Those Scripures Not Meant for Me

[heisenburg]

I am hearing this line of logic more and more frequently from various protestant ministers…

For example, I have heard some say Hebrews was meant for the Jews… Since Christians are not Jews, It is not meant for us.

Or…

When the Bible talks about sin, it is only referring to those not saved. Any passages dealing with sin don’t apply to Christians.

Often, it seems these are used to prove that those that do not agree with their theology, and question it are wrong…

My question is simple, why would anyone want to claim that scripture is not meant for them (or at least parts of it) Is this not a sign of one deceiving themselves?

In Christ

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I suspect it is for the same reason Martin Luther tried to remove the books of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation from his Bible - because they are/were too damning of Protestant ideas like Sola Fide.

They don’t agree, so they don’t count. I think Luther even called James an “epistle of straw” when he finally agreed to put it back into his version of the Bible.

Chris

 

[thessalonian]

Basing their understanding of scripture on a theology rather than their theology on scripture. They can’t see they are doing this however because they lack parts Sacred Oral Tradition (they do accept some SOT, though they won’t admit it) which illuminates scripture and so their own minds and traditions form a theology which they use along with scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

I would think that would reflect the views of those who believe in Dispensationalism. To them the Jews are under one dispensation and Christians are under another. To them parts of the Bible speak to the Jewish dispensation and others to the Christian. They basically call the church age as a parenthesis in the 70 weeks in Daniel that occurs between the 69th and 70th weeks. Since he Jews denied Christ the Gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles instead as a new dispensation.

I hope that description is accurate. I am not a Dispensationalist and am not an expert on it.

 

[mercygate]

I would think that would reflect the views of those who believe in Dispensationalism. To them the Jews are under one dispensation and Christians are under another. To them parts of the Bible speak to the Jewish dispensation and others to the Christian. They basically call the church age as a parenthesis in the 70 weeks in Daniel that occurs between the 69th and 70th weeks. Since he Jews denied Christ the Gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles instead as a new dispensation.

I hope that description is accurate. I am not a Dispensationalist and am not an expert on it.

That is my understanding – as another not-ardent follower of the issue. These views are often coupled with the idea that the covenant with Israel applies to the current state of Israel.

 

[ChangingHeart]

It is true that there are parts of the Bible that do not apply to us, such as the dietary, animal sacrifice, and burnt offerings laws of the Old Testament. Also, our very first Pope declared Genesis 17:9-14 to be no longer necessary, at least not in the literal sense that it was being applied. (Read Acts 15 for more exciting details!!!)

 

[heisenburg]

Yes… and I agree… But what about people that claim there are parts of the NEW Testament. I don’t know of any part of the New Testament that isn’t worthy for Christians, yet there are those that say pieces are, Like those that say any time that the NT talks about sin, it is not directed at Christians.

In Christ

 

[mercygate]

Yes… and I agree… But what about people that claim there are parts of the NEW Testament. I don’t know of any part of the New Testament that isn’t worthy for Christians, yet there are those that say pieces are, Like those that say any time that the NT talks about sin, it is not directed at Christians.

In Christ

I suppose those people would be those who believe that once you are in Christ you no longer sin.

 

[guanophore]

It is true that there are parts of the Bible that do not apply to us, such as the dietary, animal sacrifice, and burnt offerings laws of the Old Testament. Also, our very first Pope declared Genesis 17:9-14 to be no longer necessary, at least not in the literal sense that it was being applied. (Read Acts 15 for more exciting details!!!)

I think it is erroneous to say that they 'don’t apply". The dietary and sacrificial laws apply to us differently. The same is true for circumcision, which is still necessary. This covenantal sign is fulfilled for christians in baptism, which is a cirucumcision of the heart. It would be difficult to understand the whole meaning of baptism without Genesis.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes… and I agree… But what about people that claim there are parts of the NEW Testament. I don’t know of any part of the New Testament that isn’t worthy for Christians, yet there are those that say pieces are, Like those that say any time that the NT talks about sin, it is not directed at Christians.

In Christ

Although certain books were written for certain groups, for those that think it eliminates any need for them is asinine.

How many of the NT books were written specifically for 21st century Americans? That’s where this line of reasoning leads to.

 

[heisenburg]

And that is sorta my driving point… I understand that Hebrews was written for the Jewish people, but to say it has no meaning to a non Jew is ridiculous.

What started this was that I recently asked a OSAS individual of whom I have had MANY MANY pleasant conversations with about Blaspheming the Holy Spirit and how OSAS reconciles this…

To those not familiar with that passage, in the bible it says that for someone who blasphemes the HS, no sacrifice is left… In other words, We become separated from God, No longer saved. Obviously a problem for the more strict OSAS believers as he is.

Anyway, his response was… That only applied to those in Apostolic times… I don’t know how someone COULD blaspheme the HS today, especially if they are a Christian.

It really does scare me that people are taught that if it isn’t directly to you, that you can ignore that verse.

(My thought though of course was how can you be separated if you were never a part of to begin with, but didn’t feel the conversation was appropriate at that time…)

Anyway… just my thoughts concerns

In Christ

 

[guanophore]

I am hearing this line of logic more and more frequently from various protestant ministers…

For example, I have heard some say Hebrews was meant for the Jews… Since Christians are not Jews, It is not meant for us.

Or…

When the Bible talks about sin, it is only referring to those not saved. Any passages dealing with sin don’t apply to Christians.

Often, it seems these are used to prove that those that do not agree with their theology, and question it are wrong…

My question is simple, why would anyone want to claim that scripture is not meant for them (or at least parts of it) Is this not a sign of one deceiving themselves?

In Christ

Here is a post from one such person:

Pax, you still fail to understand that although all Scripture is written for you, not all Scripture is necessarily written about you.

I learned from him that Hebrews does not apply to Gentile Christians, that it was written to the Jews, and that is why all the references to apostacy are irrelevant.

 

[puzzleannie]

I meant for us.

Or…
My question is simple, why would anyone want to claim that scripture is not meant for them (or at least parts of it) Is this not a sign of one deceiving themselves?

In Christ

you could simply ask them where they found the arrogance to deny God’s holy Word, and where in Scripture (since they no doubt profess sola scriptura) is their personal exemption written.

 

[heisenburg]

Though I do not wish to ‘call any one out’ one poster on here just posted this in reference to Mat 25

That passage is not taking about our salvation. It is taking about judgment of individual Gentiles at the Christ’s second return. This is not a general judgment of all men to determine their entrance into the eternal state.This judgment precisely describes the judgment of the world at the beginning of Christ’s millennial kingdom.

It seems this particular poster believes that any judgment deals only with Gentiles, and not everyone. In other words, it does not apply to him/her.

It is this type of shady logic I am calling out and questioning.

In Christ

 

[Cardinalsong]

I don’t recall anyone mentioning any NT scripture that doesn’t apply to them. However there have been many people I’ve spoken to that tell me that the OT no longer applies since this is the ‘Old’ covenant.

While that is partially true that does not mean that the OT does not apply. It means that that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled by Christ’s death and resurrection. So all scripture applies to us in one way or another.

:twocents:

JMJ

 

[Zooey]

I would think that would reflect the views of those who believe in Dispensationalism. To them the Jews are under one dispensation and Christians are under another. To them parts of the Bible speak to the Jewish dispensation and others to the Christian. They basically call the church age as a parenthesis in the 70 weeks in Daniel that occurs between the 69th and 70th weeks. Since he Jews denied Christ the Gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles instead as a new dispensation.

I hope that description is accurate. I am not a Dispensationalist and am not an expert on it.

Yes, this is accurate! It is one of the biggest weaknesses of Dispensationalism…(Former Dispensationalist here…There is something about reading the whole Bible, in context, that will make a Dispensationalist view look less & less accurate…)
I think that the biggest problem that comes to mind here, is, what happens when we all start throwing out the parts that we don’t like, as “not applying to me”…(I can think of a couple of the 10 commandments that would go pretty fast for most folks, if we are honest…and pretty soon, no Bible is left!!)

 

[moondweller]

I would think that would reflect the views of those who believe in Dispensationalism. To them the Jews are under one dispensation and Christians are under another. To them parts of the Bible speak to the Jewish dispensation and others to the Christian. They basically call the church age as a parenthesis in the 70 weeks in Daniel that occurs between the 69th and 70th weeks. Since he Jews denied Christ the Gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles instead as a new dispensation.

I hope that description is accurate. I am not a Dispensationalist and am not an expert on it.

Your hope is futile because this is not accurate at all. If you’re going to comment on Dispensationalism you really should first study it. There is no such thing as a “Jewish Dispensation” in Dispensationalism, nor does it teach that “the Jews” denied Christ (the Church was at first all Jewish, as were the Apostles themselves) and so the Gospel was preached to Gentiles instead. You’re WAAAAAY off.

 

[NotWorthy]

Your hope is futile because this is not accurate at all. If you’re going to comment on Dispensationalism you really should first study it. There is no such thing as a “Jewish Dispensation” in Dispensationalism, nor does it teach that “the Jews” denied Christ (the Church was at first all Jewish, as were the Apostles themselves) and so the Gospel was preached to Gentiles instead. You’re WAAAAAY off.

If he is innacurate, you could try and correct him in a more gentle way. That attitude isn’t going to make many friends.

 

[moondweller]

If he is innacurate, you could try and correct him in a more gentle way. That attitude isn’t going to make many friends.

I had no idea I came across harshly. Sorry about that. As for correcting him, it would be easier for him to read up on it, preferably literature by Dispensationalists.

 

[NotWorthy]

I had no idea I came across harshly. Sorry about that. As for correcting him, it would be easier for him to read up on it, preferably literature by Dispensationalists.

If you’re going to comment on Dispensationalism you really should first study it. … You’re WAAAAAY off.

I don’t know. There may be a kinder and gentler way of putting this.