The following definitional distinctions are intended to aid analysis of the inexplicable phenomena that Bible scholars have conflicted “understandings” of God’s Words. I trust these distinctions will help explain my analysis despite any conflicted sectarian “understanding” Bible scholars have taught you to prefer.
Scriptural evaluation vs Polemical accusations
Polemical accusations are always helpful when analyzing doctrinal beliefs, nevertheless, all my analytical effort simply identifies my own “hypocrisy.” You and I are both included in God’s Romans 3 evaluation that all humans are in conflict with “the oracles of God … yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged … for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” The Matthew 7:1-5 “beam that is in my eye” is larger than “any mote that may be in your eye.” I am a “hypocrite, who must first cast out the beam in my own eye” but I admit I don’t do that very well.
Thus, I am not qualified to judge that your “understandings” need correction. If you sense polemic in my writing it is because my writing needs correcting. I simply report what Scripture says. Your fallible “understandings” are your own responsibility.
Please be assured this book is not intended to be polemical. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that Scripture teaches that “leaning unto your own understanding” (i.e., “some did not believe”) about “the oracles of God” is divinely evaluated as “lying” about “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2-4).
Scripture vs Bible vs Literature
In this book I use the term “Scripture” as an abstraction referring to every statement God inspired to be written to the humans who are “predestined” to “understand” God’s Words. However, modern humans are rarely conversant in the language used when “Scripture” was originally inspired to be written.
Thus, I distinguish “Scripture” from “Bible” because each “Bible” is a fallible attempt to translate infallible “Scripture” into some language or dialect other than the original. It is likely each “Bible” contains ambiguity due to the intrinsic fallibility of every human translator. Thus, a concordance is always necessary to reconcile inaccurate and inadequate translations.
Whenever English language books quote Scripture they must copy from a published English translation. The version I typically quote is the King James Version (KJV) (this is the font I use to indicate Bible text). And it will be the old KJV simply because my computer software provides cut-and-paste linkage with Strong’s Concordance. No other reason.
Typical pulpit preachers prefer more modern “Bible” translations but your choice of “Bible” is of no consequence to the thesis of this philosophically conceived book.
My choice to quote from the old KJV simply provides readers with reference consistency while reading. To me it provides cut-and-paste convenience while writing.
I frequently use the philosophically secular term “Literature” when speaking about God’s Words to emphasize the theologically neutral nature of this book.
It is human nature for Christians to have theologically prejudiced opinions about that which God really meant to say. However, I intend this book to be neutral about conflicted theological opinions. I admit my opinions are fallible. But then, that is also true about your own fallible opinions.
Accordingly, “Bible” text is quoted only for literary content and never as proof- text promoting my own theologically prejudiced opinion about God’s Truth.
I intend this book to avoid polemic. However, polemic may slip in simply because I am extremely prejudiced. Please consider your shared fallibility when you think I am lapsing into polemic.
Exegesis vs Eisegesis WRT Exposition vs Interpretation
“Exegesis” is defined as “the process of careful analytical study of the Bible to produce useful interpretations of those passages. The word comes from the Greek term ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means to explain or to narrate or to show the way.”
“Eisegesis” is defined as “reading into the text with a preconceived notion we may have. This can often mean coming to the Scripture with a biased cultural lens that didn’t exist during the time the Bible was written.”
“Exegesis” always treats God’s Words as “Thus saith the Lord.”
“Eisegesis” is always “Thus saith I about what the Lord hath said.” “Exegesis” is frequently a tool used to “Exposit” the definition and usage when a Scriptural word was originally inspired to be written.
“Eisegesis” is an interpretation that pretends to be “Exegesis.”
“Eisegesis” is always a corruption of “Thus saith the Lord” even when theological interpretations essentially agree with “Thus saith the Lord.”
Without exception every instance of “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture” is the outcome of a conflicted “Eisegesis” of God’s Words even when segments of “Thus saith the Lord” may be “deceitfully” inserted into the sectarian approved message.
Sectarian opinions vs God’s Truth
Jesus prayed for you and me in John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” It is a philosophical reality that the source for Scriptural Sanctification is always an outcome of “Thus saith the Lord.” By contrast, every sectarian claim of Sanctification is merely an opinion about that which God really meant to say.
Conflicted opinions including opinions about sanctification are always an “Eisegesis” of assumptions about “thy word is truth.”
The “church being built by Jesus” is based on “thy word is truth.” The churches being built by Bible scholars are based on sectarian “understandings” about “thy word is truth.” Sectarian “understandings” always “deceitfully” compete with the Truth of God’s Words.
A common phenomena is that conflicted sectarian Bible scholars tend to religiously believe their sectarian “understandings” are true reflections of the literal meaning of God’s Words. But every interpretation of God’s immutable Words mutilates “thy word is truth.”
A Big-Picture-Summary of Scripture
The Big-Picture-Summary of the sixty-six inspired “oracles of God” (Rom 3:2) reports that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1) to initiate a demonstration of “the manifold wisdom of God to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies” (Eph 3:10) after which “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pet 3:10).
The impreciseness of the English word “heaven” is due to the inadequacies of the English language. English provides only one word to describe both the atmosphere surrounding the earth as well as the universe containing stars and galaxies. 2Corinthians 12:2 also speaks of a “third heaven” outside our universe. However, residents of “The third heaven” had never observed “evil and death” before “God created the heaven and the earth.”
Thus, Ephesians 3:10 reports “the principalities and powers in the heavenlies” being educated about the distinction between “good and evil.” God created “the heaven and the earth,” humans, Satan, and Satan’s demons as temporary educational tools to be used in that demonstration.
God’s Purpose for Creation was to teach “the manifold wisdom” of God’s grace and mercy by comparing “God’s gift of everlasting life to the Church being built by Jesus” versus God’s “wrathful penalty of Thou shalt surely die” for the lost people within the earth-bound churches built by Bible scholars.
As of AD60 “the principalities and powers” have observed the initiation of “the Church being built by Jesus” as well as the initiation of the conflicted churches being built by Bible scholars. A few humans have been “redeemed” during the process but “redemption” is merely a tool used to accomplish God’s Purpose. “The whole earth being full of His glory” will not be observed by “The whole earth” until Revelation 13:8 is accomplished.
At “the end of time” everything except the “redeemed” will be eliminated from God’s sight “as far as the east is from the west” just as God intended “from before the foundation of the world.”
The-title-of-this-book vs Christian-pulpit-conflict
The title of this book “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture” is an abstract notion that cannot be proven – there is no metric for comparing the intrinsic value of Scripture with the questionable value of the conflicted preaching heard from Christian pulpits.
Nevertheless, every time I sense “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture” I simultaneously observe a pulpit preacher conflicting with a rival pulpit preacher. Accordingly, Christian-Pulpit-Conflict ≡ Sectarianism ≡ Christian-Preaching-That- Devalues-Scripture.
That equivalence statement is True despite any Scriptural correctness or incorrectness of the preached message. It does not judge sectarian beliefs nor does it imply polemic.
That equivalence statement is consistent with Romans 3 regarding “The oracles of God.” The Literature of Romans 3 teaches “Let God be true but every man a liar” simply because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Biblical-Preaching is always based on an Exegetical Exposition of every applicable context of “Thus saith the Lord.” Theologically-Sectarian-Preaching is always an Eisegesis of “Thus saith I about that which the Lord hath said.” But that distinction does not imply error.
Theologically-Sectarian-Preaching is often observed to be structured as a counseling session that recommends emulating sectarian approved Christian behavior while ignoring any Scriptural-deficiency that is observable within the congregation and its pulpit.
Pulpit preachers ought to recognize the distinction between Theologically- Sectarian-Preaching and Biblical-Preaching. But that recognition seems to be hidden by a withholding of “eyes to see and ears to hear” (Isa 6:10, Matt 13:14).
The definitional distinction between Theologically-Sectarian-Preaching and Biblical-Preaching is critical to an analysis of “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture.”
The God of Heaven vs Theophanies of God
The existence of God can be assumed by simply viewing “the Heavens declaring the glory of God” (Ps 19:1). However, God’s identification of Himself is revealed only by exposition of God’s inspired Words. There is no other means for identifying The Holy God who resides in “the Heavenlies.”
By contrast each sectarian Theophany of God is man-made by Bible scholars. The best Theophanies and the worst Theophanies each interpret or mutilate the inspired and immutable Words of God.
Man-made Theophanies of God are typically identified by the names of historic theologians who are famous for conflicting with each other. I observe the historically named Theophanies of God are Arminius, Augustine, Calvin, Ignatius, Luther, Wesley, etc.
Numerous lesser known Theophanies of God also exist. Lesser known Theophanies of God are honored using man-made titles such as “Pastor,” “Pope,” “Reverend,” “Vicar of Christ,” or etc.
Every man-made Theophany of God believes doctrinal “understandings” which conflict with the “understandings” believed by rival man-made Theophanies of God.
Every sectarian Theophany of God disagrees in some sense about the meaning God really intended when God inspired the original text of Scripture.
Disagreement is the reason sectarians are identified as sectarian.
Satan’s Temptation vs God’s Will
I observe Genesys 3:1-5 being typically taught to be Satan’s temptation causing Eve to sin. However, the text simply says “the serpent said unto the women, You shall not surely die for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
The reality is that “The serpent which the LORD God had made” recited partial Truth to Eve despite being Scripturally identified as “the father of lies” (John 8:44) as well as “the god of this world” (2Cor 4:4).
Satan was used by God to initiate God’s Purpose-For-Creation in the Garden of Eden by speaking partial Truth. In fact, Adam and Eve continued physical life for more than 900 years after disobeying God.
The historic reality is that typical humans live until finally dying of old age after a life of continuously repeated sin.
Contrary to typical hermeneutics, Satan merely interpreted that which God said will occur when Eve chooses to act contrary to God’s “command.” Satan’s partial interpretation emphasized the human aspect of death-by-old-age effectively ignoring the spiritual death of “appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).
In that regard, Jesus warned His disciples “Take heed that no man deceives you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matt 24:4). The words “beguile,” “deceive,” “tempt,” “test,” etc. each have unique Dictionary definitions but, for Scriptural applications, those English words are essentially synonymous as to their outcome.
Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul use variations of the English words “corrupt deception” and “beguile” as warnings. For example, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2Cor 11:3).
The reality is that Satan is used by God to accomplish “beguilement” and “corrupt deceit” along with pain, suffering, and even crucifixion of God believers like Adam, Eve, Job, “The Son of Man,” and you and me.
The literature of Job makes it clear that Satan can neither “deceive” nor “beguile” nor “tempt” nor harm in any way unless divinely enabled to do so by the authority of a “Holy” God.
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1Cor 10:13).
Adam and Eve and Satan and you and me and every other form of life within the universe is in complete subjection to the God who created cause-and-effect to be intrinsic within all of time-and-space. The end of critical definitions and distinctions
Perhaps these critical definitions and distinctions will encourage you to ask yourself the philosophical question “Why did an omniscient God who knows both the beginning and the end decide to cause these distinctions?”