What do you think? True or false? I have noticed some debates out there, inspired by my good friend Kc, and I know he always has an ulterior motive up his sleeve! Well, here is one to add to the fun!
okay. I'm going to say TRUE. It was written for believers, but is profitable for both. Please don't ask me why. My head still hurts from all the Calvanist debates!! (No, mainly I'm just feeling lazy right now!)
Ron just between you and me I’d get rid of any friends who have ulterior motives! (haha) Actually I should have noted that post was an answer to a friend from another site. I really do think friendly debate is an excellent means for working out doctrinal differences between brethren and so to that end I challenge Kristi! (grin)
I would offer testimony from the text itself;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3
I believe this to say that the Gospel that is revealed in scripture is to all men. Vs. 17 would indicate it is also given to prepare believers for good works.
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
So if faith comes from hearing the word of God, we must ask who gets faith from hearing the word of God. We most definately say the unbeliever. The believer already has faith. So the unbeliever gets faith from hearing the word of God.
But if we were to say that the Bible is not for unbelievers, then we would have to say that the their faith must come through some other means...
So no, I disagree.
The Scriptures of course are profitable for the believer, as KC point out. But they are likewise profitable in an aspect for the unbeliever (as it is through the hearing of it that they get faith).
Salvation comes to the unbeliever when he/she hears the word of God expounded upon or testified to and growth comes to the believer when he/she studies it to show him/herself approved...
So the answer, in my humble, but correct, opinion, is BOTH!
Thank you first of all for your responses. There are a couple of points to consider:
1. Look at the interaction between Philip and the eunuch. Acts 8:30-31 - 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?
It is very clear that the eunuch was unable to understand without the assistance of a believer. I can relate - before I was saved, I was a churchgoer, and could not understand what in the world the Bible was saying!
2. Each epistle of the New Testament was written from a believer to a believer. These epistles were to be understood by those who believe.
So, although Sofyst disagrees, the Scripture that he uses to support his statement actually affirms the argument that it is not for unbelievers. Returning to the example of Philip and the eunuch, the Bible tells us that Philip opened his mouth and preached to him Jesus. Truly, faith comes by hearing, not by reading. I am looking forward to reading your responses.
Granted he did not understand, and hence needed Philip, but this does not mean that the Scripture was not for him. I do not yet understand all of Scripture (as I doubt you do either), does this then mean that because of our lack of understanding that it is not for us?
Your logic when applied to us would have only some Scripture applicable or for Christians. The parts that we do not understand would not be for us.
Is this likewise your opinion?
I do not understand MOST of Revelation, does this then mean this book is not for me?
I guess my first question would be why do you ask? My unbelieving friends don't really spend a lot of time reading scripture, so I don't see the practical application of the debate.
Having said that, my second question would be is scripture Truth? If it is, then how can it not be for everyone?
But I come from a more Arminian "whosoever will..." way of thinking. That's foolishness to those who are perishing.
good points on both sides. hmmm... here's my initial thoughts:
"...so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11 NIV)
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65 NIV)
"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 NIV)
first off, i'd say that whether or not we believe that the Bible is for believers or unbelievers is besides the point. we ought to be more focussed on how we are to live out our faith in His Word among all people. Israel was so caught up in being called "God's chosen people" that they missed the point - that they were blessed in order to be a blessing.
what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?
We've got to think beyond this kind of dichotomous thinking...us vs. them. We need to remember that "we" were once "them". We've got to remember that the Church is not the only means in which God can carry out His will. Remember how He used Babylon and Assyria to take captive Israel and Judah?
The Lord is Sovereign and His Word is for who it's meant for. Who are we to presuppose who that means?
As for Philip and the Eunuch...remember that the Eunuch was first reading Scripture. So while he may not have understood it completely, he was intrigued by it enough to contemplate it. The seeds were planted. The Scripture was for him. Philip was just used to explain it.
When we were unbelievers, did we merely believe simply because someone told us about Jesus -having "heard" the gospel? Didn't we continue that process of God calling us to Himself by going into the Scriptures ourselves to read about what our Savior had done for us, and thus solidifying our belief?
I don't even trust some believers with "their" interpretations of Scripture - i'd rather do the Berean thing and check it out/discern for myself.
I think Scripture is for all of us: for the not-yet-believers so that they may learn the Truth, and also for the believers so that we may apply the Truth.
Let's not forget that centuries ago Scripture was only available for clergy - and thus subject to manipulation (indulgences, etc...).
Eric good points all and I would like to address one of them. (BTW Happy Birthday ;-))
“what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"?”
There are many believers, though well intended, that proclaim the text as though it were a moral rulebook given by God to judge the world by. A proper understanding of the application of the text might thwart such ideology. ;-)
I can totally understand all of the arguments the the Bible is for unbelievers. And I agree, it is profitable for them.
But I was thinking that the Bible is more of a tool for the believer. If God intended the lost to be saved just from reading the Bible, why did He intrust us with the Gospel and give us the Great Commission?
I Corinthians 2:14 says "the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
I believe we as believers are to USE the Bible as our tool, (our sword of the spirit, if you will) to communicate God's message to the unbeliever. Unless the lost has someone guiding him that does understand, the Scripture is going to be foolishness to him.
That is why God commands in II Timothy 2:15 believers to Study in order to show ourselves approved as a workman of the Word. And again in I Peter 3:15, that we may have an answer to every one that asks us reasons of our hope.
[what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?]
If the Scripture is not for unbelievers, then we should not use Scripture in evangelism. If it is, we should.
I would say that is pretty practical right there.
Also, I just did a post concerning the dichotomous relationship of the pagan and the Christian.
While I recognize that we do have something in common (humanity), you must likewise recognize that THERE IS a difference between us and them.
There are things that we do that they cannot. They cannot partake of our LORD's body...to name a blatantly important one.
If we take your thinking to its conclusion, there would be no 'church'. As pagan and believer would meet together to 'worship' God no different than when they meet together for PTA meetings.
I would say this question is a very practical one, and that the division between Christian and pagan is one that is true (they are not believers!) and one that is represented within Scripture; therefore one that is not wrong to have.
[what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?]
If the Scripture is not for unbelievers, then we should not use Scripture in evangelism. If it is, we should.
I would say that is pretty practical right there.
Also, I just did a post concerning the dichotomous relationship of the pagan and the Christian.
While I recognize that we do have something in common (humanity), you must likewise recognize that THERE IS a difference between us and them.
There are things that we do that they cannot. They cannot partake of our LORD's body...to name a blatantly important one.
If we take your thinking to its conclusion, there would be no 'church'. As pagan and believer would meet together to 'worship' God no different than when they meet together for PTA meetings.
I would say this question is a very practical one, and that the division between Christian and pagan is one that is true (they are not believers!) and one that is represented within Scripture; therefore one that is not wrong to have.
WOW! Thanks for the refreshing thoughts and insights! Eric, to your point about "us" vs. "them," I want to make clear that was not the idea behind the statement. It was really more about something Dorsey indicated; that is, unbelievers will not take the time to understand the Bible anyway, if they are not interested.
This is what makes the story about the eunuch so important. He did not understand, but he was interested. He had a desire to know, so Philip could minister to him. Contrast that with the men that stoned Stephen. They completely rejected the truth, and killed the messenger in the process. Kristi really summed up the purpose of the Bible when she said "But I was thinking that the Bible is more of a tool for the believer."
This is not meant to be a tirade, but I am getting to the point of why I posted the statement. I have heard the term "Bible-toting Christians" used very frequently by many unbelievers, and I have come to understand their frustration. Sofyst explained that they cannot hear unless one preaches. The Word needs to be in our hearts, so that like Philip, when the Lord gives us the opportunity, we can open our mouths and preach Jesus, instead of trying to dazzle people with how much Scripture we memorized.
I can say that I learn a great deal when I can read or listen to the thoughts of others. Thank you for contributing.
By the way sofyst, no problem! I consider that an opportunity to reread and get something that I did not get the first time!
I have been married to my wife Cynthia for 27 glorious years, and we have four wonderful children. I am an elder at The Ekklesia of the Lord Jesus Christ, a work which began in August 2009.
18 comments:
okay. I'm going to say TRUE. It was written for believers, but is profitable for both. Please don't ask me why. My head still hurts from all the Calvanist debates!! (No, mainly I'm just feeling lazy right now!)
Ron just between you and me I’d get rid of any friends who have ulterior motives! (haha) Actually I should have noted that post was an answer to a friend from another site. I really do think friendly debate is an excellent means for working out doctrinal differences between brethren and so to that end I challenge Kristi! (grin)
I would offer testimony from the text itself;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3
I believe this to say that the Gospel that is revealed in scripture is to all men. Vs. 17 would indicate it is also given to prepare believers for good works.
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
So if faith comes from hearing the word of God, we must ask who gets faith from hearing the word of God. We most definately say the unbeliever. The believer already has faith. So the unbeliever gets faith from hearing the word of God.
But if we were to say that the Bible is not for unbelievers, then we would have to say that the their faith must come through some other means...
So no, I disagree.
The Scriptures of course are profitable for the believer, as KC point out. But they are likewise profitable in an aspect for the unbeliever (as it is through the hearing of it that they get faith).
I believe it is for both,
for the believer,and un,
for the believer, so we don't forget, and for the un, to learn
janice
Salvation comes to the unbeliever when he/she hears the word of God expounded upon or testified to and growth comes to the believer when he/she studies it to show him/herself approved...
So the answer, in my humble, but correct, opinion, is BOTH!
To all,
Thank you first of all for your responses. There are a couple of points to consider:
1. Look at the interaction between Philip and the eunuch. Acts 8:30-31 - 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?
It is very clear that the eunuch was unable to understand without the assistance of a believer. I can relate - before I was saved, I was a churchgoer, and could not understand what in the world the Bible was saying!
2. Each epistle of the New Testament was written from a believer to a believer. These epistles were to be understood by those who believe.
So, although Sofyst disagrees, the Scripture that he uses to support his statement actually affirms the argument that it is not for unbelievers. Returning to the example of Philip and the eunuch, the Bible tells us that Philip opened his mouth and preached to him Jesus. Truly, faith comes by hearing, not by reading. I am looking forward to reading your responses.
Let us then take the example of the Eunuch.
Granted he did not understand, and hence needed Philip, but this does not mean that the Scripture was not for him. I do not yet understand all of Scripture (as I doubt you do either), does this then mean that because of our lack of understanding that it is not for us?
Your logic when applied to us would have only some Scripture applicable or for Christians. The parts that we do not understand would not be for us.
Is this likewise your opinion?
I do not understand MOST of Revelation, does this then mean this book is not for me?
I guess my first question would be why do you ask? My unbelieving friends don't really spend a lot of time reading scripture, so I don't see the practical application of the debate.
Having said that, my second question would be is scripture Truth? If it is, then how can it not be for everyone?
But I come from a more Arminian "whosoever will..." way of thinking. That's foolishness to those who are perishing.
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the early Birthday wishes!
good points on both sides. hmmm... here's my initial thoughts:
"...so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11 NIV)
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65 NIV)
"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 NIV)
first off, i'd say that whether or not we believe that the Bible is for believers or unbelievers is besides the point. we ought to be more focussed on how we are to live out our faith in His Word among all people. Israel was so caught up in being called "God's chosen people" that they missed the point - that they were blessed in order to be a blessing.
what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?
We've got to think beyond this kind of dichotomous thinking...us vs. them. We need to remember that "we" were once "them". We've got to remember that the Church is not the only means in which God can carry out His will. Remember how He used Babylon and Assyria to take captive Israel and Judah?
The Lord is Sovereign and His Word is for who it's meant for. Who are we to presuppose who that means?
As for Philip and the Eunuch...remember that the Eunuch was first reading Scripture. So while he may not have understood it completely, he was intrigued by it enough to contemplate it. The seeds were planted. The Scripture was for him. Philip was just used to explain it.
When we were unbelievers, did we merely believe simply because someone told us about Jesus -having "heard" the gospel? Didn't we continue that process of God calling us to Himself by going into the Scriptures ourselves to read about what our Savior had done for us, and thus solidifying our belief?
I don't even trust some believers with "their" interpretations of Scripture - i'd rather do the Berean thing and check it out/discern for myself.
I think Scripture is for all of us: for the not-yet-believers so that they may learn the Truth, and also for the believers so that we may apply the Truth.
Let's not forget that centuries ago Scripture was only available for clergy - and thus subject to manipulation (indulgences, etc...).
Eric good points all and I would like to address one of them. (BTW Happy Birthday ;-))
“what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"?”
There are many believers, though well intended, that proclaim the text as though it were a moral rulebook given by God to judge the world by. A proper understanding of the application of the text might thwart such ideology. ;-)
I can totally understand all of the arguments the the Bible is for unbelievers. And I agree, it is profitable for them.
But I was thinking that the Bible is more of a tool for the believer. If God intended the lost to be saved just from reading the Bible, why did He intrust us with the Gospel and give us the Great Commission?
I Corinthians 2:14 says "the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
I believe we as believers are to USE the Bible as our tool, (our sword of the spirit, if you will) to communicate God's message to the unbeliever. Unless the lost has someone guiding him that does understand, the Scripture is going to be foolishness to him.
That is why God commands in II Timothy 2:15 believers to Study in order to show ourselves approved as a workman of the Word. And again in I Peter 3:15, that we may have an answer to every one that asks us reasons of our hope.
[what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?]
If the Scripture is not for unbelievers, then we should not use Scripture in evangelism. If it is, we should.
I would say that is pretty practical right there.
Also, I just did a post concerning the dichotomous relationship of the pagan and the Christian.
While I recognize that we do have something in common (humanity), you must likewise recognize that THERE IS a difference between us and them.
There are things that we do that they cannot. They cannot partake of our LORD's body...to name a blatantly important one.
If we take your thinking to its conclusion, there would be no 'church'. As pagan and believer would meet together to 'worship' God no different than when they meet together for PTA meetings.
I would say this question is a very practical one, and that the division between Christian and pagan is one that is true (they are not believers!) and one that is represented within Scripture; therefore one that is not wrong to have.
[what would be the practical application in concluding that the Bible is for "us" and not for "them"? As Christians, are we so arrogant to think that an unbeliever couldn't offer us insight into the Word if the Lord revealed something to him/her? Isn't it the Lord's choice to speak through His Word to both the believer and the not-yet-believing?]
If the Scripture is not for unbelievers, then we should not use Scripture in evangelism. If it is, we should.
I would say that is pretty practical right there.
Also, I just did a post concerning the dichotomous relationship of the pagan and the Christian.
While I recognize that we do have something in common (humanity), you must likewise recognize that THERE IS a difference between us and them.
There are things that we do that they cannot. They cannot partake of our LORD's body...to name a blatantly important one.
If we take your thinking to its conclusion, there would be no 'church'. As pagan and believer would meet together to 'worship' God no different than when they meet together for PTA meetings.
I would say this question is a very practical one, and that the division between Christian and pagan is one that is true (they are not believers!) and one that is represented within Scripture; therefore one that is not wrong to have.
I SWEAR I only pused that button once!
To all,
WOW! Thanks for the refreshing thoughts and insights! Eric, to your point about "us" vs. "them," I want to make clear that was not the idea behind the statement. It was really more about something Dorsey indicated; that is, unbelievers will not take the time to understand the Bible anyway, if they are not interested.
This is what makes the story about the eunuch so important. He did not understand, but he was interested. He had a desire to know, so Philip could minister to him. Contrast that with the men that stoned Stephen. They completely rejected the truth, and killed the messenger in the process. Kristi really summed up the purpose of the Bible when she said "But I was thinking that the Bible is more of a tool for the believer."
This is not meant to be a tirade, but I am getting to the point of why I posted the statement. I have heard the term "Bible-toting Christians" used very frequently by many unbelievers, and I have come to understand their frustration. Sofyst explained that they cannot hear unless one preaches. The Word needs to be in our hearts, so that like Philip, when the Lord gives us the opportunity, we can open our mouths and preach Jesus, instead of trying to dazzle people with how much Scripture we memorized.
I can say that I learn a great deal when I can read or listen to the thoughts of others. Thank you for contributing.
By the way sofyst, no problem! I consider that an opportunity to reread and get something that I did not get the first time!
We have all heard many stories of people reading the Gospels and coming to Jesus. God speaks to all through His Word and with His Spirit.
The Bible is not for unbelievers. The Bible is not for believers.
The Bible is the expression of His Word and is about the relationship between humanity and the divine.
The Bible is for humans.
I heard a statement a few years ago that sounded a lot like the teaser for this post. It went something like this:
"If a believer sees the Quran in the hands of an infidel it should be ripped away. The book Allah is not for unbelievers!"
Ron, I am patiently and eagerly waiting for the next devotional...
Post a Comment