of the Bible, without the Spirit of God to teach them the truth, it avails them nothing because they arrive at false contradictory conclusions. But this doesn't mean that this hermeneutic is not biblical.

But how can one judge your “spiritualized” conclusions as from the Spirit of God and not the pantheist’s “spiritualized” conclusions? You both think you have the true Spirit of God guiding you.

I can not, in good concience, abandon the fact that God unequivocally does provide his own hermeneutic, both directly and indirectly from the scriptures.

But the only way you get that the scriptures give us this hermeneutic (directly and indirectly) is by using that hermeneutic in the first place. That’s arguing in a circle.

So, spiritualizing doesn't mean that we read what we want to read as literal as long as it suits us, and then switch to spiritual when it suits us. No, it's the Bible, as a whole that helps us determine what can be taken literally and what can't.

But your “it’s the Bible, as a whole” is your “spiritualized” reading of the “Bible, as a whole”. Again, it’s circular. You don’t take 1 Timothy 2:4 literally because of how you’ve interpreted the rest of scripture in regards to God’s will towards all men being saved. And each of those passages that you think contradict a literal reading of this verse, you’ve reached your conclusion through “spiritualizing” your belief about what the “Bible, as a whole” teaches. Every single passage, ultimately, is upheld because you have this overall view of what all the other passages teach. It’s like an infinite regression of why you think the “Bible, as a whole” teaches your doctrine.

...Do you really need to see this same example mentioned for every prophet before you will conclude that no prophet spoke their own words? Even the lies that Satan spoke were dictated to the writers of the gospels by God, making every word in the Bible the Word of God. This means that God recorded it exactly the way he wanted it written down. This is the very reason we can implicitly trust every word spoken in the Bible in its original language, because there was only one author, God.

Your explanation still doesn’t account for how prophets wrote some sections as “and God said” and some sections without that kind of intro or transition. Not just the obvious lies from satanic characters, but Godly truths. My theory of inspiration accounts for that; yours doesn’t seem to.