#so this may be a very narrow viewpoint of christianity as a whole

[argyrocratie]

“Bolshevism: Promises and Reality“ (1935) by Grigori Petrovitch Maximov

In making the appraisal of the situation as it now exists in the presumably Socialist Soviet Republics, we call to witness the very father of the present Russian regime and on the basis of the evidence offered by him, we shall attempt to present a picture of the actualities existing under the regime of the Marxism communists.

In his work, “On the Problems of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution”, (pp. 17–18, Vol. 14, Part 1) Lenin stated as follows: “Not a parliamentarian republic — a return to it from the S. W. D. would constitute a step backward — but a Republic of Soviets of workers, agricultural laborers, and peasants deputies throughout the land from below upward.”

Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as we see, aimed at organizing a republic of the Soviets. All power to the Soviets! This means said Lenin when addressing the soldiers, that “all the power in the state, from below up, from the remotest village to very city block in Petrograd must belong to the Soviets of the Workers, Soldiers, Agricultural Laborers, etc., Deputies.” (Address to the Soldiers — Vol. 14, Part I, p. 75).

But what in essence is a republic of Soviet? According to the opinion of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, it is a Paris Commune extending over the whole of Russia. It is, defines Lenin in “The Problems of the Proletariat in Our Revolution,” — “The highest type of democratic state — a state which in some respects already ceases to be a State as which, to quote Engels, is no more a state in the true sense of the word. It is a state of the type of the Paris Commune, a state which replaces the standing army and police by the direct army of the people itself. The Russian Revolutions in 1905 and 1917 created just such a government, a Republic of the Worker’s Soviets, etc.” (Vol. 14, Part I, pp. 48–49).

One of the characteristics of the new state of the Paris Commune is the arming not only of the proletariat or of the toiling masses, but the arming of the people as a whole. The army is the entire people: as such the army cannot be separated for the people and thus cannot be placed without and over the people. The same is true of the police: The entire people carry the responsibility of maintaining quiet and order.

The second basic characteristic of such a new state constitutes the complete elimination of bureaucracy. “The state authorities and the bureaucracy again are either replaced by the direct power of the people, or to a lesser degree are placed under special control, thus becoming subject not only to election, but to recall upon the first demand of the people. This reduces them to a position of simple delegates. Instead of a privileged group of highly paid bourgeois position-holders, they become workers specially ‘equipped’ whose compensation is no higher than that of the average worker.” (Lenin, Vol. 14, Part 1, pp. 24–25).

Continuously and persistently Lenin affirmed his above defined stand. At all times, everywhere and in every manner he shouted, “Prevent the re-establishment of the omnipotence of the bureaucracy.” “Prevent the establishment of a standing army seperated from the people, which constitutes a most certain generator of all manner of attempts to take away freedom.” (The Assembly of the Peasant Deputies, Vol. 14, Part 1, pp. 24–25).

To the question, why the organization of a standing army, a police and bureaucracy should not be permitted, Lenin gave answer, because, “a bureaucracy appointed ‘from above’ for the guidance of local populations always has been and forever will remain one of the surest means for the re-establishment of the monarchy, — as will the standing army and police.” (Where the Counter-revolutionary Steps of the Provisional Government Lead To, Vol. 14, Part 1, p. 129. Also, The One Question of Principles, p. 226).

What in fact is the power of the state? What are its basic elements, and what is generally meant by the state apparatus? From the viewpoint of the pre-October Lenin “by the state apparatus is meant first of all a standing army, police, and bureau-cracy.” (Will The Bolsheviks Retain the Government Power? Vol. 14, Part 2, p. 227).

Thus, as the Pre-October Lenin pictured to himself, and impressed upon the minds of the working masses, the peasants and the soldiers, the Republic of the Soviets was nothing else but an anarchist federation of many thousands of Soviet-Communes scattered over the vast spaces of Russia. This, in fact, is a complete democracy which has reached its logical stage of develop-ment, Anarchism. The bourgeois socialists cried, “Lenin has ascended the vacant throne of Bakunin”. Is it really true? Is Lenin an anarchist? The answer is both “yes , and “no”.

Pre-October Lenin followed the example of the founder of Christianity, who spoke to the people in parables whose hidden meaning he disclosed only to his disciples. All of Pre-October Lenin’s agitational essays which are appeals to the masses, have a predominant anarchistic tone. However, all his more or less theoretical essays, intended only for a narrow circle of readers, are permeated with the musty odor of Marxism.

Until October, Lenin was guided by the example of the Marx who was forced by the events of 1870–1, for reasons of tactics, to lean in the direction of anarchism and to write “The Civil War in France”, which stands apart from all his works and has almost no connection with his general conception of socialism. Similarly, the events of 1917 forced Lenin to deviate from his dogma in order to further it. But Post-October Lenin shows his true face, and thus discloses the insincerity of the Pre-October Lenin. The desire to develop his insignificant faction of the social democratic party into a party of significance and his peculiar desire for power pointed out to Lenin the path he was to follow in order to secure domination over the masses. This same will for power led him to adopt the methods by which he became the idol of this party and of the toiling population. Thus, the heretofore outspoken centralist, who writing in “Iskra” stated that “it was not the business of the proletariat to occupy itself with federalism”, decided in the name of centralism to become a terrible federalist.

That this is a factual appraisal of Lenin’s tactics is confirmed in a statement made at the time by the present dictator, Stalin. In 1919, while still Commissar of National Affairs, Stalin with his native blunt stupidity publicly declared that the Communists “are moving via federalization towards centralization”. This statement frankly discloses the reason which prompted Lenin to stand for “a republic without a police force, a standing army, officers subject to recall instead of a bureaucracy enjoying the privilege of bourgeois compensation for their work. We stand for the broadest election, for replacement of any and all the clerks at any time, and for a proletarian wage for work per-formed”. (Our Views, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 92).

In line with this same policy, Lenin had overfilled the Republic of the Soviets with democratic liberties to the limit. These liberties, it must be stated, constitute in essence the very aspiration of the downtrodden masses. Lenin told the masses what they had known all along from their own experience, what they felt but were unable to express. But long ago all this was expressed and formulated by the Anarchists. Lenin had merely borrowed these formulations from the anarchists despite the fact that a short time previous he so irreconcilably fought against the principles upon which they were based. He had merely used anarchism for his ultimate purposes.

“The introduction of ‘appointed’ bureaucracy must not be tolerated. Only ‘bodies created by the people themselves’ should be recognized.” To this the workers and peasants replied: “Verily, t’is the holy truth!”

“The idea of the need for leadership by a bureaucracy ‘appointed’ from above is in its essence a fallacious one. It is non-democratic, Cesaristic, a Blankist Adventure.” (Vol. 14, Part 1, p. 129). The masses overwhelmed with enthusiasm shouted: “’Tis the holy truth, Ilyitch! Hail, the Bolsheviks! Hail, the Republic of the Soviets!”

“In a free land,” said Lenin, “only those govern the people who are elected by the people themselves for this purpose… That is why the governing of the people in free countries is brought about by means of open party contests and free agreement among them.” (Lessons of the Revolution, Vol. 14, part 2, p. 33). And the masses shouted “Bravo”, returned to their abodes with the slogan, “Hail Free Russia!”

“By establishing the institutions of democracy and freedom which were maimed and crippled by Kerensky, the bolsheviks will form a government which none will be able to overthrow.” (The Bolsheviks Must Secure the Power, Vol. 14, Part 2, p. 134). And the masses shouted, “Down with the social traitor, the lackey of the bourgeoisie, Kerensky! Hail, the bolsheviks! Hail, the Republic of the Soviets!”

“The freedom of the press,” said Lenin to the workers and the peasants, “means this: all the opinions of all the citizens may be freely proclaimed. The power of the state in the form of the soviets take possession of all the printing establishments, all the paper, and distributes them equitably, — in the first place, to the state: in the second place to the big parties of significance; in the third place to smaller parties; then comes any group of citizens which has attained a definite number of mem-bers and has gathered sufficient signatures… This would con-stitute a real freedom for all, and not for the rich.” (How to Secure the Successful Election of the Constituent Assembly, Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 112–113).

“Hail the freedom of the press!” replied the masses. “All power to the local soviets!”

In every constitutional country the right to organize demonstrations remains inalienable to the citizens… Any party in a free land has the right to organize demonstrations.” (The Sacred and the Entangled, Vol. 14, Part 1, p. 254).

“A government aware of the principle that its entire structure rests upon the will of the majority of the people cannot fear demonstrations previously announced. It will not prohibit them.” (Hints p. 255).

“All peaceful manifestations are merely political agitations. There must be no forbidding of political agitations, nor should agitation be monopolized. The constitution of a free republic cannot forbid peaceful manifestations, or any mass demonstrations of any party or any group.” (Contradictory Positions. Vol. 14, Part I, p. 259). “Hail, Lenin!” replied the masses to this. Let us go forward in the fight for freedom!”

The basic rule, the first commandment of any true revolutionary movement, should be: Do not depend upon the ‘state’; depend only upon the power of your class”, spoke Lenin to the workers. “No ‘state’ is able to be of help to the worker in the village, to the agricultural worker, the daily worker or to the poorest peasant, to the semi-proletarian, if they are unable to help themselves.” (The Necessity to Organize a Union of Rural Workers in Russia, Vol. 1 4, Part 1. pp. 290–1 ). Verily, verily!” shouted the workers in reply.

“All the land of the landlords must be confiscated. Nationalization of all the land in the country and the management of the same must be given to the local soviets of the Deputies of the agricultural workers and peasants. (Vol. 14, Part I. pp. 17–18).

“The objective difficulty of socialism is intimately bound up with small-husbandry. We do not even pretend to subject it to expropriation or regulation, in fact not even to control. (The Destruction and the Proletarian Fight Against It. Vol. 14. Part I, p. 243). And the peasant howled in reply, “That’s the idea! Truthfully stated!”

“Fear not the initiative and self-expression of the masses; have confidence in their revolutionary organizations, and you will see in all departments of the state functions the same power, greatness, and determination of the workers and peasants which they had demonstrated in their united efforts against Korniloffchina.”

Lenin did not fear such initiative and self-expression of the masses because they led him to power. And, indeed, supported by all the toilers of Russia, he finally came to power. Using their initiative and self-expression, the people commenced to bring into realization what Lenin daily impressed upon them in simple and popular language. While the masses had been absorbed by the struggle and their creative work upon which they fell as the starved do upon food, Lenin diplomatically persuaded the people and forced the Party to organize not a simple army, but a red army of the workers and peasants”, to protect the conquests of the revolution, and to repulse the imperialists. Thus was created a huge strictly disciplined army, separated from the people and in juxtaposition to the people. Under the pretext of protecting and maintaining order and the fight against criminals was organized a most common garden variety of police force; under the pretext of fighting against speculators and counter-revolutionists was created a political secret police; while the promise was made that bureaucracy and its privileged clerks would be abolished, there had been created a bureaucracy the equal of which the world had never seen before. In fact, the new bureaucracy had come to be a new class of lords. Capital punishment, it was promised, would be abolished. Instead, wholesale shootings became an everyday occurrence.

The people were called to freedom, but were led into a stable of state slavery under which human life became less than worthless. The people were called to the banner with the promise of the abolition of piece-work remuneration and other sweat-shop methods of exploitation. Yet, no sooner had they secured the power, than, in the name of the good of the toiling masses and of socialism, it was found expedient to apply in practice, and to investigate the value of piece work, and the application of any progressive and scientific points of the system of Taylor.” (The Soviet Government Problems of the Day, Vol. 15, p. 209). Now after many years of communist overlordship, Russia has become a country of terrible exploitation, and miserable compensation for the work.

Prior to usurpation of the government powers, Lenin and the bolsheviks maintained that every female-cook must take part in the affairs of the government. Yet, no sooner had they gathered the power to themselves, than Lenin declared to these cocks, “in order to govern you must know how. Do not shove your swinish snouts among the privileged. Where the goat is tied, there she must browse, and cooks must cook, not govern.

Only a while before, initiative and self-expression had been lauded. But no sooner had the usurpation of power been accomplished, than initiative and creative will of the workers were denounced as “petty bourgeois laxity.” They were no longer praised as virtues and were replaced by a call for “discipline to the point of compulsion and dictatorship.” (Vol. 15, p. 213). Lenin began to talk of the need to introduce “unopposed obedience to the orders of individual representatives of the soviet powers during working hours”, (Vol. 15, p. 220), and of the beginning of a period of ‘merciless’ tightening up, and of a prolonged and insistent fight for a strict proletarian discipline as against the threatening wave of petty-bourgeois laxity and anarchy.” The slogan of Lenin had now become”, to mercilessly tighten up, to discipline severely, to ruthlessly destroy laxity.” (Vol. 15, p. 224). And this policy has been and is being followed to this day with ail the mercilessness prescribed. And the tightening up and the disciplining has been carried out over the land of Russia with such zeal and fervor, that it has ceased to be a land and has become instead a huge prison, a vast correction institution, from which Mussolini and Hitler are learning their lessons in discipline, and upon which the body of interna-tional reactionaries look with concealed envy.

In the preceding paragraphs was described the concept of the soviet democracy which Lenin expounded before the Russian workers and peasants who were tired of despotism. However, as soon as the bolsheviks found themselves at the helm, Lenin’s declarations changed. It is stated that soviet democracy is absolutely incompatible with personal dictatorship. This reasoning is very bad.” (Vol. 15, p. 217). “Soviet socialist democracy is not inconsistent with personal rule and dictatorship, for the will of the class is at times best brought into realization by a dictator, who alone will accomplish more and who is fre-uently more needed.” (Vol. 17, p. 89). “The will of hun-dreds and even of tens of thousands of people frequently may be expressed through one person”. (Vol. 17, p. 104). And thus, for over many years, the will of millions of people has been expressed in the will of one person, and the land as was stated by Schevchenko, is silent, because the people are prospering. Socialist democracy in Russia has long ago disappeared into the realm of myths, and the very term made synonymous with reaction; and today absolutism is regarded as a revolutionary and progressive phenomenon.

Time and again Lenin had spoken of the inadmissibility of ruling bureaucrats appointed from above. Yet when the professional unions made an attempt to reject the representative of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, Radeck, as the government appointed bureaucrat, Lenin foamed at the mouth shouting, “What? The Central Committee has no right to attach to professional unions persons who are best familiar with the German experiments and who can have a corrective effect in the case of an incorrect line of action? A Central Committee unable to solve such a problem, surely could not govern! (Vol. ! 7, p. 34).

The Post-October Lenin, as we see, demanded the right to appoint his bureaucrats not only to the local state governing bodies, but to the professional, cooperative, etc. workers organizations. Now the country completely forgot what it meant to elect and remove functionaries by the will of the people.

The vivid and flashing colors which Lenin used in painting the picture of freedom in the pre-October days was discarded in his post-October utterances. He then wrote, “We must by all means erase from the face of the earth all political traces of the mensheviks and the SR’s (Socialist-Revolutionists) who speak of personal freedom, etc.” (Vol. 17, p. 49). And the bolsheviks erased all such traces.

Russia is now a land in which all expression of personality is crushed. It is a land replete with slave-labourers who can be cast about from place to place at any moment at the will of the rulers. Slavishness is now hailed as personality. The slave is the “best citizen” of the communist republic. The aim of the communist party is the bringing up of slaves. Freedom in Russia is a reactionary and counter-revolutionary thing, — slavery — and despotism, the road to socialism, the road to the free personality! Black is white, and white is black! These are the concepts the population is forced to acknowledge and acquire. No wonder Mussolini had declared, “Fascism had stepped forward and henceforth will confidently step over the decaying carcass of the Princess, Freedom… Russia and Italy had proved that one can rule without, over and against any liberal ideology. Communism and fascism reside without the boundaries of liberalism.”

And Lenin seconds Mussolini. “There can be no talk of the independence of separate parties, at the time when the world axe is raised over the body of capitalism.” (Vol. 15, p. 587). And since that axe is still suspended over capitalism, there is no talk in these days in Russia of the independence of separate parties. And no such talk there will be as long as the bolshevik axe remains hanging over the Russian workers and peasants.

“Many errors have been made, we know, especially during the early months following the October revolution. Now we shall strive to subdue all to the soviet power, and all illusions of “independence” of separate strata, as well as workers cooperatives will be forced out of existence as soon as possible. (Vol. 15, p. 586). All this has been forced out of existence in Russia long ago. Everything is subdued to the soviet power. There are no more illusions, — only tears!

The students follow the precepts of their teachers. They have erased all traces of free personality, they have tightened the vise over the land as Frederick the Great had once done with his Grenadiers. In their hands the state has almost attained perfection, the highest expression of which is represented by the barracks. The commanders order and the subordinates obey. The commanders order to build, to saw and to plant in order to give the starved population a meager slice of bread, and the subordinates build, saw, plant and go on starving. The idiotic plan of forced collectivization has resulted in the most fertile lands of Russia becoming barren, and in the complete devastation of whole sections by death from starvation. The most effective projects in the center, and the most devastating destruction in the provinces, — such is the tragic irony of forced collectivization.

The case has been presented. We can now sum up the evidence above and see if progress is possible under the Bolshevik state, or to make it more general, under any state socialism.

First of all we observe a merging of State and Party in Russia, similar to the merging of State and Church in the Middle Ages. This merging created a monstrous State which is the Party, and a Party which is the State, — with a monstrous centralization and a regimentation — all dependent upon centralization; the planting of potatoes, the manufacture of shoe-polish, and… human life.

The functioning of this monstrous machine of centralization called for a great many people who have developed into a large class of bureaucrats possessing dictatorial powers. This means that we have in Russia a bureaucratic despotism, a dictatorship of bureaucracy. The fact that the bureaucracy is composed of peasants, workers and intelligentsia does not change the essence of the dictatorship, nor its harmfulness. Any dictatorship, no matter what its purpose, regardless of its aims, is despotism, and no freedom is compatible with despotism. Under this regime the people have many responsibilities, and practically no rights. That is why at present all elementary rights, as well as all elementary liberties, without which no culture or progress is possible have been destroyed in Russia.

What does the USSR represent politically? To answer this question let us examine the political content of this socialistic union. In it, there is no freedom of press, but stringent censorship; no freedom of speech, not only for the general population but not even for party members; no freedom of assemblage or organization; no freedom of thought and scientific research, — everyone is compelled to think in a Marxian way, the brand of which is prescribed by the ruling sect.

Scientific research must evolve from and be based on Marxian theory. The Dialectic method must be used even in medicine. Is this not medieval Catholicism? Where freedom of thought is absent, there can be no freedom of conscience, and Russia does not have this freedom. There is no freedom of training and education. — the Bolshevik schools are Catholic seminaries. There is no freedom of moving from place to place, no freedom of occupation and initiative and artistic creativeness. Literature and art must follow in the channel of Marxism and must serve as tools of agitation and propaganda in the hands of the Party-State. The rights of the individual and the home are violated.

These rights are too bourgeois for “socialism”. There is no freedom of the mail, and all correspondence is censored. The “rulers” will know what the “subjects” of the Socialistic Union think. It is self-evident that where there is no freedom of press, there is no freedom of publicity, and where there is no freedom of publicity, there is no freedom of public opinion. There is no secret ballot, and hence no freedom of election. Where there is no freedom of election, there can be no question of public control, or responsibilities of institutions and persons. There is no political equality, and therefore there exist classes or castes. The peasant has less right than the worker in the field of representation; the political opponents of the Communist party and every kind of “State” offenders have no rights at all, and they form in the Marxian Communist State a caste deprived of all rights and called “Lishentzi” (the deprived of rights). The chairmen of the Soviets become governors, and Soviets become merely advisory bodies to this governor. Housing Committees become extensions of police stations.

In connection with all this, there flourishes in the country, a police with unlimited powers, and the espionage of secret service forces. At home the “citizen” of the United Socialist Soviet Republics is under the surveillance of the chairmen of the House Committee; at work he is watched by the Communist cell; in the street he is spied upon by the professional State Secret Service.

Arbitrariness, shootings, murders, prison, exile, moral and at times physical torture, are the natural consequences of such a regime.

In such dreadful centralization, national federation and autonomy of nationalities and provinces are a mould without content. Under a regime of secret diplomacy and such “freedom”, the Soviet citizen is more limited in regard to the question of war and peace than the citizen of any Constitutional state. Instead of a general armament proclaimed by the Revolution, a centralized army is created which is controlled by the Central government. When the Party is militarized, the youth is militarized, also. In addition to the open and secret police there are created corps of troops with specific functions which are at the command of the GPU.

Such are the results of the Bolshevik regime in the political sphere where many more similar “conquests” not included here were made in the interests of the “people, liberty, and socialism”. And now using this analysis as a basis, we can answer the question we asked before. Is progress possible under the Bolshevik State or under any State Socialism?

No. Progress is not possible under such a regime. This regime truly sets us back to the epoch of medieval catholic reaction. In spite of this, we are called upon to accept this regime, that is to sell ourselves willingly into bond-age. Who can agree to do this?

Now let us consider the Bolshevik regime in the economic sphere. The situation of the toilers of the USSR is no less deplorable from the economic standpoint than from the political. The proletariat is denied the right to strike. The factory and shop committees are destroyed, the industrial unions became mere tools of the State. Consequently, the proletariat loses all possibility of defending its economic needs. The State Industrial Unions and organs of management of State industry control labor compensation, forms of productions, regulation of conditions of labor, and settle collective bargaining, ignoring the opinions of the workers. Strikers are State offenders and the dissatisfied are under suspicion. Therefore, they lose their jobs, and are exiled to parts unknown. The wages are based on the piece-work plan. Labor compensation is divided into many categories which create a series of groups in the proletariat differing one from another according to the annual income. This creates dissension and lack of unity in the proletariat.

The majority of the workers are shackled to their factories, and have no right to leave their place of work at their own free will. The eight-hour day is non-existent in many shock-industries, because of repeated use of over-time work. Labor compensation continually lags behind the rising prices of the products of first necessity. The introduction of the five-day week deprived the workers of a “Sunday” in common, the day of rest, when they could meet and discuss the affairs of the country and their own personal affairs. Labor protection was taken away from the workers and given to the Commissariat of Labor. The management of the mills and factories by the workers was destroyed long ago. The collegium and elective industrial management was destroyed and its place was taken by autocratic management.

The worker’s control over industry is non-existent. The peasants are forced into the Collective Farms (Kolkhozi) and are compelled to remain there. The same farms supply the city with workers which are taken in herds by collective contract through the bureaucracy of the Kolkhozi. Cooperatives become supplementary additions of the trading organs of the State. The State has the trade monopoly and exploits the peasants by buying their products at a low price and selling them city products at a high price. The land is state property. The peasant land committees are destroyed.

Agriculture and industry are organized on the bourgeois principle of the profit-system, i. e. on the exploitation and appropriation by the state of surplus value which is swallowed by the bureaucracy. Industry organized on the capitalist principle makes us of all the capitalist principles of exploitation; Fordization. Taylorization, etc. The proletariat and peasantry respond to this with passive resistance. As a result, industry moves at a snail’s pace.

There is a chronic scramble for food-products. The State cannot provide its subjects with a pound of even poorly baked bread a day. There is a lack of necessary commodities manu-factured by the city industries. The builders of Communism struggle to abolish the supplying of food by rotation and bread lines. After eighteen years they have still not succeeded.

The entire country is suffering from a housing crisis, heating crisis and a transportation crisis. Crisis, crisis, crisis… without end. According to Marx, existence determines conscience. What, then is the conscience of the Russian toiling masses?

It is bitter, very bitter. The communist existence determines and directs the conscience of the Russian proletariat and the Russian peasantry toward a new third Revolution, an all healing and all cleansing Revolution. Without it there is no escape. Without this the Bolsheviks like a gangrene will decom-pose and seduce beyond hope the spirit and body of the Russian toiling masses — and not only Russian!

We must drive out such builders of Communism, this un-savory brand of Communism. Such rulers must be driven out — the sooner the better. The workers, the comrades of the pre-October Lenin must go against the post-October Lenin and his party. Into the faces of the new despots the workers must fling the very world of Lenin.

“The workers must sweep away all phrases, promises, declamations, projects centrally conceived by bureaucrats, who forever are ready to spend time at composing the most seemingly effective plans, suggestions, constructions, standardizations. Tis all a lie! Down with all that noise of bureaucratic and bourgeois project-making, which has cracked and crumpled down univers-ally. Down with the dilatory procedure of perpetually postpon-ing urgent affairs! The workers must demand the immediate realization of the principle of control de facto, and what is more important, control by the workers themselves. This is most important to the success of the cause, the cause of saving the revolution from a catastrophe. Without this, all else is deception. (The Unavoidable Catastrophe and the Limitless Promises, Vol. 14, Part I, p. 196).

We must uphold Lenin against Lenin and say in his own words, “Without this, all else is deception!”

The workers must deal with their betrayers as they deserve. They must take all back into their hands, and must by their own initiative commence to build a free society, a society free from governing and governed, free from exploiters and exploited, in short, they must commence the building of anarchism and communism.

#vladimir lenin #grigory maximov #anarchism #communism #long post

[johnhardinsawyer]

No Longer Strangers

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

7 / 18 / 21

Ephesians 2:11-22

Mark 6:30-34, 53-56

“No Longer Strangers”

(A New Harmony)

Have you seen these flags that are flown at homes and businesses and put on t-shirts and bumper stickers?  They look like American flags, but instead of being red, white, and blue, these flags are black and white.  Have you seen these flags?  Now, I’m not entirely sure what brought these white and black flags about, but someone, somewhere, is making some money selling them.  I guess some people think they look kind of cool – and, maybe they do – but I’m not entirely sure what, exactly, these flags mean to many of the people who fly and wear them.  I mean, I kind of know what these black and white flags mean, but a flag is a symbol – a powerful symbol – filled with so much meaning.  Now, I want to be careful and say that I’m not trying to make a judgment statement here about who flies which flag.  I am concerned, though, because it has begun to feel like the United States of America finds itself living under different flags – different ideologies, different forms of expressing ideas and loyalties – “United” in name, only.  There is so much dissonance and very little harmony.  We’re estranged from one another – strangers in this strange, yet beloved, land.

This is not the first time it’s been this way.  Our ideological and cultural differences can cause us to operate in different social worlds, different media worlds, different social media worlds, even different physical worlds in terms of which town or neighborhood we choose to live in  (or which town or neighborhood welcomes us in).  We might live in the same country, and we might technically be speaking the same language as our neighbors – like English – but we’re really speaking different languages about what is important, and true, and good to us.  And it is so hard for us to understand one another.  It happens between people of different races and cultures.  It happens between people of different ages, and generations, and socio-economic backgrounds, and access to technology.  It happens within families and in schools.  It even happens in the church.  

So, whether we’re talking about God, or who we voted for, or where we think the country is headed, or what we think about the complexities of race relations and the police and school curriculum and all of the historical and emotional baggage contained therein, there are so many ways that people can be so far apart on so many things.  We are strangers from one another – and, as we were taught as children, strangers can be dangerous, so. . . we stay away from one another, and the divide grows.  

And then, along comes today’s reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and it totally upends the tribalistic differences to which we might cling.  Because in Jesus Christ, any differences we might think are so important – any differences we might have to those around us – are wiped away and everyone is given a new identity.  The artificial barriers of thought, and feeling, and education, and money, and other things that we humans build, are dismantled.  Anything that separates us is torn down.  

The Letter to the Ephesians was likely written by someone who was close to the Apostle Paul – one of his followers, perhaps.  And the letter is written to the church at Ephesus, but it is really meant to be read by church – including ours.  

Just so you know, the ancient city of Ephesus was a port town in present-day Turkey – across the Aegean Sea from Greece.  Back in the time this letter was written, Ephesus was already well over 1,000 years old, and it was a thriving place with beautiful buildings, and a gigantic road from the harbor to the city – a first-century super-highway where eight chariots could ride side-by-side.  Ephesus had a huge amphitheater, and a library the size of our sanctuary (a rarity in the ancient world), and the temple of Artemis, which was at least four times the size of our sanctuary.[1]  In Greek mythology, Artemis was the daughter of Zeus – the goddess of the hunt.[2]  

So, in addition to the local – native – people, and the Greeks who conquered and settled the area, and the Romans who later conquered and settled the area, people from all over the known world traveled to and through Ephesus over the years, bringing other cultures and religions with them.  These included Jews from Palestine and, later on, Christians.  As you might imagine, this bustling melting pot of cultures, and races, and religions, was not without conflict.  Sound familiar?  It was like there were multiple flags flying over the same city – as many flags as there were viewpoints and loyalties.  And, apparently, there were people who thought that their way of living and practicing religion was the best way – that they were the in-crowd and everyone else was out.  There might have even been people in the church at Ephesus who felt this way about other people in the same church.  Can you imagine?  Shocking, I know, but people back then didn’t have many options in terms of churches.  It’s not like they could pack up and leave to go to the other church down the street.  There was only one church at Ephesus.

And then this letter arrives, stating that God has a different way of life, and faith, and community in mind for us.  There’s only one church, after all, so maybe we should live and work to make it so.  Now, many of the people in the church were so-called Gentiles – they were not ethnic or religious Jews, descended from one of the twelve tribes of Israel.  Instead, they were locals, of Greek, or Roman, or some other lineage, and they had heard the good news about this Palestinian Jew, Jesus Christ, and had come to believe in him.  Just prior to today’s passage, we can read the words later made famous by Martin Luther and other Reformers:  “[f]or by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. . .” (Ephesians 2:8)  Another way of putting it is that, in the very act of coming to have faith in Jesus Christ, you and I are saved by God’s grace.  So these Gentiles in Ephesus, who have come to trust and follow Jesus, now find themselves as members of Christ’s body.  They are adopted, as we heard last week, and are given a new identity as God’s own children.

There’s only one problem, though.  They go to church with people who love Jesus, too, but who look down their noses at these Gentiles because they are not Jewish.  I mean, Jesus was Jewish, so shouldn’t everyone who loves Jesus be Jewish too – with all of the Jewish rules and regulations, including being circumcised?  To which the author of the letter to the Ephesians says, basically, “Don’t you know that God is up to something new and different for all of humanity, not just one small part of it?”

You see, there are these things that divide us as people.  Maybe it’s where we’re from, or what we believe, or who our family is, or what we’ve been taught about who we are.  And all of this makes us different from those people, whoever they may be and whatever flag they may be flying or pledging allegiance to.

But, as the author of today’s passage writes,

. . . now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. (2:13-14)

In other words, Christ Jesus bridges the divide between human beings and, through his loving sacrifice, he draws us close together and makes us one people.  No more walls.  No more hostility.  No more flags.  Only the cross of Jesus Christ.  

Can we still fly a flag?  Yes, if we need to.  Can we still love our country or our heritage?  Of course!  But, in Christ Jesus, our true country is God’s kingdom and our true heritage is built upon the loving and faithful foundation of prophets, and apostles, and Jesus, himself.

In so many ways, the dividing lines that we draw and walls we build might feel like our natural default setting as human beings, but they really go against who we truly are – who God made us to be.  As the Celtic Christian author, Philip Newell, writes:

Like never before in the history of humanity, we are becoming aware that what we do to a part we do to the whole, that the parts will not be well as long as the whole is neglected, and that the whole will not be well if the parts are neglected.  We know that it is meaningless to speak of being truly well as parents if our children are unwell.  We know that we cannot claim true wellness for our nation as long as other nations are suffering.  And we know that the human species can in no sense be considered healthy when the body of the earth is deeply infected.  Wellness is found not in isolation but in relationship. . . [The Holy] Spirit is breathing a new vision of oneness into our awareness today.  And it transcends the narrow boundaries that our nations and religions have tried to place around us.  A new and vast Pentecost is stirring in the human soul.  How will we serve it?[3]

Now, this was written ten years ago, long before Covid-19 vaccines and Delta variants, but it somehow rings quite true in the face of all that we’re facing.  We are connected to one another, even if we don’t act like it.  I find Newell’s question compelling.  The Holy Spirit “transcends the narrow boundaries that our nations and religions have tried to place around us. . .  How will we serve it?”

How will we serve the Holy Spirit in the spirit of the oneness to which God is calling us, and leading us, and perhaps dragging us against our wills as we pray with our lips for things to be on earth as they are in heaven and yet live in such a way that we would gladly have nothing to do with a neighbor who thinks or acts or lives differently from us?  

This is tough stuff, my friends, but in Christ Jesus, the God who might seem so far off from sinful and petty human beings, like you and I, brings us near.  And in Christ Jesus, the people who might seem so far off from us are brought near, too – from Mitch McConnell to Nancy Pelosi, from rainbow flags to MAGA hats, from Tucker Carlson to Bill Maher, from Black Lives Matter to Blue Lives Matter, from wherever you may be – and whatever flag you fly – and how you see the world to wherever those who are most strange to you and estranged from you are.  

How will we serve the Spirit?  By living and working and serving and loving until all people are no longer strangers.  We have our work cut out for us – whether that work takes place deep in our own hearts or out in the world, dismantling our pride and our prejudice and making us one.  Who is farthest away from you and how is the Spirit moving you to become one?  In Christ Jesus, God is creating a new humanity that embraces our very human need for one another – our need for harmony and wholeness and peace. . . even with those people who seem so far off from us.  

We have been saved by grace and this is not our own doing, but may we respond to God’s grace  by living and working for God’s harmony, and wholeness, and peace.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.  

-----------

[1] Watson E. Mills, ed. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Macon:  Mercer University Press, 1990) 255-256. James L. Blevins - “Ephesus”.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis.

[3] J. Philip Newell, A New Harmony:  The Spirit, the Earth, and the Human Soul (San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 2011) xiii-xiv.

[christianstevefinnell]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[noplanwithavan]

A VERY LONG WAY HOME

In the last month we have covered a gruelling 3,000km, reaching the northern extreme of our yearʼs adventure, before turning tail towards home. By August we have made our way through 25 countries, finally coming full circle. Itʼs a journey that has spanned glaciers, mountains, fjords, and volcanoes. From the desert heat of Morrocco to the midnight sun of the Artic Circle.

One thing I always wondered about this trip was what it would be like when our return date became imminent. Should we come back at all? And If we did, would we revert immediately into the same patterns? Or will the experiences prove to have changed us in some fundamental way?

Weʼve still got TWO WEEKS left (gulp!), so I canʼt be sure yet. But I think the signs indicate we are not the same as a family. For one thing Iʼve realised there is not just one way to live your life. There are many and varied possibilities. And living an itinerant existence in a camper van happens to be one of them - a perfectly sustainable one at that. Financially, thereʼs no pressing need to come home. We could afford to keep going. By renting out our house and holiday cottage in Tenby, it more than covers our expenditure. We actually spend LESS by not working. That may sound bizarre, but itʼs true. We spend less because we consume less. Marcus has become the watch guard for anti-consumerist, keeping a steely eye for any signs of weakness on our part.

Even in a country like Norway, which EVERYONE will tell you is “super expensive”, itʼs not impossible to live cheaply, if you have time and a bit of creativity. Supermarket prices are probably three times that of the UK, but in this vast wilderness there is plenty to be had for free. You donʼt need a license to fish in the fjords, and in the north especially, the fish are easy prey.

Shortly after crossing the imaginary line of the Artic Circle, we entered Norway from Northern Sweden. Immediately the landscape ramped up. Gone were the flat forests of fir scored with lakes. In their place were towering mountains with spidery waterfalls spilling straight from the heavens. Trying to outrun the rain, we pushed on to Bodø, to catch a ferry to the legendary Lofoten Islands. Weʼd heard tales of their majestic beauty, and a friendly Norwegian family we met on board the 4 hour crossing helped set the scene. At over 2m tall with long flowing flaxen locks, their eldest son looked exactly like a Viking, and regaled the girls with tales of trolls, notably, “Espen and the Ashes”. His appearance set the stage perfectly, for nowhere on earth could I imagine more Viking-worthy than that first sighting of the Lofoten Islands as they hove into view. A long string of razor sharp peaks spanning across the horizon like the scale-spiked spines of a gigantic sea monster. I have navigated the girls through Roman, Greek and now Norse mythology. And Lofoten struck me as uniquely mythical - the physical embodiment of the Midguard Serpeant, coiling itself around the Earth.

In three weeks of travelling we have seen no part of Norway which is not indescribably beautiful. Every road is a scenic smorgasbord. Every angle, every viewpoint, just breathtaking in its scale and raw, naked beauty. But even against all this, the Lofoten Islands loom large in a league of their own. They make you feel invincible somehow. A heady combination of 24 hour summer sunlight mingled with prehistoric mountains rising vertically from the sea. When the sun is shining you can hike day or night. Itʼs not unusual to spot midnight walkers, scrambling up the snaggle-toothed peaks for a view of the world spread-eagled before them. One morning I wake restless at 5.30 am, and slip out of the van to climb Reinebringen. A tough, vertical scramble, but one which rewards you with a picture-postcard view from the summit, and the sight of a sea eagle circling below.

There are harbours sheltering beneath the bulk of these impressive cliffs, flecked with grass-roofed red rorbeurs (fishermanʼs cabins standing on stilts) and giant wooden A-frames. Closer inspection revealed the purpose of these industrial-sized drying racks. For the waters around here are known for both their treachery and their abundance of cod, who come in droves to lay their eggs during the winter. The writer Jules Verne spawned the idea for his book, “Journey to the Centre of the Earth” after witnessing the maelstrom (whirlpool) off the coast of the Lofoten Isles. And long before the discovery of North Sea Oil, Norwayʼs liquid gold came from the cod liver oil harvested from these shores. We visited a quaint little fishing town called Å, where all the buildings have been turned into a museum. Peering at traditional boats, nets and glass buoys, and reeling back in horror at the stink from barrels of fermenting cod liver. One hundred years ago, black and white picture frames record a horizon packed tight with fishing boats. The flotilla then would land 70,000 cod. Now the catch is much smaller, but still large enough for every town to dry hundreds of fish on giant racks in the traditional way. At this time of year only the staring eyes and papery heads remain. Someone told us the stockfish gets shipped to Spain and Portugal as salted cod, or bacalao. The lower-value end is destined for Nigeria, as a delicacy for soups.

There are no roads crossing the sprawling islands. Instead cars skirt the edges, looping and lacing from one land mass to the next. At times this network is so narrow it becomes a series of stepping stones, made possible only by tunnels which take you below sea level. We hammered home those Norse stories by visiting a Viking museum in Vestagoy, and reach our most northerly point at Unstad, where Marcus layers up with whatever he can find to surf the Artic. He has neither wetsuit hood nor gloves, but stays in much longer than we expect, emerging only somewhat pinked to declare the water is no colder than winter back home in Pembrokeshire.

One day we hike over a mountain to the remote Kvalvika beach. Another walker tells us two friends made a documentary here, “North of the Sun”, about their experiences living for an entire winter on their own. As we straddle the pass the drop below reveals a beach encircled with cliffs shrouded in mist. The clouds act like a curtain call, hanging low, setting the scene, nature at its most dramatic. We spot a little hobbit house and long drop loo on the beach, remnants from the film; a story of human survival. For the first time we wish we could ditch the van, and go off for longer on foot. Norway and Sweden both have a policy of the individual having a “right to camp”. For this reason, itʼs normal to see a tent pitched pretty much anywhere - by a fjord, on a beach, even atop a mountain. Iʼm suddenly aware weʼre just not properly kitted out for this environment. We have “the worldʼs worst shoes” for one thing. A paltry hotchpotch of non-waterproof specimens. And no wet weather gear, aside from one pair of kids fishermanʼs trousers we picked up in a charity shop which are 2 inches too short. At €34 for a round of coffee and cakes, Norway isnʼt the country for a spending spree to get “kitted out”. Instead we brave the rainy days and scale back our ambitions. Crossing back to the mainland, and winding our way South, we stop at Svartisen glacier, bathing in the ice cold milky waters beneath. Itʼs a boat crossing plus a 2 hour walk to reach the glacier, and itʼs hard to get a sense of scale until youʼre up close. But the sight of those spearmint blue crevices get the girls declaring it was well worth it. “Like Elsaʼs Palace up close,” Elsie muses. Norway has notched up our ferry total to 19. The whole coastline is like a gigantic lung, fed by a fine weave of arteries - the fjords stretching impossibly far inland. The only way to navigate them at points is to take a ferry hop across. The main road, the E6, is said to be the longest in Europe and though the drives here are long they are never boring. It takes you past thundering rivers and sweeping fjords, over steep mountain passes where islands of snow meet lakes. Their white lips curled up distastefully by the waterʼs edge, in defiance of fate. Itʼs so utterly uncompromising in all it offers, our only difficultly proves finding somewhere off the main road to camp - suitably “off the beaten track” so to speak. There are the scenic highlights - the world-famous Geiranger Fjord, where giant cruise ships sit dwarfed alongside the multi-storey cliffs above. The fairytale wooden stave church in Lom, itʼs Viking iconograpghy from the very dawn of Northern Christianity. The “Troll Road” - a series of 11 hairpin bends taking you past architectural buildings every bit as breathtaking as the scenery. In between all this, our days are spent fishing, canoeing and cooking. Elsie and Lulu have become hooked on old episodes of Ray Mears given to us by the friend we stayed with in Bulgaria, Cen Rees. The slow-paced TV series about Bushcraft inspires us all to hone our outdoor skills. Marcus becomes a dab hand with line fishing, striking out and catching us mackerel, cod and pollock each night. Itʼs been several months since weʼve been able to cook off our stove in the van. North of Greece, the gas canisters we needed became first sparse, then disappeared altogether. Our outdoor COBB BBQ has become our salvation. One day I channel my inner Ray and idly speculate whether itʼs high time I became accustomed with this bit of kit, rather than sitting back and waiting for Marcus to sort it out. Drawing Lulu aside, I announce that “Mummy is doing supper tonight,” followed by a plaintive, “Do you want to help?” She readily agrees, and to my delight, coaches me through the entire process. “Not like that, donʼt put the charcoal on yet....errm, actually birch bark makes better tinder than paper..etc” I decide we need shelter and begin grappling with our awning for the first time in 11 months. It wonʼt unfold properly, what the hell? “I think it pulls out like this,” Lulu gaily exclaims, manipulating it effortlessly beneath me. “How do you know all this stuff?” I ask her. With no hint of guile, she replies, “I just watch Daddy.” My culinary efforts are not great. The result is a strange burnt tasting tomatoey egg soup, which is unanimously rejected and immediately earns a place in the family folklore of terrible meals. Still, itʼs a start, and, as Ray will tell you, the secret of good bushcraft is not giving up. After weʼve poached, fried, curried and smoked as much fish as we can, we put the BBQ to further use, experimenting with making waffles and donuts, supplemented with wild raspberries and strawberries. Marcus tries out advanced fire-lighting skills with mixed success. He fails to master the wood- friction bow method demonstrated with ease by Mr Mears. But his home-made WOOD GAS STOVE, using two tin cans and a fan is a roaring success. Powered purely by pine cones which the girls scramble to collect, we have the quickest cup of tea for months. In Jotunheim National Park despite having no crampons, outdoor trousers or proper walking boots, Marcus leaves us behind and attempts an ascent on the 2,500 metre high Galdhøpiggen, Norwayʼs highest mountain. He manages just, but it proves somewhat of a challenge. Five hundred metres from the summit he is walking knee-deep in snow wearing shorts and water-logged boots. People openly stop to laugh and point. One shouts, “Ah, true Viking style!” By night we befriend a lovely Belgian family with two teenage sons. Weʼre pretty smooth operators on making auspicious acquaintances now. After spying them struggling to keep their fire going with wet wood, we send Elsie out to offer them a fan and some assistance. A few hours later, the kids are eating marshmallows and weʼre sipping on Belgian beer (which tastes a lot better than the stash of Polish beer we stockpiled before coming into Scandinavia). For the next few days we become travelling companions, stopping off to fish and camp together, navigating down from Kaupanger to Gudvangen on the most intimate, up-close of Norwayʼs fjords, the UNESCO-listed Naeroyfjord. Saying goodbye to the Belgians, we make our way through the eerie boulder strewn mountain pass between Aurland and Laerdal, headed for Gol. Weʼve graduated from dropping in on long lost friends, to targeting friends of friends. Via Facebook Chris Urack puts us in touch with his Norwegian pal Thomas, who very kindly offers us the chance to stay in his mountain cabin. It turns out to be one of those romantic looking tar-stained log cabins, complete with itʼs own sauna. The type weʼd spent weeks gazing upon longingly. They sit squat in the valleys, blending in curtesy of their living, growing, grass rooves. Iʼm amazed and humbled by Thomas and his wife Monaʼs hospitality. Marcus and I joke that itʼs like WWOOFING but without having to do any work. “Weʼve morphed into CHOOFING,” I say. “Chatting on organic farms.” We left Norway behind a week ago and have spent the best part of that on the road, plummeting down through Sweden and across the bridge to Denmark, sighting the flat island of Salthomen and scores of wind farms far out to sea. Copenhagen is a welcome distraction, and for two days we stroll the canals, snack on Danish pastries and visit museums. The girls enjoy exploring “Christiannia” best - a kind of freetown autonomous commune pressed right up against prime real estate. Itʼs a bizarre enclave, of colourful DIY houses where cars are banned and we can zip about on bikes. But the sight of the notorious “Pusher Street”, where cannabis is sold openly in every strain, variety and conceivable form, casts a seedier shadow which we steer them away from. Throughout Denmark and Germany the girls endure long days driving, devising their own playlists on iTunes for us to listen to. Elsieʼs favourite trick is to try and sneak in a rogue track by U2 to really piss Marcus off. We meet a friendly German family in the Rhine Valley where we stop to cycle, sample Bratwurst, sauerkraut and schnitzel. The girls are so desperate for playmates they tend to hurl themselves at other kids, bombarding and climbing all over them. But as we enter back into the familiar territory of France I canʼt help thinking things are different to how they were a year ago. Travel has lit the touch paper on our sense of adventure. Itʼs inspired us to get properly prepared for all weather when we make it back to Wales, and strike out more often into the wilderness. Iʼve learned it is where we are happiest as a family. Iʼve also learned to listen and understand my children better. Just as an experiment, we showed Elsie and Lulu both a Bear Grylls programme on YouTube, letting them see his different approach to survival - all fast-paced fury and revolting edible experiences. Their reactions were polar opposites. We have one die-hard Ray Mears fan, and one would-be Bear Grylls. And thatʼs ok, more than anything since last September Iʼve learned to see these differences and embrace them.

[goconservativechristian]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[stevefinnellp-blog]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[bisiji3]

Compassion

Centrality of Compassion in Human Life and Society (Part I.)_Stanford University._

_HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA STANFORD 2010_

_THE CENTRALITY OF COMPASSION_

_IN HUMAN LIFE AND SOCIETY_

_THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2010_

_9:30-11:00 AM_

[ Applause ]

The Host：

Ladies and gentleman, please welcome, Stanford University President John Hennessy.

John L. Hennessy：

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

John L. Hennessy：

Thank you. It’s my great honor to welcome His High Holiness, the 14

th

Dalai Lama back to Stanford. We’re delighted that the Office of Religious Life and our School of Medicine, and the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research could help us organize this wonderful event. We have with us, in addition to the Dalai Lama, his long-term interpreter Geshe Jinpa who has helped put this visit together and Dr. Jim Doty who is head of this Center for Compassion and Altruism Research. Today, the Dalai Lama will speak on the centrality of compassion and later this afternoon we’ll give the Rathburn lecture in memorial church. When the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Prize 21 years ago, he said, “I’m just a simple monk.” But I can tell you when I first met him five years ago that he’s so much more than just a simple monk. I still remember that visit because it is one of the most memorable moments of my life and when I meet with our undergraduates, they say, “Well, you’ve met world leaders. You’ve met presidents. You’ve met Nobel Prize winners. But who is the most interesting and impressive person you’ve met? ” And I say it has to be that meeting with the Dalai Lama. Two things immediately impressed me. He is an individual who radiates joy and happiness

[laughter].

John L. Hennessy：

You feel it.

[Noise]

John L. Hennessy：(This paragraph was listened and typed by myself, if wrong please tell me and correct, thank you.)

< The joy of living. The joy of creation. Just comes out when your….The other thing I’d just discover is he has a wonderful sense of humor, and he can make people laugh without hurting or injuring anyone’s feelings. And I learned when I was with him. He could do that with the way. …and it was wonderful. So please join me and welcome His High Holiness Dalai Lama back to Stanford.>

[ Applause ]

Dalai Lama：

Sorry, sorry, careful, careful, careful.

[Laughter]

[ Applause ]

Dalai Lama：

Thank you.

[Inaudible Remark]

[ Applause ]

[Laughter]

[Pause]

[Inaudible Discussion]

Good morning everybody. [Foreign Language] I think I want to stand there to see more faces [laughter].

[Noise]

[Foreign Language]

Dear brothers and sisters, and [inaudible] long time friend [inaudible]. Indeed, I’m very happy once more come here and meet people. Some of them, long time friend and most of you new, I think. I always feel it is important to meet and share some of my own sort of views on the basis of my own experience and also I think some observation. I think those compare young student, suppose I have more experience. [Laughter] You just begin the real life. Now, I am now ready to say bye-bye. [Laughter] So the—some sort of also the useful points which I already have experienced, so you may learn from these things may be some help. But then afterward, question and answer. Through that way, I also, you see, get some kind of, I usually say education. The different questions and sometimes question which I never sort of talk about it, but then such sort of new questions come that very helpful to think certain new point more them to be. So, that’s also very helpful to my self. So I’m very happy and of course I want to thank the [inaudible] people who organized this opportunity. Then I talk with people from my side also no feeling of barrier, and when you put some questions from your side also should not feel any sort of barrier. We are same human being. Mentally, emotionally, physically, we are the same. Then, no matter what appearances that we all have desire to achieve happy life. And really every one have the right to achieve happy life. So same, 100 percent same on this level, and then particularly now to this world. In reality, I think no longer the concept of we and they. Entire now nearly 7 billion human beings should consider part of we because individual future depend on them. So for—from one’s own sort of interest, you have to think whole planet, whole humanity. So that is reality. Not like ancient time. Ancient time, the concept of we and they very strong because interest something more or less I think independent. So according to that circumstance, the concept of war, destruction of they, victory of we. Now, that concept or that concept outdated because new reality no longer that much sort of gate of salvation. So now, my doctrine [foreign language]. Compassion in human life and the society. [Laughter] Actually there’s a theme difference of word or different factors but more or less I think hundreds of my talk more or less same subject. [Laughter] I think firstly, I believe, we human being by nature all according to those people who believe creator that we human being created as a social animal. So any social animal in order to survive, cooperation or sense of community is very essential. In this tiny animal, those social animals, there are no religious faith, no constitution, no government, but they work together because the nature creates such that individual survival depends on community. So you also, a social animal saw the ultimate soul or severe factor bring together this warmheartedness and genuine cooperation, work together with sense, of responsibility to take care common interest. So unity, friendship is very important. Friendship from power, from money, artificial friendship. Genuine friendship on the basis of trust. Trust comes from openness, transparent, honest. Then trust comes—on the basis of trust, real friendship comes. So since we are social animal, the genuine friendship or sense of one community is really essential. So trust so long one individual’s deep insight, self-centered attitude, very strong self-centered attitude there then there is always is possible to cheat other, to bully other, exploit other so long that kind of mental attitude, mental tendency there you cannot speak truthful, honest, transparent. It is necessary somewhere to hypocrisy, smile but some different motivation. So on that basis, how can you develop trust? So openheartedness or genuine sense of concern of well-being of other, that is [inaudible]. So now, human being as a social animal, the fundamentals or the basis of our success or happiness depends on that motivation, compassionate motivation. Now regarding compassion, I usually see telling people and according to my own sort of observation basically three ways, three methods, or three different way of approach for promoting this human value.

Number one, traditional religion, the Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other. Many Hindus believe creator. So every religion which believe creator when they describe creator, the infinite love and through that way when you totally submit or dedicate or submit yourself to god, creator which is infinite love that reduce self-centered attitude and then a religion talking importance of love, compassion, forgiveness, these things in spite of different philosophy all give same message. So that’s one way of promoting compassion or warmheartedness.

Then second, those nontraditional religion like Buddhism, Jainism. Mainly these two religions, no concept of creator but law of causality. So through that way, from that viewpoint, ultimately yourself is creator so all our sort of happiness or suffering, all these due to one’s own action. You carry right action, action which benefit to other. Helping other brings some happiness, joyfulness on other. Result? You get a benefit from any action which is harming other, bring pains on other, the result you will face the individual consequences. So there’s a law of causality. That’s also one way to promote these values because I want happiness, I do not want suffering. So I have to think seriously about the causes of these two experiences so since I want happy life, I have to carry some activities which helping other, which benefit to other. Since I do not want suffering, I should not harm other. That also one way of promoting these values. Then judging also the—also—the—say out of nearly seven billion human being, quite a big portion, no interest about any religion, any faith. This also human being and very important because part of the six billion human being if not majority but big portion of nearly seven billion human being are essentially a nonbeliever. So to some people have the view, some religious sort of—I think believe any moral ethics must be based on religious faith. Of course, they have their own reasons but if you believe that then it becomes very narrow.

So now here mainly now according Indian tradition. India’s constitution itself and based—according to secularism. So sometimes some of my friend, some Christians, some Muslim when they heard the word secularism they believe something disrespect in one tradition. So I don’t think according to Indian understanding secularism is rather respect all religions. No preference. This religion or that religion. Because India thousand years its reality is there are so many different traditions there. So you must respect all the tradition. So therefore, according to that concept, secularism does not mean disrespect religion. And also in ancient time, I think last, I think more than 2000, maybe 3000 years in India among different sort of school of thought. One school of thought nihilistic view, Sanskrit word or Hindu word jivaka. So usually it’s considered that is nihilism. Some of my Indian friend is telling me after 3000 years, many creators or great thinkers or religious leaders argue, criticism, criticize about that view. But the person who holding that view refer rishi. Rishi means sage, sage. So, there is sort of also the attitude, respect holding that nihilism. So one of my Indian friends, of course, actually the former Japan minister, once he told me one of the reasons why democratic system is successful in India lasted nearly 70 years. Because thousand years, they sort of followed Buddhism and also sort of this habit to respect people who have different view. And as far as that view is concerned, much critical. However, respect. So secularism now here I think, I feel, I usually just try to promote human value or compassion to secularly. That will not against any religion but actually, I think I believe all the measure of tradition has come from that basis. So all religion actually strengthening basic human good quality, that’s basis—basically that’s the human value, secular values. Now here, the way promoting inner value, secularly how. I usually—[Foreign Language]

Interpreter： Three components.

Or three components maybe.

Number one, we human beings like some other mammals like dogs, cats, many birds, their survival entirely depend on others care, particularly mother’s care. So we human beings, our very life start that way. So as soon as we are born our first deep experience and happy experience is mother take care and provide us milk. So at that time the child no sort of idea who is that person. But biological factor teach them to sort of trust and when mother is taking care is a tremendous feeling of joyfulness. So that’s the way our life start. And those people who received maximum affection, maximum care from our parent, particularly our mother, in whole life their emotion, also their deep insight much stable, much happier, more secure than those people who on early being of their childhood lacked of affection. One time in Poland and many years ago, I think my first visit there, one sort of orphanage. They described these children are unwanted children. So really terrible. Of course, the foster parents are there.

Interpreter： Foster parent.

Foster parent eventually, I think, can become real parent then maybe different. Otherwise, it is very difficult and particularly those child who at early age see abuse, experience abuse, like that. I think hold their rest of life with some problems and the physicals of their health, also some connection. So in their tradition, I always is happy to mention my own case. My parents illiterate, uneducated, just a villager, farmer but very, very compassionate, particularly my mother. Father sometimes quite often lose temper but my mother really, almost we never saw on her face some kind of negative face. We never saw. Her sort of compassionate attitude not only towards her own children but other children also, particularly those children of beggar. She very much showing concern and love or sometimes I also, you see, share my own sort of stupid experience, drastic experience. You know, since my mother so much love to me as usually, as usual very young sort of child carrying by mother on shoulder. So then I usually hold two ears of my mother. I want to go this side, at this side, go like that. If mother didn’t listen then I cry and my leg pumping there. I think I really was acting like a naughty boy there, a stupid—

Interpreter： Spoiled child.

Spoiled child. So, I believe that experience I think really imprint in my mind but deeply the—so perhaps I think my own sort te model compassion. Of course later, but it’s sort of practiced also you see [inaudible]. But the very seed of that come from my mother. Then, because emotional level, no matter and so how difficult it is but deep inside some kind of open heart, compassionate heart. That brings in us that—this fear. That also is very important for body element. So, now this is number one reason, we—everybody come from our mother. All have same seed of compassion. No question. Nobody can argue with that. The second, using our common sense. Whether in east, west, south, north, any human group or human family were more compassion in the atmosphere, affections at home always much happier. And your neighboring families, the family where often anger dominate or [inaudible] jealousy dominate. No peace. No happy atmosphere. Where the family which full of affection, full of trust, full of friendship, much happier. That happiness cannot bring, buy money. Rich family, this basic human value lacking, not necessarily happy. Poor family, material facility poor, but these basic human values, they’re much happier. So that’s using our common sense.

Then, third reason. No scientific sort of—sort of finding, latest the scientific finding. Constant fear, constant anger, hate remain here. Actually eating our immune system, some scientists say that. Calm mind, compassionate mind. Sometimes even increasing this passage of body element. So therefore, I often have seen, mentioned one occasion I think 10, 13 years ago, one occasion in New York area, one sort of meeting with scientists. Now that kind of meeting now since last I think about in 30 years, we have, you see, we caring using that kind of sort of discussion or dialogue. So one occasion, one doctor make in his presentation, you see he mentioned those people who often use word I, mine, me, like that, there’s greater chance of heart attack. He didn’t explain. Then I thought, oh, it may be true because, you see the person who often you see come from his or her mouth this word, it simply is reflection of their thinking. Of course there one way that person is a little bit quite honest. So, what he or she really feels expressed, but sometimes we’re quite clever is the real feeling always hiding and expressed, use few nice words. So, you know the person who often come these words, they—his or her in deep feeling “I” is the center, self centered attitude. So with that, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes I just got our inner door closed. So, with that feeling, difficult to communicate with other people, other fellow human being, which your successful life depends on them. But those that you feel little discontent. So that brings in deep insight sense of insecurity, sense of loneliness. That brings blood pressure increase, too much stress, too much anxiety, so heart attack. So, therefore, using these three sub reasons, we can develop—I mean, using the third and the main – yes, these three secular way, not talking about religion, not talking about next life or heaven, simply how to be happy human being, how to be happy human family. Money alone, no. Now here, I usually because of the—[inaudible]. These days, I sort of [inaudible] ‘cause I develop one new view here, new view. That is last, at least I think 3, 4000 years, you see, or 5000 years we develop faith which that provides hope. And when we’re really facing desperate situation, pray to God or pray to Buddha at that. So, that gives us some random basis of hope. Then, about I think last two centuries, I think more than two centuries, science develop. With that, technology develop. So many them which previously just pray. Now that actually now produce—becomes reality with help of technology and science. So, we’re very much excited. And now, all our hope put on science and the technology. A lot of sort of—a lot of change, positive change you see develop. There’s also recently one the—once again partner, this Bihar state in India, Bihar state. It is capital partner, Bihar state, the Bodh Gaya located in Bihar state. So in partner, the state government constructed huge Buddhist temple. So some ceremony, open ceremony, for ceremony he invited me and some delegations from different Buddhist countries. I’m there, so—So, and then chief minister, you see, your open statement, your open, open statement. You see, he mentioned what is the—at one point, you see he mentioned Buddha’s blessing, Bihar state will flourish [inaudible], mentioned economically usually. Flourish. Then my turn to talk. I know this minister very well. So I half joke, half serious. I mentioned if the developmental prosperity of the poor state of Bihar due to Buddha’s blessing, then I think the Bihar state must earlier should [inaudible], should develop because Buddha’s blessing always there. But till able chief minister come, development not happen. So, therefore, Buddha’s blessing may be there but Buddha’s blessing must go to human hand, human action. So that I believe. I think last several thousand years we’re just praying but not satisfied—satisfactory as that. Through technology, a lot of benefit has come. Now, later part of 20

th

century, those people who have all these facilities, material facilities, now begin to feel there is limitation about material value. I think you should, you know much better I think these things, so American, you see, you—you have all the material facilities, isn’t it, generally speaking. Of course America, there are poor people, a lot of poor people also there. One of the [inaudible] because of the—‘cause of the drawback [inaudible], drawback is this huge gap reaching for human just [inaudible]. Sit there. So in anyway, so in anyway, does it begin—people begin to feel there is limitation and among the scientists also, before they only, you see, watch or observe or investigate something, external thing. They not much pay attention about scientists themselves. So now, because of the much development about brain science, neuron science, now more [inaudible] more attention about mind, relation between mind and brain. Whether there is separate entity on mind or not. Now these now gradually [inaudible]. There’s economy level. Then practical level, those medical scientists now realize our emotion is so important for good health. So recently a few occasion, they are meeting, they call healthy body, healthy mind. There is no point to neglect about a healthy mind. So, scientists in the medical field, now they begin to see the importance of mental state for good health. So, later part of 20

th

century, now something changing now. Not only material sort of development, but internal development is equally important. And also in a social sort of—‘cause of the social scientist way. They also now found some unhealthy sort of situation in society, particularly on the youth. Like in Japan, materially, highly developed. But there’s a lot of suicide, a lot of depression among young people. And some other countries also, some senselessly killing in classroom, these things happen. So, some social scientist, they begin to feel in the society, in the family we are lacking affection. So these children, I’ll say not adequate for us today [inaudible]. Equip sort of the affection or like that.

======================================================

Centrality of Compassion in Human Life and Society (Part II.)

And then also world peace, now more and more people realize, real peace must come through inner peace. So now question is how to develop calm mind, inner peace. Tranquilizer? No. Drug? No. Alcohol? No. [Laughter] So the inner peace is a kind of mind, mental state. So, inner peace must develop through mental—through mental way, through mental [inaudible] process. So here in this university, this institution, now also is a last few years, now carrying some more serious research work and as well as Wisconsin University and Emory University. So these are I think very good start. I think in early part of 20

th

century, I cannot but to think of this thing, these things. Now among the scientists, among the educationist, now begin to feel importance of inner science. So this I think a very healthy sign. This should be—we have this body and mind. The material facility simply provide body ‘cause—body comfort, not mental comfort. So, my friend, billionaire, very rich and quite famous but as the individual human being, very unhappy person. But they are not lacking money, not lacking a good name, not lacking friend, but lack of inner sort of strength. As a result, very unhappy. So, ‘cause of the— ‘cause of the—So the theme, centrality of compassion in human life and the society now fulfill. Thank you.

[Applause]

[Laughter]

So now—

[Applause]

[inaudible] well, question. Question now. Yes.

James R. Doty, M.D. (Event Moderator) ：

Before we start question and answer, I just want to personally thank you for being a supporter of our work at CCARE and for being our founding benefactor. And I also want tH(to) thank you for being an inspiration to hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

[Applause]

CCARE uses the tools of neuroscience to understand those complex human behaviors we call compassion and altruism. In and of itself, that would be an interesting exploration. But unless we use these tools to cultivate that and potentiate those feelings within our self, it is my feeling that that work would not be useful otherwise. I want to tell a brief story about when I met HJis(His) Holiness which began with this exploration of my own into these—examination of these feelings. We had an audience with His Holiness and at the audience, my real intent was really simply to get him to come to Stanford and talk about the importance of the cultivation of compassion. It was during this meeting that I explained to him some of our initial explorations and he became very excited and in fact I asked him, “Your Holiness what thought is it what you want you want us to do in this type of work?” And he said, “The most important part of this is our children and education.” And the center with his support is called the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education. After the—towards the end of the audience with His Holiness and after I have asked him about these issues he added, but you must measure, measure, measure and he said, “You must use rigorous science and the work must be secular.” And we have honored that wish. Near the end of our discussion His Holiness became quite animated and he began talking to Jinpa and to that in which of course I thought maybe I had offended him [laughter] and at the end of that discussion, Jinpa said to me, His Holiness so much believes in this work that you have begun that he wants to make a personal donation. And it is from that donation, which has resulted in others being inspired to support this work and for us to be here today, so I thank you again for that.

[Applause]

Event Moderator ：

I must say through that when I got my first wish which was that he come and talk here at Stanford I was quite elated and I said, wow, that wasn’t that hard. [Laughter] And then—and then when His Holiness spontaneously made this donation which ends being up one of the largest donations he’s ever given to a non-Tibetan cause, I was in awe, I was humbled and it came into my mind that who am I to take money from the Dalai Lama? [Laughter] But that passed very quickly. We are going to begin the question and answer session, which are questions that you have given us and which I hope will stimulate discussion by His Holiness. [Pause]

Question：

Scientific research on human qualities like compassion and altruism creates concern by many that science is reducing our morality and our humanity to mere chemical reactions in the brain, could this undermine our appreciation of human values?

[Foreign Language]

Dalai Lama：

As I can before the answer—but will [inaudible] is I want to tell you one, my own story. I think about 40 years ago, I begin to feel—it should be useful or interesting dialogue or discuss with scientist and Buddhism—mentioned particles and also of course I think some of you knows as far as geography is concerned—

Interpreter： Cosmology

Ah, cosmology is concerned and Mount Meru or these things mentioned. Then more important as I mentioned earlier, Buddhism, no concept of creator but something like self-creation, when we think about creation they ultimately mind emotion. So therefore, in Buddhism comparatively, I think very rich information about mind, emotion, these things and how to tackle these different emotions and after there are some experience there. So I eager dialogue with modern scientists, then some of my friends they respond to me of science is killer of religion, be dangerous, be careful. And I thought and thought as far as Buddhism is concerned particularly the Nalanda tradition is concerned, Buddha himself made clear all my follower should not follow my teaching out of devotion or faith rather thorough investigation and experiment, this one. So that give us kind of freedom to investigate what texts say. So in—historically, last more than 2000 years many Buddhist masters in India take this liberty to examine Buddha’s own word. Those, Buddha’s word, Buddha’s teaching which goes contradiction with investigation then they say they did not accept it literally. Those texts which further investigation analyze still solid, that—that sound then accept. So that is Nalanda tradition. So therefore, science also some kind of, sort of method to investigate what is reality. The Nalanda tradition also, the method to investigation about the reality so as it is—then I start dialogue, talk with scientist. Now, as I mentioned earlier, the last 20 years more sort of discussion, it became very clear, that modern science they found useful information from Buddhist explanation about mind and for Buddhist the scientific finding about these quarks—like quarks, subatomic sort of particles very, very, helpful, very helpful. One casualty is concept of Mount Meru at least for me, I now no longer believe Mount Meru. That is one casualty there, no problem [laughter] so therefore this kind of sort of further research, no problem. Now here, according sort of today this—the brain specialist, the place where sudden-- [Foreign Language] One of the meetings with scientists, one of the scientist made the observation that at the brain level, it was a neuroscientists, it seems that brain centers that become more active when you experience pain for yourself seems to be also the same centers that get activated more prominently when you feel empathy and, you know, experience someone else’s pain. So after I heard that at the conference [laughter] I just want of course have joke. Oh, in that case the brain is very foolish. [Laughter] No ability of distinction, what the real cause is. One, you see empathy, sense of concern of other’s well being there are mental element determine the sort of self confidence voluntarily taking care of what other’s—sort of well being. So there is strength, the other, pain in oneself and all well in that feeling and some kind of helplessness completely discouraged. So in mental level, big differences but just found on the brain, same area, so that means, you see, the brain no ability to distinction the real causes of mental level. Then with that I also was jokingly telling people like dear, I say when we very happy, all joy sometimes tear come and sometimes without much of a feeling but some kind of—because of the laughing, joy is laughing also sometimes tear come. And very painful experience also use—

Sadness

Sadness also brings tear. So now, mental level, emotional level big differences, but the physical response is same. So if the—the physical level quite sort of clever, then tear which causing by all joys, tear must come through right eye. [Laughter] And the cause of tear, too much sadness, then tear must come out of the left eye. Then brain has some ability to make a distinction.

[Laughter]

[Applause]

So therefore—so therefore, I think maybe too early to say, but still I feel mind or consciousness is much more subtler than physical thing. Of course, the mind has so many sort of different level, grosser level of mind, more subtle level mind, very, very subtle level of mind, for example, at the time of awakening state, mental state using the sense of organs then dream state, sense of organs no longer function.

Interpreter： Active

Ah, active the system of mind or the mental state. Then further, deep sleep without dream, even further, sort of deeper mental state, then feigned then at the time of death the mental state deeper, deeper, deeper, deeper like that. So those grosser level of mind very much would need to do with our physical process. Now the latest of scientific finding through the experiment, now they found through sheer mental training, some change, some new development in brain-- [Foreign Language]

Interpreter： This is made more understandable the fact that through mental processes they can affect and change the level of brain and this has been—become more acceptable scientists tell me that because of the discovery of the plasticity of the brain.

So these are now, as a sort of more serious sort of investigation about the brain or about mind. So I feel no harm, very important.

Your Holiness, some people feel that by being compassionate or altruistic this can make a person actually less successful or able to survive in the real world. This seems to be a feeling that is not unusual in the West. What is your response to this type of thinking and do you think this also is the basis for the epidemic of depression in the West?

[Foreign Language]

Now firstly compassion, there are two levels. One—one level as I mentioned earlier biological factor, that kind of compassion is very much mixed with attachment, very biased, very limited and oriented towards attitude. So that kind of compassion only towards your friend or person or anyone who is nice to you, that kind of compassion can develop. That compassion never extend to your enemy. Now, another level of compassion, now in this kind of compassion, of course, common with animal as I mentioned before. Now, another level of compassion which I think only ‘cause of the—only human being can develop because that combination with human intelligence as I mentioned earlier, analyze through reasons, some peace of mind is so important for my own well being. So the real destroyer of peace of mind is anger, hatred, suspicion, jealousy. The opposite—counter force these things are compassion so, develop some kind of conviction, compassion is really good for my own well being. So then deliberately trying to strengthening that and try to reduce these negative sort of forces and destructive sort of emotions. So now, intelligence now involved there. So now, the second level of compassion not focusing others attitude but simply other, as a sort of being, as a certain being. Now for example, each individual, some kind of self-cherishing—self-cherishing there, that does not mean I myself nice to me, no. I have right to be happy, just that reason, that factor you see, brings self cherishing. So similarly, other restrictive whether their attitude towards yourself, right or wrong or negative or positive doesn’t matter. But these also, like me by nature want happy—happiness, do not want suffering. So on that understanding, now not oriented to other’s attitude but rather the person or being themselves. So develop sense of concern on that level, now that compassion can extend towards your enemy, enemy as far as their attitude is concerned towards you, negative, so we call enemy, but as far as just human being or certain being is concerned, same, same right. Since, that kind of sort of compassion very much combine with wisdom, now your—the answer for your question. The genuine practitioner of compassion with help of wisdom, always holistic view. Now someone who take advantage on you and unjustly dream something, think, if you let their unjust dream continuously, ultimately they will suffer. Even within this lifetime, they—many neutral people feel “Oh sure, she take advantage on such a wonderful person,” so more and more people criticize them. So therefore, taking the holistic view and in order to stop their unjust dream, out of sense of concern of their well being for long term confirmation must take. So, compassion which combine with wisdom, always have brought us—brought a perspective, a holistic. So here, the—you know, the violence and nonviolence, actually very much little with motivation. Out of hatred, out of sort of, I said the desire to cheat using smile, using some nice word and with some gift, looks nonviolent action, but because of the motivation, wants to cheat, wants to harm. So that is essentially violence. Good parent or good teacher, [inaudible] is a good teacher. Purely out of concern of other’s well being, children or student. Sometimes, you see—use harsh words, some disciplinary action. Looks a little bit rough, but because out of sense of concern, sort of compassion, sort of attitude, therefore, it is essentially nonviolence. So now your neighbor who take advantage on you unjustly, take a confirmation is nonviolence clear. So therefore, the discretion, I think—if may I say so discretion comes out of ignorance, one’s compassion.

[Laughter]

[Applause]

Event Moderator ： I didn’t write these questions.

[Laughter] Protecting yourself?

Event Moderator ： Yeah, yeah. Exactly.

Question： Another question I did not write. [Laughter] I know that oftentimes, if I see a homeless person or a person in need, I feel that I want to do something at that moment but I don’t. What is it that makes a person who feels compassion actually act? is it merely increasing a stronger sense of compassion that motivates action or there’re some other factors?

[Foreign Language]

This time, I say—my plane I took from Bombay to Tokyo and because it’s near Bombay, one sort of big function, they invited me so I went there so my flight from Bombay—so I spent one night at Bombay. On the street of city—I saw the shanty town very poor people, hundreds and with their children, looks as nobody care. [Pause] Then also sometimes I saw some dogs, street dog, very poor physical condition, very weak, nobody taking care. Or last year—I think last year or 2 years ago, I saw one picture, one dog because of economy sort of difficulties one family abandoned dog. One picture, I saw in a one Indian newspaper. I looked at that dog, are usually feeding by the owner so no need runaway—running to seek something, so no such experience. So that dog’s face looks very sad. Sort of nearly tear come but nothing can be done. [Pause] And something like those of the poor people in the street, if I spent my whole time serving them, that’s also limited. So then [inaudible]. So now you have to wait. Some other way to help fundamental level, long run, maybe more cause of the more—more benefit. So sometimes when I saw these things, only pray, nothing can be done. So I think you should be realistic. If you can do something on the spot, do it. If there’s limitation, you cannot do, then think these things then try to strengthen our own sort of compassionate of the feeling, compassionate of experience. Sometimes when we saw these people or animal who are really facing painful experience, it’s very, very helpful to further strengthening empathy in these things.

Question： You said the compassion is one of the most important human values, but how do we educate our children on how to be compassionate human beings.

Now, that’s very, very, very important. Now, in recent years, I see some institution and some—what is it—scientist, also the educationist. Now, really take seriously the—about the sort of how to educate through education, how to bring. That’s very, very important. Education system—existing education system as I mentioned it before, last around—about 200 years is the sort interest, only the external are the matters. So education also is in mainly related with that. Some of the economy lessons, engineer, all these things, even medical just as it look human body, not sure interested about emotion or mind. Whereas I think in Indian medical system, in Tibetan medical system, more holistic, mind also you see, included. So the whole—sort of—as the existing education system very much based on material values. I think about thousand years ago—1000 years ago, one separate education institution started in Europe. At that time, about moral ethics is concerned church takes responsibilities and also family as well. In modern society, influence of the church also decline and the family value also a little bit decline. Now, education institution alone should take care of both, brain development, and one part it’s because of the development. Again, here as I mentioned earlier—[Applause] I think all these possible ways is secular way, not rely on religious faith. If you rely on religious faith like India, then complication. There are so many different traditions, so difficult. So without [inaudible] religion as I mentioned, three reasons, common experience, common sense and the scientific findings through this sort of material—using this material, we can educate our younger generation. That’s key factor, transformation of [inaudible] being human being. Not to prayer but through education. That’s the only way, so—I think our work—research work, now these are—eventually is a very, very helpful resources to sort of—to develop sort of the new curriculum in education field in secular basis, scientific basis and introduce children the importance of warmheartedness. And then also, I often telling people, 20

th

century become century of violence. ‘Cause in some history in that century, through violence, over 200 millions of people killed. Still the beginning of this 21

st

century—still some problems there. These due to lack or negligence or mistake policy in 20

th

century. So therefore, you too, using force, you can(can’t) solve problems. Only through force, you can control or you can eliminate body but not mind. Changing mind only through compassion or education, not by force. So therefore, now this century, now this century-- [Applause], whenever we face problem, we have to find ways and means to solve that to dialogue. So I usually telling, now 21

st

century should be century of dialogue. Now, here in order to carry meaningful dialogue, first it is necessary, respect the other who have different view, consider part of we—part of humanity. My future also depend on them, so respect and listen their interest and tell them our interest and try to find measurable equitable solution. That’s the only way. Like in Palestine problem, both sides you stand firm then confrontation. So only way is through dialogue. So therefore, here, in order to bring century of dialogue. Now 21

st

century—no, 10 years past, 90 years yet to come, now these young people, you are the people who belongs to 21

st

century. My generation belongs to 20

th

century already gone, now ready to say goodbye. So these young people, now, you should think how to bring this century more peaceful century, more compassionate century. So, peace, compassionate does not mean no longer any problem, problem there so long human being there, human interest there. Different interest, different views always there. There’s a source of conflict, conflict [inaudible]. So now we have to– that reality how to face that reality to talk, to dialogue, not using weapon. So therefore, now you should develop this strong conviction. Any problem – family level, community level, or national or international level [inaudible]—all these sort of [inaudible] solution through dialogue. So for that reason also, the central compassion brings your will. And with the wisdom, there’s no other objective, only through talk. That’s the wisdom side. Then respect other’s interest. Genuine sense of concern of other’s well being, that’s the basis. So combine these two things, genuine spiritual dialogue can develop. What do you think? Do you agree?

[Applause]

[Laughter]

Thank you.

[Applause]

[Inaudible Remark]

Event Moderator ： We have one now. Your Holiness, I would like to close with the parable that was told to me by another Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai.

Oh, what a [inaudible]. [Inaudible Remark]

Event Moderator ： well, I just [inaudible]. So, she is the founder of the Green Belt Movement in Africa and she tells a story of a large forest fire and all the animals flee the forest and stand on the periphery and watched the fire burn their homes. One of the animals looks up though and sees a hummingbird flying to the lake getting a beak full of water and dropping it on the fire. The animal says to the hummingbird, “Why are you doing this? There is no way you were going to put out the fire.” And what the hummingbird says is, “I know, but I am doing what I can do.” Oftentimes when we see immeasurable suffering, we feel powerless or discouraged, but I tell you that each and every one of us has the capacity to make at least one person suffer less everyday. So go forth and just do what you can do and thank you.

[Applause]

[delwray-blog]

“The Battle for Your Mind”

Christians we’re in the Fight of Our Lives and Faith is putting on the Mind of Christ!

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high place” Eph. 6:12. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Rom. 12:2 “The Interpretation of God’s Word without its Application is Abortion.” By Pastor Del Wray The battlefield or realm in which our spiritual warfare takes place is in the mind of every believer in Christ. We wrestle, or strive and struggle in our minds against world systems, the flesh or the carnal nature, and the devil. The mind encompasses our thoughts; imagination, reasoning, and intellect, as well as our emotions and will. In all of these aspects lies the very heart of an individual. By our thoughts and feelings, we determine our will and purpose for our lives. As Christians, we seek to live by the truth and power of God because they are our assurance of God's promised victory in each and every situation in life, and we are not ignorant of the reality of evil, and the destruction that surrounds our world on a daily basis. It is in this process that we will encounter a very real spiritual struggle in our thoughts, emotions and will because the adversary knows that these areas are directly related to the power of our faith, and means to receive the promises of God. “The adversary's goal is to weaken the faith of every Christian.” Thus, when you find one weakening the faith of other believers you can be sure it is the work of the devil. And the devil uses other Christians. It is my purpose in this document to both warn and uplift God’s people. Spiritual warfare consists of struggling against evil forces in our minds. The Bible is clear that this is not a battle which is fought on a physical plane at all, but rather a spiritual one: Who are those principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and such? They all stem from Satan's kingdom, but since Satan is not omnipresent, can be everywhere at once, he works through a network or an army of demon spirits. When a person says, “The devil is on my trail!” it is highly unlikely that Satan himself is assigned to the job, but rather one of the troops in his army, which would be a demonic spirit.

It’s been said that the “mind is the devil’s workshop.” In 1965, “The Invisible War” was written, a book detailing the war that goes on in the mind of every human being, especially the believer. A violent battle is raging around us 24 hours a day. It is the battle for your mind, and that battle is vicious. It is intense. It is unrelenting, and it is unfair because the Devil never plays fair. If the believer only could accept how severe that war is there would be a lot more “fear of God” in our churches. And the reason why the battle is so intense is that your greatest asset is your mind. It is our duty to never cease in warning Christians of this war and to compel them to safeguard their minds. “Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what the nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires” Romans 8:5-6. This war is great and its magnitude unthinkable, the balance between life and death. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit” Rom 8:5-6. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” Rom. 8:6. Even following the new birth, even after a man is saved the believer’s mind is still not free from the wiles of the Devil. As the enemy worked through the mind in former days, so today will he work in the same manner? Paul, in writing to the Corinthian believers, confided that he was afraid. “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” 2 Cor. 11: 3. The Apostle well recognizes that as the god of this world blinds the mind of unbelievers so will he deceive the mind of the believers. Even though they are saved their life of thought is as yet unrenewed; consequently, it remains the most strategic battleground. The mind suffers the onslaughts of the powers of darkness more than any other area of the whole man. We should realize that satanic spirits are directing special attention to our minds and are attacking them unrelentingly, “as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning.” The Devil did not assail Eve’s heart first but rather her head. Similarly today, the evil spirits first attack our head, not our heart, in order to have us corrupted from the simplicity and purity which is towards Christ. They fully understand how it is the weakest point in our entire being, for it had served as their fortress before we believed and even now is not yet entirely overthrown. Attacking the mind is the easiest avenue for them to accomplish their purpose. Eve’s heart was sinless and yet she received the Devil’s suggested thoughts. She was thus beguiled through his deception into forfeiting her reasoning and tumbling into the snare of the enemy. Let a believer accordingly be careful in his boast of possessing an honest and sincere heart, for unless he learns how to repulse the evil spirits in his mind he will continue to be tempted and deceived into losing the sovereignty of his will. The mind must be totally captivated by God’s Word saturated noon the less. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD” Isa. 55:8. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed EVIL THOUGHTS, adulteries, fornications, murders…” Mark 7:21. Paul continues by telling us from whence this danger comes: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” 2 Cor. 11:4.

The peril for the Christian is to have false teaching injected into his thought life so as to lead him astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. These are the works the “serpent” is perpetrating today. Satan has disguised himself as an angel of light to lead saints to worship with their intellect a Jesus other than the Lord, to receive a spirit other than the Holy Spirit, and by these to propagate a gospel other than the gospel of the grace of God. Paul pronounces these to be nothing else than the deeds of Satan in the Christian’s mind. The adversary translates these “doctrines” into thoughts and then imposes them upon the mind of the Christian. How tragic that few appreciate the reality of these activities! Few, indeed, who would ever think that the devil could give such evil thoughts to God’s vessels, we cannot trust our minds, we cannot trust our thoughts, the fall has affected the entire man even the thought life, it has even tainted our sight, our hearing, our feelings the complete man. That’s why you hear the phrase “Total Depravity” all of man lies in ruin from the fall. Man cannot be trusted! It is possible for a child of God to have a new life and a new heart but be without a new head. With too many saints, the mind, though their heart is new, is still quite old. Their heart is full of love whereas their head is totally lacking in perception. How often the intents of the heart are utterly pure and yet the thoughts in the head are confused. Having become saturated with a mishmash of everything, the mind lacks the most single element of all, which is spiritual insight. Countless saints genuinely love all children of God, but unfortunately, their brain is stuffed with a hodgepodge of theories, opinions, and objectives. Quite a number of God’s best and most faithful children are the most narrow-minded and prejudice-filled. Already have they decided what the truth is and what truth they shall accept? They reject every other truth because these do not blend in with their preconceived notions. Their head is not as expansive as their heart. Moreover, there are other children of God whose mind can conceive no thought whatever. No matter how many truths have been heard they can neither remember nor practice nor communicate them to others. These have certainly heard a lot, yet they possess no ability to express any of it. For many years they have received truths, but not even a little can they supply for the needs of others. Perhaps they may even brag how full they are of the Holy Spirit! What creates such symptoms is an unrenewed mind. Man’s head damages people more than man’s heart! Were believers to learn how to distinguish the renewal of heart from the renewal of head, they would not commit the mistake of believing in man. Christians ought to realize that even one who maintains a most intimate fellowship with God may nevertheless unknowingly have accepted Satan’s suggestions in his mind, which consequently precipitate errors in his conduct, words, and viewpoints! Aside from the plain teaching of the Bible, no man’s words are entirely trustworthy. We must not live by a man’s words just because we admire or respect that man. His utterance and conduct may be most holy but his thought may not be spiritual. What we therefore observe is not his speech and behavior but his mind. Were we to believe, because of one’s life conduct, that what a worker says is God’s truth, we would then be making man’s word and demeanor our standard of truth instead of the Bible. History is strewn with innumerable cases of sanctified saints who propagated heresies! The simple explanation is that their hearts were renewed but their minds remained old. We will undeniably acknowledge that life is more important than knowledge. Indeed, the former is a thousand times more consequential than the latter. Nonetheless, after some growth in life, it is essential to seek the knowledge which proceeds from a renewed mind. We should see how urgent it is for both heart and head to be renewed.

As human beings, we are blessed to have great minds and bodies given to us by God. And he wants to bless us and enable us to use them for His greatest glory and our utmost potential. This can be achieved as we keep our focus on him. Proverbs 19:21 says, “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”

So as we align our hearts and THE THREE KINDS OF MINDS: There are three types of minds mentioned in Scripture. You have one of them. There is the natural mind, the carnal mind, and the spiritual mind. Natural Mind — Unsaved 1 Corinthians 2:14, “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.” This is a non-Christian. He has no spiritual appetite for the things of God. He cannot comprehend spiritual truth. He is dead in trespasses and sin Ephesians 2:1. He may be outwardly religious and morally clean but cannot comprehend the Christian life. His thoughts will be what is right in his own eyes, situation ethics, humanism. The natural mind thinks whatever comes natural to a lost person. Carnal Mind — Worldly Christian Romans 8:7, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Carnal means “of the flesh.” The carnal mind is a saved person who lives for the flesh. The church at Corinth was full of carnal Christians. Paul called them babies. He said they could only swallow the milk of the Word. They had to be taught when they should have been teaching. They were cliquish, immature, divisive, and easily offended. The Christian with a carnal mind is not satisfied in Christ alone. He chases after things, amusements, and delights rather than in the things of God. He is quarrelsome, touchy, and often is the source of church problems. He has feeble digestion and cannot get his own food spiritually. Deep Scriptures do not interest him. There is very little difference, if any, between the natural man and the carnal minded man. The lost see no difference and have no conviction when around a carnally minded Christian. The carnal mind needs to get right with God, be serious, and fill itself with scriptures! 1 Corinthians 3:1- 4; Romans 7:14-15; James 4:4. Spiritual Mind-Spiritual Christian 1 Corinthians 2:15, “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” This is the Christian who is filled with the Holy Spirit and has a mind full of Scriptures. He is mature, has an understanding of spiritual things, has the ability to teach other Bible truths, and is fruitful. He has the mind of Christ. Philippians 2:5, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:”

If you think the thoughts Jesus did, you will live the way Jesus did. To do that we must think Scriptures, meditate upon them. Because of that, our minds will be going forward, will not be in neutral and will not have a chance to go backward, backslide. The spiritually minded man needs to make sure he does not get satisfied. Hebrews 5:12, 14; 1 Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 5:22-23.

The Bible believer’s greatest danger is being satisfied with his Christian life. LET US NOT BECOME SATISFIED! Partial List of Demons to Cast Out, In The Name Of Jesus: Rebellion, Passive Mind, Fleshly Mind, Immorality, Impurity, Indecency, Sorcery, Mind Control Drugs, Enmity, Strife, Jealousy, Anger, Ill Temper, Party Spirit, Peculiar Opinions, Moral Stagnation, Stoicism, Filthy Minded, Glutton, Weak Willed, Unlawful, Lack of Concentration, Retrogression, Listlessness, Lethargy, Skepticism, Indecision, Drugs, Mental Stagnation, Incoherence, Hesitation, Tortured Mind, Backsliding, Unsettled Mind/Emotions, Idiosyncrasies, Futile Mind, Evil Plotting/Planning, Intimidation, Doubt, Unbelief, Indecision, Worry, Forgetfulness, Heresies, Envy, Drunkenness, Carousing, Depressing, Despondency, Defeatism, Doubt, Dejection, Despair, Discouragement, Gloom, Burden, Disgust, Withdrawal, Daydreaming, Pouting, Fantasy, Pretension, Unenthusiastic, Unreality, Escape, Deceit, Importance, Believing Lies, Demonic Manipulation, Restless, Darkened Mind, Spiritism Spirits, Excessive Talking, Pushing to Extremes, Uncontrolled Will, Attitude of Infallibility, Inability to Reason, Lazy, Unteachableness, Spirit of Division, Antagonism to Truth About Evil Spirits, Lack of Moral Vision or Judicial Balance, Oppression of Self and others, Believing Teachings of Demons, Exaggerated View of Self, Good or Bad, Unqualified Obedience to Demons, Counterfeiting God, Presence of God, Divine, Human, Angelic and Satanic Things, Supernatural Visions and Voices, Dread, Compromise, Hopelessness, Self-seduction, heaviness, fear of failure, nervousness, unbelief, tension, mental illness, madness, senility, schizophrenia, paranoia, carelessness, suspicion, false love, fear of women, fear of men, distrust, automatic failure, confusion, frustration, self-righteousness, arrogance, lying, recriminating, unrepentant, blinded mind, mind control, excuses, dissension, not making decisions, pride, inability to listen, nerve irritation, evil positiveness, prejudice, procrastination, insomnia, roving, morbidity, maniac, apprehension, self-deception, unfounded fears, self-delusion, pride, occult spirits, Spiritism spirits, mind idolatry, intellectualism, rationalization, unholy laughter, ego, vanity, hate of men/women, hysteria, mockery, haughtiness, unresisting to evil, unresponsive to God, unproductive behavior, reprobate mind, cult spirits, excessive weeping, shame, embarrassment, emotionalism, rage, unrelaxed mind, vain imaginations.

“The Battle for Your Mind Is On”

[stevefinnell-blog]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[megaonewayjesuslove-blog]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE at. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[daiya-hanamakuro-blog]

Christian Universalism: Scriptural Basis

The very first stop in understanding universalism is by the universally accepted belief (and explicitly noted in the Bible) that God is love, which is noted in John 1:4-8. Evidently, some questions may arise in concern of traditionally held positions. How can God, being love, allow any of his creations to be tortured for eternity? How can God make an earthly life, one that can be rife with misrepresentations of the faith and negative impacts that alters perceptions, be the cutoff on when God would accept your repentance, and where is that cutoff shown within the Bible?

These questions continue to grow, especially in mention of, for example, the parable of Lazarus, which seems to show that those with God can even see those that are being tormented (Luke 16:19-31). When you’re with God and figures like Abraham, how can you enjoy it knowing your relatives are being tormented in such a manner? Of course, that would be assuming the parable is truly illustrating the afterlife plight. Further, it’s assuming it is a parable when some have taken it to be an actual account because Lazarus and Abraham are named, which is unique for a parable.

Luke 16:23-25

“In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.”

However, when we approach other parts of scripture, it tends to give the impression that everyone will come to God. Starting with the Old Testament, first Isaiah 45:24-25, it says, “Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; all who were incensed against him shall come to him and be ashamed.” Instances in other biblical books, like Psalms 22:29, verses in Psalms 145 being 10 and 16-17, convey all people being brought to God.

When we look into the New Testament, first in terms of the beginning, we read at Luke 2:9-11: “Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.’”

Reading this verse makes the centre of it obvious: It’s good news for all people, but that somewhat provokes a related question—How is it “good news” for unbelievers? For those of other faiths, like Hinduism, or adherents of Judaism that have not found Jesus? Logically, one can argue that it’s good news because that have a medium in which to go to God, but there are some aspects of a person’s life that may turn them away from God; i.e., someone representing a false viewpoint of Christianity, lukewarm Christian behaviour, strife, and highly difficult upbringings. How is it, though, good news even still if they have not turned away?

Would this be a moment in scripture of a limited use in terms of “all,” even though the Greek word, πᾶς (pas), is an encompassing use? Strong’s concordance defines it as “all, the whole, every kind of.” Other concordances follow. It is, indeed, encompassing. Many other verses use “all,” “world,” and many other similarities that connote large groups of people just as it did in Luke 2:9-11 such as Romans 14:11 which states: “For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.’”

Further, when we read Philippians 2:9-11, it says: “Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The same use of “every” in regards to knees bending and tongues professing are used in other places. Alternatively, it could have easily specified that only the knees and only the tongues of believers would confess that Christ is Lord since it would be self-evident, but it says “every knee,” applying to far more numbers than just believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Paul says, “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” The same use of “all” is employed in John 1:29, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 John 4:14 and even more than that.

Why, then, should these uses of “all” be narrowed down into “some”? John 12:31-32 states: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Of course, the immediate question arises: How could that apply on earth if that is the cutoff point? There’s atheists that die atheists, Muslims that die as Muslims. How can they be brought to God? Alternatively, it can be asked why would God, being a benevolent God, draw the line at your earthly living, and where in scripture is this theologically justified? Jesus even made a proclamation to the spirits in heaven, which was after death, to those in “prisons” in 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Some universalists pose that this line of thinking is not compatible with Christ’s sacrifice. Reading into John 3:16-17, combining it with Colossians 1:15-20, we get this idea that not only was Christ’s sacrifice sufficient, but that it did, in fact, save the world. His death on the cross “reconcile[d]” to God “all things, whether on earth or in heaven.”

Like a nail in the coffin, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 says, “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” Closely related, 1 John 2:1-2 states: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

What we can gather, scripturally through these verses, is that the whole world is supposed to be made alive, not just believers. The verse of 1 John 2:1-2 seems to give that message as does Colossians 1:15-20.

Delving into 1 Timothy 4:10, we see: “For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” What does it mean to be a Saviour if not saving others? If he “especially” saved those who believe, then to save “all” is to mean even those who don’t believe. How can he be their Saviour if they are to be punished for an eternity? For universalists, this line of thinking doesn’t add together, and thus pose that it is only consistent to take a universalist stance.

Contentions embark from opponents to this doctrine. First being: If you’ll eventually be returned to God anyway, what’s the point in keeping his commands? The better question to return with is: Why do you follow God? If it’s only for the reward of heaven or to avoid hell, then the place God has in your heart is a shaky one. A Christian should be following God not to win heaven and avoid hell, but because of God himself. It is out of our love for God, and for his Son, that we keep his commandments (1 John 5:3). Why do you need a threat of eternal punishment in order to love God enough to follow his commandments? Is that even “love” at that point and not fear? Nevertheless, it doesn’t change that there is a punishment that occurs; the cleansing of their body with flames—purgatorial. It can, indeed, be painful and avoided by having faith in God.

Another is in the verse John 14:6, which says: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” They take this to mean that you have to accept Jesus before you die, but that isn’t entirely true. If the cutoff point isn’t while you’re on earth, and you’re capable of repenting after, then they would still be turning to Jesus in repentance to go to the Father.

How is that justified, though? How can you repent after you’ve died? Having no scripture to functionally support that the cutoff is on earth, then we shouldn’t make the assumption in place of scripture. What about the verses that are used? Some quote Hebrews 9:27, which says “And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment...” but, taken in context, doesn’t refer to being unable to repent, but that humans die once just as Christ did.

What about Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? Does that make it pointless if universal reconciliation was the intention of God? Not necessarily when we keep in mind that God is an omniscient God and intended in paving the way to to heaven. Since bloodshed was necessary for the Old Testament in the Old Testament so God would “pass over” them just as he did with the houses that had blood on their doors in the case with Egypt, having Jesus shed his blood so he can “pass over” everyone is where the key lies. Jesus’ death was not pointless.

Finally, since we’re at the end of this stage, let us approach the parable of Lazarus that was mentioned earlier. Restating it:

Luke 16:23-25

“In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.”

To first understand this, we need to understand what Luke 16 is about. It first starts with a parable, and the parable was in regards to wealth and being dishonest. If you’re dishonest as it concerns someone’s wealth, how could you be trusted to have the full riches? Hearing this, the Pharisees ridiculed Jesus, and so he offers another parable, which is that of Lazarus, and ends it with thus at verse 31: “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This parable followed immediately after the Pharisees ridiculed Jesus and was in response to them. Frequently, Jesus criticised them and their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and so they were like the rich man, since they, themselves, loved money (v. 14), a man that would not believe despite having the truth before him.

If we were to take this into literalism, then there are obvious ethical implications. If a mother could talk to her son who is suffering in hell in such a manner, if they, in heaven, could hear the tortuous screams, then how, by any stretch, could God be a moral character? If a husband can see his wife burn, if a man could see his friends burn, who could be happy in heaven with this knowledge? And how could God, being even better and an even grander moral being than us, be content?

With the prevalence of parables in Luke 15 and 16, it is better to say it is a moral message rather than an eschatological one. But what is that message? First, we have to understand a little more about the rich man in the parable. He was one of royalty in some form since he clothed himself in purple and fine linen (v. 20), which is a colour and style of royalty. If this wasn’t significant, then Jesus never would have mentioned such useless information.

Further, we know he feasted so greatly, and yet didn’t take care of the poor, which is likely the contributing factor to him ending up in such a tormenting state (v. 21-22). Christians and the Jews were called to be compassionate people, but they weren’t. The Pharisees were the same way, and the rich man likely represented the religious leaders and showed how they would deny the truth. This is even shown by how the rich man referred to Abraham as “father” (v. 24).

We know that it isn’t specifically about the Pharisees, but the overall house of Judah which is the Jewish nation, descending from Jacob. And Judah had five brethren (Genesis 35:22-23), which seems to be a sort of identification for some biblical scholars, universalists and non-universalists alike. There is disagreement concerning this matter, but they closely align the Pharisees with the state of Judah as a whole, form making marketplaces in temples to their treatment of those that need help the most.

Showing them the fault of their way in a manner that describes how put off from God they are, even if it were not fully illustrating the eschatological position, is still putting a moral truth and result in the form of a parable. In order to discern truth from a parable, the message of scripture has to be taken into account before assuming what is truth within it.

There is much exegesis that can be done, but it’d make this longer, and potentially longer than the overall content so I’m not going to delve into it fully, but I did give the basic gist that simply by delivering names (Abraham being the father of Judah, Lazarus meaning “Whom God Helps”) does not indicate that it is an actual occurrence and that it does deliver a moral truth, not necessitating that it be taken as eschatological truth.

Ultimately, what this has done is illustrate that the position is not unfounded, but does bring into question whether or not it is truly biblical as is the case for the other eschatological theories.

#christianity #biblestudy #bible #religion

[itesfashion]

Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description

Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description

Any newspaper can be hard in composing for some people considerations. Generally an individual is absence of serious amounts of solutions to have a cardstock. Individuals need more than merely the skills to accomplish a complete flawlessness in task.

A fantastic composing gets underway with great state of mind and confidence within your power. Though it is sharp help and advice, it is sometimes inadequate to achieve the duty. Each and every year young people are shown authoring projects. Essay producing has fast become an important part of person lifespan. It displays the idea of this issue and displays how the individual conveys his opinions by means of composing. It is just a essential piece ofeducationin most training centers and educational institutions.

What exactly is a Analysis Document?

You have to realize that we have a huge difference from a straightforward essay and researching document. To post an over-all essay 1 collects details with respect precise question and jots it all the way down. Anyone picks some thoughts that fully discuss insights he wishes to reveal.

Regardless that you have to not make research into the issue over the deepest quality, he should always learn a great deal. For instance, when someone should writeErnest Hemingway essay, he needs to read through creators biography.

Even though posting an analysis document, each student has to note all truth, concepts, and items that they has documented downward. An investigation report argues a idea. It has to be authored after having a mastering the actual niche. This report is greater than a group of solutions, several some facts, and points. These facts should always help support your comments and in conclusion from the cardstock.

An important an important part of any investigation report is arguable fact this was not turned out to be a well known fact. To summarize, generally essay 1 produces information during study pieces of paper an individual draws attentions to not points but his summary. Points help to prop the personally own thinking about.

A study pieces of paper can be an essay where by a single gifts his explanation of unique matter. Visualize how the legal representative readies his circumstance. He scans several occasions and works by using these people to last his very own. Whenever a college student is currently writing concerning Excellent Depressive disorders, he says newspaper publishers, publications, and reports in Web-based that can verify his check out.

You now recognize that a study document will take added time over a overall essay. Somebody should perform experiments in an effort to produce his viewpoint. Therefore, any person experiences problems when produces explore old fashioned paper the first time. Shrewd college students comprehend they can not try this activity on your own, so they really inquire custom-made posting assistance to assist them to.

Question Us that may help you

Our authors recognize how to make a quality exploration report. https://www.scoop.it/t/educsation/p/4094588342/2018/02/23/history-essay-writing-service-online-help-coursework4u Think that we is equipped for any subject matter within your explore papers. Men and women who are operating around own fine publishing techniques and correct information about any issue. Low priced investigation papers authors expert services will be ready to aid you.

Anybody ought not bother about pricing. Our team built them pleasant and inexpensive for just one. Aside from that you will definitely get relaxing bargains and bonus deals. We worth our people and strive to boost assistance for the kids.

Our team manages kinds of duties. Never concern and you should not wait, count on us and sleeping good. Really you could have discovered thebest papers producing assistance. Like existence and spend more time with relatives or family and friends when we can be used. Make a purchase order on our webpage. This is often perfect and affordable conclusion.

Our business attempts to connect with prospects. Speak to us assuming you have important questions. Our realtors will present you with the answers on all issues. Will not hesitate of inquiring. You want enable you to. This is certainly our challenge in order to make life easier. Furthermore, our business can help you a single with any task. Details you might consider readhere.

Any really good researching newspaper should stick with a few reasonable actions. It can be pretty hard for a person. Our company is able to help you. We are going to but not only produce a superb report but direct you via the whole entire method.

Valuable Techniques to produce an investigation Document

A large position in resulting in a homework pieces of paper takes on in using critical procedures. They will certainly reduce your activity.

1. Uncover the theme. Decide on any subject matter which passions you together with even issues. All ideas has to be narrowed into specific functions. To illustrate, restrict from Earth financial state to Us current economic climate or from Religious beliefs to Christianity. Confer with your mentor or coach for the subject. Pick out one which you may be capable of do. Steer clear of styles which are way too professional. You should not decide themes which may have a reduce choice of origin components.

2. Uncover methods. Go anywhere to find important information. Consider gets results in public places and institution libraries, literature, periodicals, internet resources. Stay with options from the trainer. Visit important Web addresses and on-line encyclopedias, use exploring resources as the excellent kick off point. Be discerning of online websites. Many of them consist of commercials only.

As a final point any time a particular person has loads of advice, he really should coordinate it actually. This really is his possiblity to save your time, in any other case the job will require extended.

3. Write down a thesis assertion. Seek to believe that making a thesis fact. That is a very good commencing. Authored proclamation represents the assertion of people option and assumption. Thru all essay an individual will help support and protect this concept.

4. Make an outline for you. Its motive may be to guidance someone to accept all info and portions of this issue. So, you will go rationally derived from one of the main cardstock to the next. An description must be contained launch, entire body, and summary.

In beginning anybody states in america his thesis and the aim of the studies. Is there a major reason he or she is formulating a cardstock and what problems someone desires to insure. In system a particular brings out reasons that keep up with the thesis proclamation. Pick out a minimum of a few tough disputes. In relation to final result anyone yet again tells his thesis however in various words and phrases, amounts up all misunderstandings, and provide a good reason for his bottom line.

5. Create a write and change it. Check the notices which you have well prepared. Use unique methods for composing your thoughts. For instance, notice charge cards and linens of pieces of paper precisely where one could publish summaries and quotes. Place all the information in line with the summarize.

Look over your write carefully. 1st have a look at information issues: investigate insights and results. Put together all suggestions to a good purchase.

6. Form overall document. Use inkjet printer of excellent high quality to form the pieces of paper. Ensure it is great and beautiful. Make sure you look at the project page to make certain that pieces of paper complies with the prerequisites on your trainer.

The post Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description appeared first on Guest Blogging Platform for Jewelry & Fashion.

from Blog – Guest Blogging Platform for Jewelry & Fashion http://ift.tt/2H6aXtK via IFTTT from Untitled http://ift.tt/2FYLrHP via IFTTT from Ladies Fashion http://ift.tt/2FTDLGA via IFTTT

#Ladies Fashion

[ladiesfashion25]

Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description

Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description

Any newspaper can be hard in composing for some people considerations. Generally an individual is absence of serious amounts of solutions to have a cardstock. Individuals need more than merely the skills to accomplish a complete flawlessness in task.

A fantastic composing gets underway with great state of mind and confidence within your power. Though it is sharp help and advice, it is sometimes inadequate to achieve the duty. Each and every year young people are shown authoring projects. Essay producing has fast become an important part of person lifespan. It displays the idea of this issue and displays how the individual conveys his opinions by means of composing. It is just a essential piece ofeducationin most training centers and educational institutions.

What exactly is a Analysis Document?

You have to realize that we have a huge difference from a straightforward essay and researching document. To post an over-all essay 1 collects details with respect precise question and jots it all the way down. Anyone picks some thoughts that fully discuss insights he wishes to reveal.

Regardless that you have to not make research into the issue over the deepest quality, he should always learn a great deal. For instance, when someone should writeErnest Hemingway essay, he needs to read through creators biography.

Even though posting an analysis document, each student has to note all truth, concepts, and items that they has documented downward. An investigation report argues a idea. It has to be authored after having a mastering the actual niche. This report is greater than a group of solutions, several some facts, and points. These facts should always help support your comments and in conclusion from the cardstock.

An important an important part of any investigation report is arguable fact this was not turned out to be a well known fact. To summarize, generally essay 1 produces information during study pieces of paper an individual draws attentions to not points but his summary. Points help to prop the personally own thinking about.

A study pieces of paper can be an essay where by a single gifts his explanation of unique matter. Visualize how the legal representative readies his circumstance. He scans several occasions and works by using these people to last his very own. Whenever a college student is currently writing concerning Excellent Depressive disorders, he says newspaper publishers, publications, and reports in Web-based that can verify his check out.

You now recognize that a study document will take added time over a overall essay. Somebody should perform experiments in an effort to produce his viewpoint. Therefore, any person experiences problems when produces explore old fashioned paper the first time. Shrewd college students comprehend they can not try this activity on your own, so they really inquire custom-made posting assistance to assist them to.

Question Us that may help you

Our authors recognize how to make a quality exploration report. https://www.scoop.it/t/educsation/p/4094588342/2018/02/23/history-essay-writing-service-online-help-coursework4u Think that we is equipped for any subject matter within your explore papers. Men and women who are operating around own fine publishing techniques and correct information about any issue. Low priced investigation papers authors expert services will be ready to aid you.

Anybody ought not bother about pricing. Our team built them pleasant and inexpensive for just one. Aside from that you will definitely get relaxing bargains and bonus deals. We worth our people and strive to boost assistance for the kids.

Our team manages kinds of duties. Never concern and you should not wait, count on us and sleeping good. Really you could have discovered thebest papers producing assistance. Like existence and spend more time with relatives or family and friends when we can be used. Make a purchase order on our webpage. This is often perfect and affordable conclusion.

Our business attempts to connect with prospects. Speak to us assuming you have important questions. Our realtors will present you with the answers on all issues. Will not hesitate of inquiring. You want enable you to. This is certainly our challenge in order to make life easier. Furthermore, our business can help you a single with any task. Details you might consider readhere.

Any really good researching newspaper should stick with a few reasonable actions. It can be pretty hard for a person. Our company is able to help you. We are going to but not only produce a superb report but direct you via the whole entire method.

Valuable Techniques to produce an investigation Document

A large position in resulting in a homework pieces of paper takes on in using critical procedures. They will certainly reduce your activity.

1. Uncover the theme. Decide on any subject matter which passions you together with even issues. All ideas has to be narrowed into specific functions. To illustrate, restrict from Earth financial state to Us current economic climate or from Religious beliefs to Christianity. Confer with your mentor or coach for the subject. Pick out one which you may be capable of do. Steer clear of styles which are way too professional. You should not decide themes which may have a reduce choice of origin components.

2. Uncover methods. Go anywhere to find important information. Consider gets results in public places and institution libraries, literature, periodicals, internet resources. Stay with options from the trainer. Visit important Web addresses and on-line encyclopedias, use exploring resources as the excellent kick off point. Be discerning of online websites. Many of them consist of commercials only.

As a final point any time a particular person has loads of advice, he really should coordinate it actually. This really is his possiblity to save your time, in any other case the job will require extended.

3. Write down a thesis assertion. Seek to believe that making a thesis fact. That is a very good commencing. Authored proclamation represents the assertion of people option and assumption. Thru all essay an individual will help support and protect this concept.

4. Make an outline for you. Its motive may be to guidance someone to accept all info and portions of this issue. So, you will go rationally derived from one of the main cardstock to the next. An description must be contained launch, entire body, and summary.

In beginning anybody states in america his thesis and the aim of the studies. Is there a major reason he or she is formulating a cardstock and what problems someone desires to insure. In system a particular brings out reasons that keep up with the thesis proclamation. Pick out a minimum of a few tough disputes. In relation to final result anyone yet again tells his thesis however in various words and phrases, amounts up all misunderstandings, and provide a good reason for his bottom line.

5. Create a write and change it. Check the notices which you have well prepared. Use unique methods for composing your thoughts. For instance, notice charge cards and linens of pieces of paper precisely where one could publish summaries and quotes. Place all the information in line with the summarize.

Look over your write carefully. 1st have a look at information issues: investigate insights and results. Put together all suggestions to a good purchase.

6. Form overall document. Use inkjet printer of excellent high quality to form the pieces of paper. Ensure it is great and beautiful. Make sure you look at the project page to make certain that pieces of paper complies with the prerequisites on your trainer.

The post Homework Report Creator Solutions: Simple Description appeared first on Guest Blogging Platform for Jewelry & Fashion.

from Blog – Guest Blogging Platform for Jewelry & Fashion http://ift.tt/2H6aXtK via IFTTT from Untitled http://ift.tt/2FYLrHP via IFTTT

#Untitled

[alfiehilder7-blog]

Finest Collection Of Mom Daughter Songs.

An informal blog that views Google.com's attempts to move your system software online because 2005. Unpleasant modifications in long-term purchases development and incomes electrical power, movement valuable throughout the worth establishment, wrong examination from longer phrase very competitive magnitude as fitandbody-control.Info well as costs electrical power due to which original investment thesis that I made use of to purchase the supply is not correct. POD started placing their very own twist on songs by Andrew Hill, Wayne Much Shorter, Far Davis, as well as undersung Detroit keyboardist Kenny Cox-- songs off the mid to overdue '60s that was bold but still hooky adequate to entice in nearly any listener. As with a lot of my short article below at Road Contents, I love to compose a whole lot concerning a music software application that is actually showing me (gradually) to play the Ukulele which is Beatnik's Speak Ukulele Music Program" a training Ukulele music software you download and install to your computer that teaches you effective ways to participate in the equipment similar to having face to face courses. Davis, like Mingus, additionally required the respect as well as interest off white target markets that white colored entertainers typically got, thus denying white colored stereotypes from dark artists as servile beings without sophisticated songs. Their initial intention may likely have been actually to just depreciate the extra incorrect Christian churches, yet by their narrow guidelines, all Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so forth (nearly 2 thirds from the worlds individuals) are, in their viewpoint, cults. Even more individuals, like myself, perform certainly not possess the money nor time to participate in one on one popular music lessons (and listed here in Ireland this is fairly tough to discover a private Ukulele songs teacher) as well as with these private trainings, though they are a superb perfect method to be shown, they are method to expensive. Ringing ears's identified loudness may range coming from refined to ruining, as well as could hinder hearing ordinary chat, particularly with various other additional sounds around, like residing in a room with other conversations happening, or along with popular music having fun at a medium amount. When everybody's using this, bos on its own are going to eventually transform red. Folks would certainly rely on an entirely new tactic which suppresses Blue Sea Technique at value advancement, which really, creates the individual observing Blue Sea Method itself. A testimonial of her latest Coachella Festivity look in music field publication Signboard creates this crystal clear that the Californian concert was similar to the Jerusalem job along with the ambience being even more from an affected contemporary dance activity compared to a stone job. The lyrics wased initially Retro ballads, typically, but New World ballads soon interfered The songs was based upon Retro dance and also singing songs yet because that was actually never notated, that is hard to say precisely how the Appalachian type was created.

[ingridzenmoments]

Barcelona is incredible. Is fresh, crazy, young and free!

Barcelona was the first destination I have ever gotten on a plane to visit and it sure did the trick, since I came back some years later to revisit the vibrant city and I would go back anytime. But why now is the time to visit it and not wait any longer? I’ll tell you why. Because the city is taking serious measures in order to decrease the number of tourists or at least just limit their number. Just recently, the city has banned the opening of new hotels in the city center (even in the case old one close down) and has launched a program aiming to return the city to its citizens by 2020. Even though tourism is one of the main revenue suppliers for the city, Barcelona is the sixth most densely populated city in Europe, making the measures a necessity for the people living here.

What are the main issues that come along with high levels of tourists flooding the Catalan city? Well, for one the city is suffocated by a large number of people using transportation. Moreover, the prices for rent and property in the center area have soared, mostly because of the high demand from tourists. What measures will be taken in this regard? Well, the mayor wants to increase taxes for apartments used for touristic purposes only, which will most certainly be felt also in the accommodation prices to be paid by tourists. Amongst other measures: raising parking prices for tourist buses with a direct impact on the ticket price; limiting traffic in certain parts of the city; cutting down on the space that restaurant’s terraces occupy on the sidewalks.

So if you still want to enjoy the city as a tourist at reasonable prices, this is about time to plan your visit. And if we’re at it, here are 10 things to do in Barcelona:

1. Enjoy Gaudi’s genius

Personally I never really liked Sagrada Familia, but I think is something that needs to be seen at least once because, like it or not, it definitely is spectacular. On the other hand, the cathedral is not the only creation of Gaudi in Barcelona, the other being so much more interesting. Casa Calvet, Palau Guell, Casa Batllo, Casa Mila (La Pedrera) are only a few of the unique examples of incredible architecture creation signed by Gaudi. While the first one is now a restaurant where you can enjoy Catalan cuisine, Casa Batllo and Casa Mila (La Pedrera) are in my opinion “must stops” in Barcelona.

Casa Battlo is incredibly romantic, one really needs to take a walk inside and admire the wide windows with magnificent colorful mosaic. A ticket to visit the house which entered the UNESCO World Heritage in 2005 costs 23.5 EUR and the opening hours are from 9 h to 21 h. They also have specific activities for which prices vary: – you can book your ticket for a visit amongst the first 20 people of the day, start at 8:30, getting to enjoy the view without worrying about agglomeration, this at a price of 36 EUR – for the same price, you can book a theatrical visit, including a dramatized family tour of the house, entrance to the whole house and a smart guide – if you’re in a hurry and you want to skip the line, you can also opt for the FastPass at the price of 28.5 EUR – and last but not least, from Fall 2017, you will be able to enjoy an evening cava toast on the terrace of Casa Battlo

Casa Mila (La Pedrera) is another Gaudi’s creations which have been inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage List, in 1984. I liked it very much, especially the roof top with its very specific towers and from where you can admire Barcelona from above. Inside the house, be prepared to find all sorts of exhibitions. The opening hours are from Monday to Sunday, 9 am to 8.30pm and 9 pm to 11 pm and the price of a ticket is 22 EUR for an adult, with an audio guide included.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

2. Take a stroll through Park Guell

Breathtaking. This is how Park Guell felt at the first visit. And at the second. The gingerbread looking houses at the entrance, with the multicolor mosaic, the white Dragon stairway with the fountain guarded by a colorful lizard leading to a covered terrace with inclined russet walls, and the best of all: the Greek Theatre. With its unique shape and colors, the terrace offers the perfect place for a photo session. Trust me, the park is one not to miss and the 7 EUR entry price should not stop you.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

3. Barceloneta Beach

The best sandy beach, not far from the city center. Easy to get to, filled with terraces where you can just sit back and enjoy sangria and the cool breeze caressing your hair and skin. Just make sure to use some sunscreen protection, because I got sunburned in April. You can rent a bicycle and stroll along the shore or engage in a volleyball match with some of the locals or tourists getting entertained on the golden sandy beach. Expect it to be rather crowded no matter the season.

4. Barri Gotic

It’s in this place that I fell in love with Barcelona some many years ago. Staying in a small hostel in the middle of Barri Gotic, close to the harbor. Looking outside of the window I could see the narrow street and imagine I was in Hans Christian Andersen’s “Snow Queen” where the two children living across the street from one another had built a bridge to pass from one to the other. I would sit on the terrace and imagine those kids could have lived in one of those buildings. What stroke me the most was the difference between day and night. During the day everything was dull, while as soon as night came, the streets just turned to live, becoming colorful, filled with music, laughter, incredible food and joyful people. It was the best place to stay in the town, from where I could admire both the Catala architecture and the Catalan spirit.

5. The Magic Fountain of Montjuïc, National Museum of Art of Catalunya and Las Arenas de Barcelona

Getting off at the Plaça d’Espanya metro stop, you will get the chance to do this 3 in 1 combo. Visit the Las Arenas de Barcelona, an old bullring, turned into a shopping center with an elevator taking you to the top, to the viewpoint from where you can admire the 360 view and have dinner or a drink at one of the many restaurants, while enjoying the magnificent view of the fountains and the museum on the hill. Next stop, just cross the street to get to the singing fountains, dating from 1929 which offer music sessions in the Summertime (May to September) at 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM and in the Winter time (October to April) 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM. Unfortunately, I have never managed to catch the show, even though I have tried drudgingly, but I have heard it is a show that should not be missed. Moving up, on the white stairs, you will get to the National Museu of Art of Catalunya, from where even if you are not particularly a fan of art, you can admire the view of the city. If you choose to visit the museum, the opening hours and prices can be found here.

6. Poble Espanyol

Not such a popular attraction of Barcelona, but I enjoyed it a lot. Getting to stroll around streets with houses dating from different periods throughout Spain’s history, from different regions it is a unique experience, one that offers you interesting insights in the country’s history and culture. It is located near to the Montjuïc fountains and is easy to get to. The museum hosts 117 full-scale buildings that have been built after the creators have visited 1600 town and villages in Spain. The entrance ticket is 12.6 EUR but you can spend half a day admiring unique architecture and diving into the Spanish culture.

7. Take the gondola (Montjuic cable car) to Montjuïc Castle

Standing above the port, Montjuïc Castle dates from 1640 and it is owned now by the citizens of Barcelona, hosting a weapons museum. Getting to or from the castle you can take the Montjuic cable car, which allows you to admire the city from above. The gondola has 3 stops from which to choose: Castell Monjuic, Mirador and Parc de Montjuic; and the price for an adult is of 12.5 EUR.

Montjuic Castel

Art Museum

8. Feast on Catalan food

Dominated by seafood, Catalan cuisine is indulging, fresh and filling. Whether you choose a fancy restaurant, a low-key Cucina or choose your own ingredients from La Boqueria (this gastronomic mecca of Barcelona), you sure won’t be disappointed.

9. La Rambla

No visit to Barcelona would be complete without a stroll through the crowded and colorful main street La Rambla. This pedestrian street, flanked by trees, connects Placa de Catalunya with Port Vell, leading you directly to the sea and to Christopher Columbus Monument and museum. Make sure you have enough time to enjoy the vivid atmosphere and be careful with your belongings.

10. Go to Tibidabo amusement park

Take the bus from Placa de Catalunya and enjoy a thrilling day at the amusement park placed on the hill overlooking Barcelona. A single ticket for the bus costs 3EUR, while entrance to the park is 28.5 EUR for all the rides. Just check out here all the cool rides they have.

Source: https://bcn.barcelonapoint.com/tibidabo/

  Why you should visit Barcelona right now Barcelona is incredible. Is fresh, crazy, young and free! Barcelona was the first destination I have ever gotten on a plane to visit and it sure did the trick, since I came back some years later to revisit the vibrant city and I would go back anytime.

#10 things to do in Barcelona #Barcelona #Catalania #Spain #Tourist attarctions Barcelona #Why you should visit Barcelona now

[goconservativechristian]

The Bible is its Own Best Interpreterby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888; Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that

he

has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot

know

) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.

TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE

At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question of whether we humans are capable of

knowing

anything for certain, whether we can use logic to

reason

correctly, and whether we can arrive at

truth

. These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most people have been influenced to think that we cannot be

certain

about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances, weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive at the truth.Yet, the

magnitude

of disagreement that exists in the world is astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and mind-boggling. For example, in American

politics

, a wide range of viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed to each other’s viewpoints? In

religion

, the diversity and cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the entire

world

is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam (representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to disagree.” Atheism maintains that

all

religion is crazy. Karl Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually

harmful and detrimental

to society.With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible, bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons and motivations. But

the truth can be ascertained

! Hence, they are

all

without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own interpreter” (

Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres

). What they meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm, et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word, taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really

know

the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism. The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a

generic

reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense (see

Miller

, 2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL

Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a

symbol

—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith. But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away

before

he was baptized.The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the

manner

in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (

kai

)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible so that His writing would interpret itself!But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a

symbol

? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who were saved “by,” i.e.,

through

(

dia

) the water of the Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes

past

forgiveness that was achieved

prior

to being baptized?

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH

The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000 years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from “blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again, the Bible is its own best interpreter.The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water” in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth, Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the prerequisites for getting into the

spiritual

kingdom is physical birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was

already

a human being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are

not

permitted entrance into the kingdom.In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much

water

there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much

amniotic fluid

there? Or because there was much

blood

there? Or because the

Holy Spirit

was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!

THE BIBLE: ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM

Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian interpretation placed upon it.However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7]) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this

lineage

to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own best interpreter.A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.

REFERENCES

Dungan, D.R. (1888),

Hermeneutics

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light).Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),

Biblical Interpretation

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Lockhart, Clinton (1915),

Principles of Interpretation

(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572

.Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),

Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).Shepherd, J.W. (1894),

Handbook on Baptism

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).Terry, Milton (no date),

Biblical Hermeneutics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com