Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Finis Dake on Interpreting the Bible

[Fit4theKingdom]

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

Well Fit,

I guess you could say - that is your opinion.

I myself don't have one - I just let the Bible speak for itself.

It is a lot less stress that way!

Unless you have a inspired cross reference Bible anytime you use any scripture to support a position, you are offering an opinion. For if you "let the Bible speak for itself" then when then tell me.. where does the Bible SAY there was a pre-Adamic world (which I believe there was) or where does the Bible say the giants of Gen 6 were physical (in size) giants as the result of a sexual union between angels (not the phrase "sons of God") and women?

The Bible DOES NOT clearly state those events. Some people are of the opinion that certain scriptures imply those events and some people use scripture to imply those are untrue. Both positions are of the opinion their opinion is the valid one. Both position say they "let the Bible speak for itself"... and truly the Bible does speak for itself... and in those areas it does not speak directly to.

[Justaned]

It is true that someone can place together a bunch of proof-texts to support any position but I don't see where that is a problem. When the prooftexts are "interpreted" (for lack of a better term) within their context, it can then bet determined whether or not the prooftexts support the doctrine being espoused. For example, in the centuries long "Calvinism versus Arminianism" debate quite often the Calvinists will have numerous proof-texts to support their idea of salvation by predestination. When their prooftexts are thoroughly examined the texts always DISPROVE their doctrine and teach the opposite.

In your opinion. It is their opinion of those that hold to the teaching that the proof texts they provide supports their position when viewed in context.

The same has held true for the "continuation versus cessationism" debate. Cessationists bring prooftexts that don't hold up in the light of the context. So personally, I don't see where the issue is at. There are people who affirm the Trinity and those who deny the Trinity. Anti-Trinitarian doctrine is easily disproven quite often by their own prooftexts. People against an eternal hell (annhilationists, universalists, etc.) have prooftexts but again, their positions are easily disproven when their prooftexts are examined within the context.

Furthermore, if someone's prooftexts contradict other portions of Scripture then it is clear that someone is right and someone else is not understanding the Bible correctly. An examination of all texts pertaining to a subject should resolve that.

Finally, any doctrine of God must be seen in the light of Jesus Christ. If the doctrine doesn't give us a picture of Jesus, then it isn't a true doctrine of God..

First let me say I'm not saying I support any of the positions you mentioned above. So don't accuse me of any.

I do know that in the opinion of those that hold those positions they feel their position is fully supported by scripture. If they didn't they would less than honesty with themselves.

So in effect what you say about them and their position the say and believe the same about your position.

That is the crux of the problem.

All of these topics have been discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed millions of times over the last millennium or two. Both sides are equally knowledgeable, equally sincere, equally faithful, equally spiritual, equally knowledgeable, equal spiritually lead. Yet the difference remains.

[victoryword]

In your opinion. It is their opinion of those that hold to the teaching that the proof texts they provide supports their position when viewed in context.

As I have said, the Calvinist position is easily disproven by the context. However, many will often remain in deception since they could never give up their precious doctrine of a deity who damns people to hell for no other reason then that it glorifies him.

First let me say I'm not saying I support any of the positions you mentioned above. So don't accuse me of any.

I do know that in the opinion of those that hold those positions they feel their position is fully supported by scripture. If they didn't they would less than honesty with themselves.

So in effect what you say about them and their position the say and believe the same about your position.

That is the crux of the problem.

All of these topics have been discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed millions of times over the last millennium or two. Both sides are equally knowledgeable, equally sincere, equally faithful, equally spiritual, equally knowledgeable, equal spiritually lead. Yet the difference remains.

I used to hold to a few "prooftexted" doctrines myself until I examined some of them in the light of the context. I decided that the context went against what I held to so I disgarded the doctrine. I have no sympathy for anyone who hold a doctrinal position that is contradicted by the fuller revelation of Scripture and they refuse to disregard it.

A good example is John MacArthur. In his book, Charismatic Chaos (I haven't read the new book yet but some sources tell me that it is nothing but "Charismatic Chaos" with a new cover) he hardly provides any Biblical support for his position. He primary rehashes Benjamin B. Warfield arguments and notes so-called wierd phenomenon among Pentecostals and Charismatics. That is just deciding to remain in deception.

Otherwise, let us sympathize with Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. They all seriously believe that they have Bible proof for their doctrines as well.

[bibleman]

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

Well Fit,

I guess you could say - that is your opinion.

I myself don't have one - I just let the Bible speak for itself.

It is a lot less stress that way!

Unless you have a inspired cross reference Bible anytime you use any scripture to support a position, you are offering an opinion. For if you "let the Bible speak for itself" then when then tell me.. where does the Bible SAY there was a pre-Adamic world (which I believe there was) or where does the Bible say the giants of Gen 6 were physical (in size) giants as the result of a sexual union between angels (not the phrase "sons of God") and women?

The Bible DOES NOT clearly state those events. Some people are of the opinion that certain scriptures imply those events and some people use scripture to imply those are untrue. Both positions are of the opinion their opinion is the valid one. Both position say they "let the Bible speak for itself"... and truly the Bible does speak for itself... and in those areas it does not speak directly to.

That of course is your opinion. You are welcome to it.

I choose to believe the Bible, just as it is written and letting that become my facts - NOT opinions.

[Justaned]

In your opinion. It is their opinion of those that hold to the teaching that the proof texts they provide supports their position when viewed in context.

As I have said, the Calvinist position is easily disproven by the context. However, many will often remain in deception since they could never give up their precious doctrine of a deity who damns people to hell for no other reason then that it glorifies him.

Again your opinion and one is that is not supported by the facts. If it were true the debate would have been settled years ago. The Calvinist could and do say something similar about your position.

First let me say I'm not saying I support any of the positions you mentioned above. So don't accuse me of any.

I do know that in the opinion of those that hold those positions they feel their position is fully supported by scripture. If they didn't they would less than honesty with themselves.

So in effect what you say about them and their position the say and believe the same about your position.

That is the crux of the problem.

All of these topics have been discussed, debated, argued, hashed and rehashed millions of times over the last millennium or two. Both sides are equally knowledgeable, equally sincere, equally faithful, equally spiritual, equally knowledgeable, equal spiritually lead. Yet the difference remains.

I used to hold to a few "prooftexted" doctrines myself until I examined some of them in the light of the context. I decided that the context went against what I held to so I disgarded the doctrine. I have no sympathy for anyone who hold a doctrinal position that is contradicted by the fuller revelation of Scripture and they refuse to disregard it.

A good example is John MacArthur. In his book, Charismatic Chaos (I haven't read the new book yet but some sources tell me that it is nothing but "Charismatic Chaos" with a new cover) he hardly provides any Biblical support for his position. He primary rehashes Benjamin B. Warfield arguments and notes so-called wierd phenomenon among Pentecostals and Charismatics. That is just deciding to remain in deception.

Otherwise, let us sympathize with Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. They all seriously believe that they have Bible proof for their doctrines as well.

However I believe you do prooftext doctrines that do not have support from the rest of scripture. In my opinion you are still guilty of which you say you abhor.

[Fit4theKingdom]

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

Well Fit,

I guess you could say - that is your opinion.

I myself don't have one - I just let the Bible speak for itself.

It is a lot less stress that way!

Unless you have a inspired cross reference Bible anytime you use any scripture to support a position, you are offering an opinion. For if you "let the Bible speak for itself" then when then tell me.. where does the Bible SAY there was a pre-Adamic world (which I believe there was) or where does the Bible say the giants of Gen 6 were physical (in size) giants as the result of a sexual union between angels (not the phrase "sons of God") and women?

The Bible DOES NOT clearly state those events. Some people are of the opinion that certain scriptures imply those events and some people use scripture to imply those are untrue. Both positions are of the opinion their opinion is the valid one. Both position say they "let the Bible speak for itself"... and truly the Bible does speak for itself... and in those areas it does not speak directly to.

That of course is your opinion. You are welcome to it.

I choose to believe the Bible, just as it is written and letting that become my facts - NOT opinions.

Well -- that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[bibleman]

On Dake's "God's Plan for Man" 8 tape teaching on the Pre-Adamite World, tape 1b at the beginning, he says (from my memory): "In this study I am not going to give you my interpretation one time. I don't have an interpretation. I am just going to tell you what the Bible says and let it go at that."

Indeed Dake tells us what the Bible says.... his implication (opinion) is that the examples he uses supports his opinion. What do you do when someone uses the same principle when holding a different opinion.

For example - people hold differing opinions and support those opinions with scripture for positions such these positions, pre-Adamic world, who were the "giants" of Gen 6, end times, free-will, predestination, just to name a few.

Hi Fit.

First of all, you will be hard stretched to find in the Dake writings where Dake gives an opinion, but that be as it may...

When people hold differing opinions to the Word of God on subjects like the Pre-Adamite world or who the giants were of Gen 6 and etc...

What I do is agree with the WORD OF GOD.

No problem at all.

You see I don;t agree with Dake because he said it... but because he showed me where the BIBLE said it!

Bibleman -- once someone says something to the effect of... these scriptures support this position ...they are offering an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Dake list scriptures to support position "A" -- however there are people who have a different position on that same scripture and they too use scriptures to support their position. At that point the "debate" begins as each side takes comfort in that scripture support them and the "other" sides use of scripture is incorrect.

So, if you do agree with the WORD OF GOD then you admit that one side is using the scripture correctly, the other incorrectly.

However the WHICH SIDE is your OPINION since both sides use the Word of God to support their position.

Well Fit,

I guess you could say - that is your opinion.

I myself don't have one - I just let the Bible speak for itself.

It is a lot less stress that way!

Unless you have a inspired cross reference Bible anytime you use any scripture to support a position, you are offering an opinion. For if you "let the Bible speak for itself" then when then tell me.. where does the Bible SAY there was a pre-Adamic world (which I believe there was) or where does the Bible say the giants of Gen 6 were physical (in size) giants as the result of a sexual union between angels (not the phrase "sons of God") and women?

The Bible DOES NOT clearly state those events. Some people are of the opinion that certain scriptures imply those events and some people use scripture to imply those are untrue. Both positions are of the opinion their opinion is the valid one. Both position say they "let the Bible speak for itself"... and truly the Bible does speak for itself... and in those areas it does not speak directly to.

That of course is your opinion. You are welcome to it.

I choose to believe the Bible, just as it is written and letting that become my facts - NOT opinions.

Well -- that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Correct!

But a 1,000 years being a Millennium is not my opinion - it is a fact!

Revelation 20:1-3 (KJV) 1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

That is the difference - the Bible is fact!

[victoryword]

Again your opinion and one is that is not supported by the facts. If it were true the debate would have been settled years ago. The Calvinist could and do say something similar about your position.

Um, your belief that that this is my "opinion" only because the debate is ongoing? The "Trinity" debate has been going on longer than the Cal/Arm debate (unless you include the Church Fathers debating Gnostics who held beliefs similar to modern day Calvinism) and the debate over Christ's deity (which is often intermixed with the Trinity debate) has gone on the same amount of time. Should it be only my "opinion" that those who deny Christ's deity and the personhood of the Holy Spirit are wrong just because the debate over these issues are still ongoing?

Also, been in many a Calvinist debate. Calvinism is very easy to refute when they have nothing more than the same repetitive arguments. Some of them believe that the doctrine of "God's sovereignty" trumps scripture itself.

However I believe you do prooftext doctrines that do not have support from the rest of scripture. In my opinion you are still guilty of which you say you abhor.

I have no problem with you believing that. However, you have yet to prove it

[Justaned]

Again your opinion and one is that is not supported by the facts. If it were true the debate would have been settled years ago. The Calvinist could and do say something similar about your position.

Um, your belief that that this is my "opinion" only because the debate is ongoing? The "Trinity" debate has been going on longer than the Cal/Arm debate (unless you include the Church Fathers debating Gnostics who held beliefs similar to modern day Calvinism) and the debate over Christ's deity (which is often intermixed with the Trinity debate) has gone on the same amount of time. Should it be only my "opinion" that those who deny Christ's deity and the personhood of the Holy Spirit are wrong just because the debate over these issues are still ongoing?

Also, been in many a Calvinist debate. Calvinism is very easy to refute when they have nothing more than the same repetitive arguments. Some of them believe that the doctrine of "God's sovereignty" trumps scripture itself.

However I believe you do prooftext doctrines that do not have support from the rest of scripture. In my opinion you are still guilty of which you say you abhor.

I have no problem with you believing that. However, you have yet to prove it

Thankfully much of the controversy you mentioned (trinity, deity of Christ etc) was settled by the church and all other positions declared heretical. Unfortunately things like Calvinism was birthed in the Reformation when man threw off all restraint except those they chose to accept.

Forgive me for being brutally honest hear but I hear you on Calvinism debate but unless you have more than you have exhibited here they would have you for lunch.
I know I debated Calvinist for years. And no I will not defend Calvinism to prove how wrong you are.

As far as me not proving something to you, I felt no compulsion or need. What I try to do it to get people to think and let them prove or disproved what they believe to themselves. I believe it has been proved time and time again that if a person is proven to be wrong in a debate they still will not change their position. But if they have any real interest in the truth they will re-explore their beliefs to see if they are valid or not.

I know when I believed as you do, no one on this earth could have convinced me it was wrong. It wasn't until I decided to prove to myself for once and all how wrong everyone else was that I learned how wrong I have been.

[victoryword]

Thankfully much of the controversy you mentioned (trinity, deity of Christ etc) was settled by the church and all other positions declared heretical. Unfortunately things like Calvinism was birthed in the Reformation when man threw off all restraint except those they chose to accept.

Forgive me for being brutally honest hear but I hear you on Calvinism debate but unless you have more than you have exhibited here they would have you for lunch.
I know I debated Calvinist for years. And no I will not defend Calvinism to prove how wrong you are.

As far as me not proving something to you, I felt no compulsion or need. What I try to do it to get people to think and let them prove or disproved what they believe to themselves. I believe it has been proved time and time again that if a person is proven to be wrong in a debate they still will not change their position. But if they have any real interest in the truth they will re-explore their beliefs to see if they are valid or not.

I know when I believed as you do, no one on this earth could have convinced me it was wrong. It wasn't until I decided to prove to myself for once and all how wrong everyone else was that I learned how wrong I have been.

Ed, I almost took this post serious for about five seconds. Perhaps even THAT was too long

Calvinism, a false system of theology with no real Biblical backing having me for lunch? With all of our arguments on this forum where you very seldom allow me the last word you claim to feel no compulsion to prove anything to me? THat's why I love you Ed. Who else could keep me scratching my head wondering?