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]

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.

Because when people apply the understanding they use in their walk of life, and because we all come from various walks of life, that tends to affect how we define what we read. This is why I mentioned those churches who handle poisonous snakes when they read from the mouth of Christ that such sign would follow all them that believe. And so, to them, that is a plain and clear statement, but are they wrong? If you believe they are, how do you prove it from the Bible? And I could mention dozens of such examples like this one. This is the very reason why God has provided his own way to approach, study and rightly divide His Word. But this method is rejected by most who claim the name of Christ. And when the Spirit teaches the true believers truth from the Bible, does he teach differring truths or one truth? The answer must be one truth.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (KJV 1900)
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This is the evidence that the Spirit is truly the one teaching, and God has established that the Spirit teaches when we compare spiritual with spiritual. And it isn't up to either of us to define what "spiritual" means, because if defining this word was dependent on our understanding depending on our walk of life, then again, each person would define it his or her own way. But the Bible is its own dictionary as well as its own commentary. So, al we need to do is look up the word "spiritual" and see how God uses it, then we will arrive at a definition that is biblically based and in harmony with the scriptures.

The word "spiritual" as it is used in the N.T. is Strong's G4152 and it appears 26 times and it's always translated as "spiritual". So, when we look at these verses, we can see how God himself uses this word. For example, here is the second place this word is used.

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

Ok, and you say that you define this word differently than I do. But shouldn't we let the Bible define it? I do. And so, God gives us examples of what he means by saying that "the law is spiritual". And by "law" he means the whole Bible, not just the first 5 books. And I know that we spoke on this passage about the muzzling of the ox, and you stood by your position as this being a metaphor, but the Bible doesn't use that word to describe that law.

1 Corinthians 9:7–10 (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? 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.

The law of the ox was a law just like any other law. It was to be literally observed but had a spiritual meaning that no one knew until God had just revealed it in this passage. Now, let's see how God defines this law.

1 Corinthians 9:11 (KJV 1900)
If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

That which was sown is referring to the law of Moses, and the law of the ox was one example of this. But notice that God did not sow metaphoric things but spiritual things concealed within literal historical events. It's really the natural mind that would address these things as "metaphoric" because metaphors are just figures of speech and are not taken literally. But this is not the only place where God does this very same thing. Where he gives a command and expects it to be obeyed.

Numbers 20:8 (KJV 1900)
Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

This was a historic command with a historic miracle done by God, where the nation of Israel drank real water which came from a physical literal rock. Nothing methaphoric here, but certainly (like the ox) something spiritual. But did the nation of Israel know that there was a spiritual meaning hidden within this literal event? We don't read anywhere that they had any idea of this. But then God explains to us that the water (although very real drinkable water) was spiritual water. The rock (although a very real physcial rock) was a spiritual rock. The meat they are in the wilderness (although very real meat which was literally eaten to satisfy a physical hunger) was spiritual meat.

1 Corinthians 10:1–4 (KJV 1900)
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Now God just gave us a direct definition for the word "spiritual" by likening the physical rock which provided water as Jesus Christ. That rock was Christ, yet it was an actual rock. The physical rock was in one place, yet the spiritual rock followed them. So, "spiritual" is defined by the Bible as a hidden meaning. We read of an actual historical literal event and yet God had hidden within those things spiritual truths. And God does this enough times for us, that God's people finally get it, and when we continue to do the same thing with the rest of the Bible, we continue to find the spiritual meaning within the historical text to find the message of the gospel, the hidden spiritual meaning.

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.

Like I said before, anyone can pervert the truth of the scriptures by using any hermeneutic they want to. Why do you think so many denomenations exist? Because they all hold to their way of understanding what they read and understand from the scriptures. But, oddly enough, even within all the false doctrines that they develop, they may contain some aspect of truth. Like most Christian denominations believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. This is true, but just because they see this from the Bible doesn't mean that their hermeneutic is the right one. Any conclusion that is arrived at by anyone who uses any hermeneutic is still subject to the one truth of the Bible. This means that if the Bible contradicts any doctrine someone hold to be true by using their own made up hermeneutics, then that is an indicator that they are not using the hermeneutic that God has laid out in His Word and they have to make correction.

But the problem is that those who are in this boat do not make an effort to scrutinize their doctrines against everything the Bible has to say. But they are satisfied with finding a dozen or so passages that seem to agree with their beliefs and they feel that those are enough passages to confirm for them that they have the truth. This is why forums like this one are of some value, because those who oppose the view of others can offer correction from the Bible. And then it's up to each individual to either stand their ground stubbornly (if the Bible contradicts their doctrine), or to become humble before God and take His correction. So, the goal of the faithful student of the Bible is harmony, is agreement between their doctrine and everything the Bible has to say on the matter.

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 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.

Not really, it's by looking at the scriptures for any and every bit of information that God would supply, directly and indirectly. Like the example I gave you regarding how the Bible (not me) defines the word "spiritual". And if after that, you continue to reject the fact that the Bible hides spiritual truth (the way God demonstares he does), then of course, no matter how many different ways I show you the same truth from the Bible, you will simply continue to reject it. But I ask you, is that really you being open to correction from the scriptures? The way to find the hermeneutic that God has established is to pay attention to each and every word that comes from the mouth of God, and by constantly asking question after question as you study the scriptures. One of those questions being, does God provide for me a way to do what he has commanded me to do in rightly dividing the word of truth? And then we search the scriptures for our answer. And I guarrantee that anyonne who does this, will always obtain a different result than the person who goes to the Bible already convinced that God has nothing to teach us in his word regarding hermeneutics.

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.

The phrase, "the Bible as a whole" is intended to mean that everything must agree in one. I didn't invent that idea, I got it from 1 Jn 5:8.

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.

This means that everything spoken by God (the whole Bible) agrees in one. And since everyone's doctrines are derrived from the Bible (atleast they should be), then every doctrine must agree in one. It must agree as one truth. It must agree with everything in the Bible. This is not spiritualization. If you disagree that the Bible does not have to necessarily agree as one (the Bible as a whole) then you are welcome to put forth the scriptures that teach you this and we can see how that holds up to the Bible as a whole for truth. And understanding 1 Tim 2:4 literally is not the problem, it how one processes what they read without comaring what they read against the rest of the scriptures before locking in their understanding of what they just read.

1 Timothy 2:3–6 (KJV 1900)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

So, what commonly happens is that the reader of this passage typically already has the mindset that God spoke plainly and that what they plainly read, must be understood exactly as they preceive it to have been written, as plain and simple. But for those who have studied the Bible for any length of time, we begin to notice things, things like the fact that when God uses the phrase "all men", that he doesn't always, in every instance, mean every single individual in the world. And since that can be proven to be true from the Bible, then we have to read the Bible much more carefully before just saying, "aha, it says it plain as day right here that God wants all men (meaning every single individual that ever existed) to be saved". Have I spiritualized so far? Or have I just stated a Biblical study fact? So, you see, spiritualizing doesn't mean that we come up with a meaning out of thin air. Spiritualizing means that we search for the deeper spiritual meaning of the gospel within each passage of the Bible. Good Bible study means that we don't take something at face value until we have searched everything the Bible has to say on the matter before we arrive at a conclusion. Or if we have already arrived at a conclusion, then we make correction along the way as we notice contradictions in our doctrines by more passages that we come across and understand.

So, when we have exmained everything the Bible has to say (the Bible as a whole) regarding who God has saved and how God has saved, we can go back to 2 Tim 2:4 and know that "all men" doesn't mean every single individual in the world, but rather, it means "all men" that God intended to save. And the Bible is filled with statements such as these that need to be understood in light of the rest of the Bible, yet at first glance, seem to say something altogether different than what the actual conclusion is. Here is one such example:

John 12:19 (KJV 1900)
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world (the kosmos) is gone after him.

Incidentaly, this word "world" is the same word "world" used in John 3:16 which says "for God so loved the world...". So, did the pharisees mean that everyone in the entire world went after Christ? Of course not because they themselves did not go after him. yet when people read John 3:16, the one and only conclusion that can apparently be had is that this means everyone in the entire world. Is that good Bible study? No, not at all. Have I spiritualized by shedding light to how to properly approach what we read in the Bible? No. But John 3:16 (like every other passage) certainly has a spiritual meaning behind it that points to the gospel. That is what spiritualizing means.

...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.

The lies from any character is as much a part of the holy word of God as any other part. Why? Because when God gave each account as it happened, the record of the acount that God gave became part of the Holy Word of God. It doesn't mean that God spoke the lie, but God dictated or inspired the scribe to write about the lie, and that made it the word of God. I find it interesting though that you have developed a hermeneutic through indirect teachings from the Bible. This means that you've looked at the scriptures, saw that words like "and God said" and concluded that inspiration means that God had input, but also man. And inspiration is really a foundation for hermeneutics.

But even that conclusion you've arrived at cannot contradict what the Bible has stated regarding man having some kind of input in the pefect Word of God. And I already provided plenty of scriptural evidence that does not agree with your theory, yet you still maintain it. Your argument is based on earthly wisdom when you look at the scriptures and conclude that because the scribe wrote, "and God said" that God didn't give those specific words to be written down because, gramatically, it doesn't make sense. For example, if the disagreement that Moses had with God in the burning bush, was the words of Moses and not the inspired words of God, then the word of God could not be pure. Then all scripture is not really God breathed, but most of the scriptures. And if it's true that it's only most of the scriptures that are God breathed and pure, then we have a huge problem when we're trying to discern between man's word, which is not pure nor perfect, with God's prefect Word. But, of course, that's not how the Bible was inspired nor written. It was all the words of God as he moved men to speak and write the very words of God.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me (this is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16) just as much as the next half of this verse is. God breathed means it came from the mouth of God.), Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

If you disagree, then please put forth the scriptures to show how your view is correct.

[The Tanager]

Because when people apply the understanding they use in their walk of life, and because we all come from various walks of life, that tends to affect how we define what we read. This is why I mentioned those churches who handle poisonous snakes when they read from the mouth of Christ that such sign would follow all them that believe. And so, to them, that is a plain and clear statement, but are they wrong? If you believe they are, how do you prove it from the Bible? And I could mention dozens of such examples like this one. This is the very reason why God has provided his own way to approach, study and rightly divide His Word. But this method is rejected by most who claim the name of Christ. And when the Spirit teaches the true believers truth from the Bible, does he teach differring truths or one truth? The answer must be one truth.

Yes, the answer is one truth. With people who disagree on what that answer is, at least one of them must be wrong. The question is which one and why? Whoever is wrong is wrong because they (or I) read their (or my) desired doctrine, which comes from some aspect of their (or my) walk of life into the text. The way to prove they (or I) are wrong is to look at the historical and grammatical context of the text itself, as that is objective, while our desired interpretations are subjective. There are right answers there that can be judged, even if some won’t accept it.

Pantheists (and plenty of others you disagree with) use your same approach to get their different conclusions. How do you prove they are wrong, when you both can pull things from the Bible as the “spiritual truth” that unlocks the message of the whole Bible? You can say they are wrong, but you have nothing objective to point to as to why they are wrong and you aren’t. You say they only have a few passages they focus on, but they could say the same of you.

This is the evidence that the Spirit is truly the one teaching, and God has established that the Spirit teaches when we compare spiritual with spiritual. And it isn't up to either of us to define what "spiritual" means, because if defining this word was dependent on our understanding depending on our walk of life, then again, each person would define it his or her own way. But the Bible is its own dictionary as well as its own commentary. So, al we need to do is look up the word "spiritual" and see how God uses it, then we will arrive at a definition that is biblically based and in harmony with the scriptures.

I agree, but we have to take note of the historical and grammatical nuances of the words used to know what they meant when written. That’s the only way to get an objective answer. Otherwise we will divorce sentences from their context as though they are just stand alone statements and then we will put our subjective ideas into it to fill it out. One can convince themself that they are letting the Bible define it, but if one has to bring in ideas that aren’t in the context, then you aren’t letting the Bible define it; you are defining it.

In Romans 7:14, the ‘law’ here is covering all that God reveals to us in the Bible about how we should live. At other times it means different things, but that is what it seems to mean here. God through Paul (which I will shorten to “Paul” in the rest, but use those as synonyms) then calls the law spiritual and contrasts it with our sinful desires. So, contextually, ‘spiritual’ here is an antonym of having sinful desires.

In 1 Cor 9:7-10, the “law of Moses” is a reference to the first five books of the Bible; that is why it is “of Moses”. This is a second sense of ‘law’. Paul quotes a line and then asks if that line is for the oxen’s sake or for our sakes. If it was a law like any other, then it would absolutely be for the oxen’s sake because the oxen is the one who benefits from the literal interpretation of that. Paul says it is for us, though. That means it must be a metaphor of some sort. And when we read the context of Deuteronomy, it fits perfectly as a metaphor of the laws that were being given. Paul then uses it metaphorically for his similar point of being cared for financially for their work.

In 1 Cor 9:11, Paul speaks of reaping carnal things. He’s speaking of being paid money, so that is the carnal things. Why should he reap these carnal things? Because he sowed spiritual things, i.e., gave the message of the gospel. But he doesn’t accept money from them because he didn’t want them to say he was just doing it for the money. He does it all so that he can participate in the gospel; that is his reward (9:23). He works for that (v. 24-27).

Now God just gave us a direct definition for the word "spiritual" by likening the physical rock which provided water as Jesus Christ. That rock was Christ, yet it was an actual rock. The physical rock was in one place, yet the spiritual rock followed them. So, "spiritual" is defined by the Bible as a hidden meaning. We read of an actual historical literal event and yet God had hidden within those things spiritual truths.

No, the Bible here does not define “spiritual” as a hidden meaning. The spiritual truth God was impressing upon the ancient Jews in these historical events, was to trust Him for provision rather than complain and turn to wickedness. That is something that some of those original Jews understood. That’s not a hidden meaning.

Not really, it's by looking at the scriptures for any and every bit of information that God would supply, directly and indirectly. Like the example I gave you regarding how the Bible (not me) defines the word "spiritual". And if after that, you continue to reject the fact that the Bible hides spiritual truth (the way God demonstares he does), then of course, no matter how many different ways I show you the same truth from the Bible, you will simply continue to reject it. But I ask you, is that really you being open to correction from the scriptures?

The example you gave was you defining ‘spiritual’ instead of allowing the text of the Bible to do so. I’m rejecting correction from your interpretation of the scriptures, not correction from the scriptures themselves, for the contextual reasons I’ve offered.

The way to find the hermeneutic that God has established is to pay attention to each and every word that comes from the mouth of God, and by constantly asking question after question as you study the scriptures. One of those questions being, does God provide for me a way to do what he has commanded me to do in rightly dividing the word of truth? And then we search the scriptures for our answer. And I guarrantee that anyonne who does this, will always obtain a different result than the person who goes to the Bible already convinced that God has nothing to teach us in his word regarding hermeneutics.

Yes, we obtain different results. The ones doing your approach can come up with all kinds of different, conflicting results with no objective way to judge between them because they all use the same moves. The ones doing my approach can come up with all kinds of different, conflicting results, but with an objective way to judge between them because the context is there and the correct one must fit that context the best.

The phrase, "the Bible as a whole" is intended to mean that everything must agree in one. I didn't invent that idea, I got it from 1 Jn 5:8.

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.

This means that everything spoken by God (the whole Bible) agrees in one. And since everyone's doctrines are derrived from the Bible (atleast they should be), then every doctrine must agree in one. It must agree as one truth. It must agree with everything in the Bible. This is not spiritualization. If you disagree that the Bible does not have to necessarily agree as one (the Bible as a whole) then you are welcome to put forth the scriptures that teach you this and we can see how that holds up to the Bible as a whole for truth.

I agree with you about everything in the Bible agreeing. I was making a different point. I was saying that you have a doctrine and then you read every verse in light of that, so that you then think you have all of these verses in support, so that when the context of one doesn’t match, you think “but the whole Bible says this” so it must still say that somehow. The somehow is by “spiritualizing” but you are doing that because of how you have already “spiritualized” those other passages.

So, what commonly happens is that the reader of this passage typically already has the mindset that God spoke plainly and that what they plainly read, must be understood exactly as they preceive it to have been written, as plain and simple. But for those who have studied the Bible for any length of time, we begin to notice things, things like the fact that when God uses the phrase "all men", that he doesn't always, in every instance, mean every single individual in the world. And since that can be proven to be true from the Bible, then we have to read the Bible much more carefully before just saying, "aha, it says it plain as day right here that God wants all men (meaning every single individual that ever existed) to be saved".

Most don’t think “all men” always refers to every single individual in the world. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Context decides; not desired conclusion of content.

Have I spiritualized so far? Or have I just stated a Biblical study fact? So, you see, spiritualizing doesn't mean that we come up with a meaning out of thin air.

This is part of my point. You do this until you come up against something that you don’t already hold to be true and then you bring the meaning in from something other than the text.

So, when we have exmained everything the Bible has to say (the Bible as a whole) regarding who God has saved and how God has saved, we can go back to 2 Tim 2:4 and know that "all men" doesn't mean every single individual in the world, but rather, it means "all men" that God intended to save.

And I think when one does this, they’ll have no reason to say all men doesn’t mean every single individual in the world. I think you only get that as the whole picture by misinterpreting every text you use to support it.

The lies from any character is as much a part of the holy word of God as any other part. Why? Because when God gave each account as it happened, the record of the acount that God gave became part of the Holy Word of God. It doesn't mean that God spoke the lie, but God dictated or inspired the scribe to write about the lie, and that made it the word of God. I find it interesting though that you have developed a hermeneutic through indirect teachings from the Bible. This means that you've looked at the scriptures, saw that words like "and God said" and concluded that inspiration means that God had input, but also man. And inspiration is really a foundation for hermeneutics.

I’m not sure what you think I mean by man and God having input; they aren’t input in the same way as though God chose some truths to put in and humans made choices about what was true at other times.

You still seem to be sidestepping my question. You know God says “God said” at some points with the prophet’s words, but has the prophet not say that at other points, even though he is still speaking God’s truth. How does your view of inspiration account for that? Why would God do that if He wants everyone to think He dictated every single word without using the skills and contexts of the authors themselves?