Isaiah 28 - Do Your Church Teach Bible Line Upon Line, Chapter By Chapter?

[Albion]

So now you've softened your position to one of "In order to understand Scripture, it's necessary to read all of it." I think that, by and large, there's little objection to that idea.

 

[Lees]

In order to understand... the whole of The Bible, it must first be studied line upon line, precept upon precept.

And some look at the Isaiah 28:9-22 Scripture and wrongly think it means NOT to study God's Word "precept upon precept..." when God is using 'their' own mocking words against them when saying that. In the Hebrew their mocking of "precept upon precept..." sounds like a rhythmic song.

In Isaiah 28:24-28, God then uses some agriculture comparisons on how to teach His Word.

Line upon line and precept upon precept is not given as a method of studying the Bible.

It is given as a child's method of learning.

You speak as though you 'understand' the whole of the Bible. Yet you can't answer questions when asked you about your understanding of the Bible.

When you can't answer the questions, it means you can't support your position. And that means your position has no credibility.

In other words, you can ignore my questions to you. But you can't change the impact that your ignoring my questions has upon your position.

It has been my experience, that when one does the study, has gone through the many commentaries and articles on the subject, he can answer all questions concerning his conclusions. But, when one hasn't done the study himself, and only relies on internet knowledge or what others have told him, then when he is asked the questions, he can't answer.

Of course you can prove me wrong by answering my many questions you so far have not answered in your several posts.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

I'm not against Bible topic teaching, don't get me wrong. But a line upon line teaching is the method of the most coverage of God's Word.

Isa 28:13-14
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
KJV

I did not say Bible topic teaching. I said that you can go line by line, but still use other parts of the bible to explain what is happening in those line by lines. The Bible is all connected.

 

[SetFree]

I did not say Bible topic teaching. I said that you can go line by line, but still use other parts of the bible to explain what is happening in those line by lines. The Bible is all connected.

Yes, that's definitely true. And The Companion Bible, a KJV study Bible that the scholar E.W. Bullinger put together in the 19th century, is still the best study Bible available, in my opinion. Bullinger included Scripture references in the margin that links the subject in other Books and chapters. His notes are scholar notes, and not simply opinion commentary like most study Bibles. Just all the info in the Appendixes alone is enough reason to have a copy.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, that's definitely true. And The Companion Bible, a KJV study Bible that the scholar E.W. Bullinger put together in the 19th century, is still the best study Bible available, in my opinion. Bullinger included Scripture references in the margin that links the subject in other Books and chapters. His notes are scholar notes, and not simply opinion commentary like most study Bibles. Just all the info in the Appendixes alone is enough reason to have a copy.

You have a right to your opinion, but the Lutheran Study Bible is more accurate, in my opinion.

 

[SetFree]

You have a right to your opinion, but the Lutheran Study Bible is more accurate, in my opinion.

And you also have a right to your opinion.

 

[SetFree]

Line upon line and precept upon precept is not given as a method of studying the Bible.

It is given as a child's method of learning.

You speak as though you 'understand' the whole of the Bible. Yet you can't answer questions when asked you about your understanding of the Bible.

When you can't answer the questions, it means you can't support your position. And that means your position has no credibility.

In other words, you can ignore my questions to you. But you can't change the impact that your ignoring my questions has upon your position.

It has been my experience, that when one does the study, has gone through the many commentaries and articles on the subject, he can answer all questions concerning his conclusions. But, when one hasn't done the study himself, and only relies on internet knowledge or what others have told him, then when he is asked the questions, he can't answer.

Of course you can prove me wrong by answering my many questions you so far have not answered in your several posts.

My opinion.

Lees

Slanderous posts like the above are good reason to keep on... IGNORING that above person. How bitter such a person must be.

 

[tango]

I can't really agree, since if only a few verses out of a Chapter is covered God's Message in that Chapter can be incomplete. One of the things that God does in His Word is He often puts an anchor point that seals the context in a latter verse of a Chapter, like in Luke 17:37 for example.

One would hope that a preacher presenting the message of Scripture would present, you know, the actual message of Scripture rather than distorting it by pulling some verses out of context. Since it's not really practical to attempt to preach the entire Bible every week we have to accept we're seeing a piece at a time.

Working through the entire Bible line by line as you suggest necessitates taking it a chunk at a time and, absent some moving around in Scripture to draw parallels and address apparent contradictions, creates the exact same problem you are describing while removing a clear means of addressing it.

 

[SetFree]

One would hope that a preacher presenting the message of Scripture would present, you know, the actual message of Scripture rather than distorting it by pulling some verses out of context. Since it's not really practical to attempt to preach the entire Bible every week we have to accept we're seeing a piece at a time.

I still disagree, because there aren't that many Churches today that actually cover God's Word line upon line, chapter by chapter. Not doing it that way at all opens up a pathway for man's philosophy to creep into the teaching of God's Word and blindly calling... it God's Word. And I don't think I need to give a lot of prove of that, because all one need do is look at all the private denominational creeds taught by different denominations that conflict with The Bible, and each other.

A Christian brother came up to me one day when I was speaking of this matter in Isaiah 28, and he asked me how to find out about this matter in his Church. I said why not ask his Sunday School teacher if he could begin at Genesis 1 and go all the way through The Bible. He came back and told me his teacher laughed at him, and said something like, "You must think we have all the time in the world!"

Working through the entire Bible line by line as you suggest necessitates taking it a chunk at a time and, absent some moving around in Scripture to draw parallels and address apparent contradictions, creates the exact same problem you are describing while removing a clear means of addressing it.

Still no excuse. They have The Bible, but many Churches instead teach out of Church Quarterlies written by their denominational organization, trusting in the organization instead of directly teaching line upon line, chapter by chapter from God's Word.

I asked the pastor over my boy's Christian school about a certain doctrine, that if the school taught that. He avoided direct answer and just told me that in seminary they tell you to stay with teaching the "milk", and if anyone asks a question about a controversial section of The Bible, to get them back on the "milk" of God's Word. I later found out that the school did... teach the kids the specific doctrine I asked about, so I pulled my boys out of that place.

 

[SetFree]

Here's some side notes on Isaiah 28, the precept upon precept idea, that the 19th century British Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger put in his KJV study Bible called The Companion Bible.

Isaiah 28:10
For = For [say they] mimicking the prophet as though he were teaching little children in a school.

must be: or, [hath been]. The verse then reads:

"For it is zav lazav
kav lakav, kav lakav
ze'er sham, ze'er sham.

(from E. W. Bullinger's Companion Bible: Notes and Appendices. Biblesoft Formatted Electronic Database Copyright © 2014 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

________________________________________

Isaiah 28:13
was = became. Giving back to the scoffers their own words (from Isa 28:10) in the form of a threatening.

might = may.

fall backward, &c. Note the Figure of speech Synonymia, by which the similar words are heaped together to impress on them the solemnity and certainty of the judgment.

taken = caught.

(from E. W. Bullinger's Companion Bible: Notes and Appendices. Biblesoft Formatted Electronic Database Copyright © 2014 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

_________________________________________________

And again, God's Message to those teachers in Jerusalem is easy to grasp with what He said to them... for not using the precept upon precept, line upon line approach to study and teaching of His Word...

Isa 28:13-14
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
KJV

In other words, God's Word "was unto them", those God was reprimanding in Jerusalem, like a 'stone of stumbling', so they might "fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."



Back in Isaiah 8 is where God first warned of this idea of His Word being like a stone of stumbling to them...

Isa 8:12-15
12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, "A confederacy"; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.

14 And He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
KJV

 

[SetFree]

Apostle Peter explains the meaning of that 'stone of stumbling' from Isaiah per the New Covenant...

1 Peter 2:1-8
2 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4 To Whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, "Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded."

7 Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
KJV


Thus God's Message from Isaiah 8 and 28 is to both... houses of Israel, which means the ten lost tribes of Israel, and the Jews of the house of Judah. And the warning to them particularly, is to stay in God's Word precept upon precept, line upon line, so that His Word does NOT... become a "stone of stumbling", and causes one to stumble, and fall backward, and be taken (i.e, taken in deception).

This is especially why Lord Jesus Christ gave His faithful Church the SIGNS of the end to be watching of this world leading up to His future return while He was upon the Mount of Olives with His disciples. That is for ALL... Churches today to study line upon line (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; in conjunction with the Seals of Revelation 6).

 

[SetFree]

Then some might also say about that Isaiah Scripture about that stumbling at God's Word, "Well, that's not meant for Christ's Church. It's for the Jews of Israel. And Peter was talking to his Jewish brethren, and not us believing Gentiles." WRONG!

2 Peter 2:1-3
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
KJV


Apostle Peter above is definitely... speaking to ALL of Christ's Church. Apostle Paul also gave the same type of warning to the Church (See Romans 16:17-18; Titus 1:10-16).


Jude 4
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

 

[tango]

I still disagree, because there aren't that many Churches today that actually cover God's Word line upon line, chapter by chapter. Not doing it that way at all opens up a pathway for man's philosophy to creep into the teaching of God's Word and blindly calling... it God's Word. And I don't think I need to give a lot of prove of that, because all one need do is look at all the private denominational creeds taught by different denominations that conflict with The Bible, and each other.

However the Bible is taught it's open to man's (mis)interpretation, unless the congregation takes some responsibility for themselves. As you say there are many different denominations and in many cases I suspect the differences between them really aren't all that important.

A Christian brother came up to me one day when I was speaking of this matter in Isaiah 28, and he asked me how to find out about this matter in his Church. I said why not ask his Sunday School teacher if he could begin at Genesis 1 and go all the way through The Bible. He came back and told me his teacher laughed at him, and said something like, "You must think we have all the time in the world!"

How long do you think it would take to go through the entire Bible, line by line, when you only have 20-30 minutes per week to do it? Reading the Bible in its entirety is something people should be doing but expecting someone else to do it for you isn't helpful. And as I said even if you do go through line by line there's the potential for man to misinterpret each individual line, especially if you don't also jump around to address other expressions of similar ideas or apparent contradictions. To take a simple example, if you're going through line by line and come across the four horses in Zechariah, how many people will even still remember it when you come across the four horses in Revelation? There's a lot of ground between the two. On the other hand if you were teaching about the four horses you could use both references and any others as appropriate.

Still no excuse. They have The Bible, but many Churches instead teach out of Church Quarterlies written by their denominational organization, trusting in the organization instead of directly teaching line upon line, chapter by chapter from God's Word.

This is a different issue entirely. Teaching from a newsletter may be an issue but that doesn't mean any other particular form is inherently better or worse.

I asked the pastor over my boy's Christian school about a certain doctrine, that if the school taught that. He avoided direct answer and just told me that in seminary they tell you to stay with teaching the "milk", and if anyone asks a question about a controversial section of The Bible, to get them back on the "milk" of God's Word. I later found out that the school did... teach the kids the specific doctrine I asked about, so I pulled my boys out of that place.

This is also an unrelated issue. Churches with doctrines they'd rather not advertise will continue to hold them whatever method of teaching Scripture they use. If they go through the Bible verse-by-verse they'll spin and twist the text to support their preferred doctrine as they go. If a church is going to twist Scripture to say what they want it to say rather than what it actually says they'll do it whether they use topic-based teaching or work through something a verse at a time.

 

[SetFree]

However the Bible is taught it's open to man's (mis)interpretation, unless the congregation takes some responsibility for themselves. As you say there are many different denominations and in many cases I suspect the differences between them really aren't all that important.

I'd like to believe that, but God's Word doesn't teach that; recall what Apostle Paul taught about the creeping in of "a little leaven" that does what?

How long do you think it would take to go through the entire Bible, line by line, when you only have 20-30 minutes per week to do it? Reading the Bible in its entirety is something people should be doing but expecting someone else to do it for you isn't helpful. And as I said even if you do go through line by line there's the potential for man to misinterpret each individual line, especially if you don't also jump around to address other expressions of similar ideas or apparent contradictions. To take a simple example, if you're going through line by line and come across the four horses in Zechariah, how many people will even still remember it when you come across the four horses in Revelation? There's a lot of ground between the two. On the other hand if you were teaching about the four horses you could use both references and any others as appropriate.

Like Apostle Paul said, a little leaven leaventh the whole lump, so the various denominational creeds that divide the Church does matter.

It still comes down to whether the believer actually wants to know what God's Word says 'as written', or not. Remember how Apostle Paul commended those at Berea that had copies of God's Word and took the time to check Paul out what he was teaching. And Paul admonished Timothy to study to show himself approved of God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

How can a believer learn to become a "workman" in God's Word like Apostle Paul said?

Like any other subject, one must discipline their self in study. That's actually the meaning of the word 'disciple', it's from the word for discipline.

And think about it, especially for folks in the western nations. We have a standard public education of how many years? In the United States it is on average of 12 years of schooling to graduate High School, and then if one attends university, that's another 4 years for a degree. Another 2-3 years for a masters degree, and even more for a doctorate degree. But in comparison, how much time and discipline does the average Bible believer devote to line upon line Bible study??

I believe more brethren would do more line upon line Bible study for their selves if they weren't afraid of wrong interpretation. Thus they instead rely on those who are supposed to be educated in God's Word, which there's nothing wrong with that, but our Heavenly Father and His Son is Who we especially need to ask for understanding in His Word. The reason why many brethren can't understand God's Word is because they don't ask Him for it. God is Who must open our spiritual eyes so we can see, and our spiritual ears so that we can hear. Man's education system can help, but true understanding only comes from God by The Holy Spirit. We should remember that not all Christ's Apostles were educated, yet they understood God's Word because Lord Jesus showed them.

 

[tango]

I'd like to believe that, but God's Word doesn't teach that; recall what Apostle Paul taught about the creeping in of "a little leaven" that does what?

What's your point here? We're not talking about a little leaven, we're talking about people taking some responsibility for themselves. Where does the Bible say we can't have different groups meeting based on differences of opinion in the things that don't matter? To take a simple example, since the Bible doesn't state whether we should use contemporary or traditional songs (which were themselves contemporary at one time), can't we form different groups based on our preferences?

Like Apostle Paul said, a little leaven leaventh the whole lump, so the various denominational creeds that divide the Church does matter.

It really depends on the nature and the extent of the division. If you go to church A and I go to church B because you prefer contemporary music and I prefer traditional hymns, why does that have to be a problem? If your church members and my church members refuse to accept that the others are brothers and sisters in Christ based on a preference that is a different matter entirely.

It still comes down to whether the believer actually wants to know what God's Word says 'as written', or not. Remember how Apostle Paul commended those at Berea that had copies of God's Word and took the time to check Paul out what he was teaching. And Paul admonished Timothy to study to show himself approved of God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

How can a believer learn to become a "workman" in God's Word like Apostle Paul said?

Like any other subject, one must discipline their self in study. That's actually the meaning of the word 'disciple', it's from the word for discipline.

All this is well and good but has nothing to do with the original premise. How does one study? By looking at the whole. That takes time and requires a degree of cross-referencing. Starting at the beginning and working through to the end creates the exact same problems with context and understanding the bigger picture that you complained about in the beginning when discussing churches that don't do that precise thing.

And think about it, especially for folks in the western nations. We have a standard public education of how many years? In the United States it is on average of 12 years of schooling to graduate High School, and then if one attends university, that's another 4 years for a degree. Another 2-3 years for a masters degree, and even more for a doctorate degree. But in comparison, how much time and discipline does the average Bible believer devote to line upon line Bible study??

I'm really not seeing what point you're making here. You started out insisting the Bible be taught line by line and now you're fussing about what time an average person (whatever that means in this context) spends studying. You've shifted the focus entirely and, for good measure, made your question about line by line study as if any other form of study is invalid.

I believe more brethren would do more line upon line Bible study for their selves if they weren't afraid of wrong interpretation. Thus they instead rely on those who are supposed to be educated in God's Word, which there's nothing wrong with that, but our Heavenly Father and His Son is Who we especially need to ask for understanding in His Word. The reason why many brethren can't understand God's Word is because they don't ask Him for it. God is Who must open our spiritual eyes so we can see, and our spiritual ears so that we can hear. Man's education system can help, but true understanding only comes from God by The Holy Spirit. We should remember that not all Christ's Apostles were educated, yet they understood God's Word because Lord Jesus showed them.

... and now you've come full circle to the presupposition that line-by-line is the only way to do it, with lots more words that don't really support one side or the other.

 

[Frankj]

"It really depends on the nature and the extent of the division. If you go to church A and I go to church B because you prefer contemporary music and I prefer traditional hymns, why does that have to be a problem? If your church members and my church members refuse to accept that the others are brothers and sisters in Christ based on a preference that is a different matter entirely."


I post this for consideration as we converse, but do not claim authorship of it:

When Jesus said, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them," he wasn't just talking about physical presence. It's about a shared intention, a collective focus on his teachings and spirit. Imagine a group of friends, not necessarily religious, but deeply connected by values like compassion and forgiveness, values that resonate with Jesus's teachings. When they come together, supporting each other, embodying those values, that's a gathering in his name, even if they don't realize it.

This has profound implications for Christian life. It means church isn't confined to a building or a formal service. It's about living those values in everyday interactions. It's in the quiet act of forgiving someone who wronged you, the courage to stand up for justice, the simple act of listening with empathy to a friend in need. In those moments, Christ's presence is as real as if he were physically there.

This understanding liberates us from rigid interpretations of faith. It encourages us to see the sacred in the ordinary, to find God in the connections we forge and the values we uphold. It's a call to make our lives a living embodiment of Jesus's teachings, turning every interaction into a potential encounter with the divine.

 

[tango]

"It really depends on the nature and the extent of the division. If you go to church A and I go to church B because you prefer contemporary music and I prefer traditional hymns, why does that have to be a problem? If your church members and my church members refuse to accept that the others are brothers and sisters in Christ based on a preference that is a different matter entirely."


I post this for consideration as we converse, but do not claim authorship of it:

When Jesus said, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them," he wasn't just talking about physical presence. It's about a shared intention, a collective focus on his teachings and spirit. Imagine a group of friends, not necessarily religious, but deeply connected by values like compassion and forgiveness, values that resonate with Jesus's teachings. When they come together, supporting each other, embodying those values, that's a gathering in his name, even if they don't realize it.

This has profound implications for Christian life. It means church isn't confined to a building or a formal service. It's about living those values in everyday interactions. It's in the quiet act of forgiving someone who wronged you, the courage to stand up for justice, the simple act of listening with empathy to a friend in need. In those moments, Christ's presence is as real as if he were physically there.

This understanding liberates us from rigid interpretations of faith. It encourages us to see the sacred in the ordinary, to find God in the connections we forge and the values we uphold. It's a call to make our lives a living embodiment of Jesus's teachings, turning every interaction into a potential encounter with the divine.

That's an interesting idea. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the concept that "gathered" doesn't mean physically gathered but would entirely accept that gathering doesn't necessarily mean anything like what we currently call church. The second paragraph is very good - it's about how we live rather than whether we attend a specific building at a specific time. There are people who attend church for an hour every week and then live the other 167 hours as if that one hour meant nothing to them. Then there are people who seldom set foot in a regular church but whose Christian life would put mine to shame.

I think there's a very real malaise within the Christian community that thinks Being In Church is the ultimate goal. The line has been going around for decades that I know of that sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a stable makes you a horse, and yet still people persist in this idea that getting people to attend church is the ultimate goal. So when Jesus said "go into the world" we focus on staying right where we are but inviting people to come and join us where we are. We don't meet people where they are because we're too insistent that they jump through the hoops we specify. And for good measure the way we do church these days very often means turn up, sit down, shut up for an hour, then go home. The person at the front says "and now it's time to greet your neighbor" so we put on our best fake smile as we shake the hand of the person sitting one pew in front of us, then go back to ignoring them for the rest of the service. Because it's so important to us to have the proverbial bums on seats we'll even pull bait-and-switch tactics to get people physically into the church because, you know, if that's the only way to get them to hear the message it's worth it. And then, having pumped people full of fake Christianity, we wonder why they are inoculated against the real Jesus.

Years ago I attended church with a lady whose husband wasn't a Christian. He didn't mind her attending church, he didn't mind her taking their kids to church, but he wasn't interested. The way she talked about trying to get him to come to church you'd be forgiven for thinking that the minute he stepped off the church premises God became impotent, unable to reach him. One day I was talking with her about how she was praying for him and her attempts to get him into the church, and commented that God can reach him where he is just as easily as if he was in the church. She looked as if all the lights had suddenly come on, and that God has just as much power outside the church building as inside it.

We shouldn't forsake gathering but gathering doesn't mean church, as you (or the author you quote) very rightly says. Gathering might mean meeting a friend for support, it might mean a couple of guys enjoying fellowship over a couple of beers and a pizza, it might mean a small Bible study group. It might mean attending a church as the word is traditionally understood. It could be any or all of those things.

 

[Frankj]

That's an interesting idea. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the concept that "gathered" doesn't mean physically gathered but would entirely accept that gathering doesn't necessarily mean anything like what we currently call church. The second paragraph is very good - it's about how we live rather than whether we attend a specific building at a specific time. There are people who attend church for an hour every week and then live the other 167 hours as if that one hour meant nothing to them. Then there are people who seldom set foot in a regular church but whose Christian life would put mine to shame.

I think there's a very real malaise within the Christian community that thinks Being In Church is the ultimate goal. The line has been going around for decades that I know of that sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a stable makes you a horse, and yet still people persist in this idea that getting people to attend church is the ultimate goal. So when Jesus said "go into the world" we focus on staying right where we are but inviting people to come and join us where we are. We don't meet people where they are because we're too insistent that they jump through the hoops we specify. And for good measure the way we do church these days very often means turn up, sit down, shut up for an hour, then go home. The person at the front says "and now it's time to greet your neighbor" so we put on our best fake smile as we shake the hand of the person sitting one pew in front of us, then go back to ignoring them for the rest of the service. Because it's so important to us to have the proverbial bums on seats we'll even pull bait-and-switch tactics to get people physically into the church because, you know, if that's the only way to get them to hear the message it's worth it. And then, having pumped people full of fake Christianity, we wonder why they are inoculated against the real Jesus.

Years ago I attended church with a lady whose husband wasn't a Christian. He didn't mind her attending church, he didn't mind her taking their kids to church, but he wasn't interested. The way she talked about trying to get him to come to church you'd be forgiven for thinking that the minute he stepped off the church premises God became impotent, unable to reach him. One day I was talking with her about how she was praying for him and her attempts to get him into the church, and commented that God can reach him where he is just as easily as if he was in the church. She looked as if all the lights had suddenly come on, and that God has just as much power outside the church building as inside it.

We shouldn't forsake gathering but gathering doesn't mean church, as you (or the author you quote) very rightly says. Gathering might mean meeting a friend for support, it might mean a couple of guys enjoying fellowship over a couple of beers and a pizza, it might mean a small Bible study group. It might mean attending a church as the word is traditionally understood. It could be any or all of those things.

I am in agreement with you on this, Amen.

 

[SetFree]

....

And like Apostle Paul said 1 Corinthians 1 that we all in Christ should be speaking the same thing. That certainly does not mean it's OK for each to have a different opinion about the true interpretation of God's Word. There is only one True interpretation of God's Word, and it is per what God determines. Let me explain further...


We are to allow God's Word to interpret God's Word, the example being two or more witnesses to establish every word. So those who introduce a foreign idea into the reading of The Bible, which has no Biblical witness, or that flat denies a Scripture as written, reveals the devil's working. What can we do then? This is where the Great Equalizer steps in, The Holy Spirit. The Word of God was written via The Holy Spirit, and He is required in order for us to properly understand His Word. Age of Reason type thinking is only useful up to a point. This is why many brethren never progress to the "strong meat" of God's Word. They are kept on the "milk" of God's Word, trusting in their Church organization or some man's opinion.

It really depends on the nature and the extent of the division. If you go to church A and I go to church B because you prefer contemporary music and I prefer traditional hymns, why does that have to be a problem? If your church members and my church members refuse to accept that the others are brothers and sisters in Christ based on a preference that is a different matter entirely.

If that means those are small matters, then it shouldn't be something that 'creates' a division in the Body of Christ. Yet that's exactly what those kind of small matters have done throughout Christian history.

All this is well and good but has nothing to do with the original premise. How does one study? By looking at the whole. That takes time and requires a degree of cross-referencing. Starting at the beginning and working through to the end creates the exact same problems with context and understanding the bigger picture that you complained about in the beginning when discussing churches that don't do that precise thing.

I wouldn't be so quick to pass line upon line Bible study off, because that is the method which God is recommending in that Isaiah 28 Chapter. He is simply using the mocking words of those leaders at Jerusalem against themselves, as they are complaining that His Word must be, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little, as if they were like little children.

And because TRUE Bible study of His Word is that way, precept upon precept, line upon line... for that reason those leaders at Jerusalem would fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. (put for taken in deception)


And complainers here instead come along trying... to counter what God Himself showed in that Isaiah 28 chapter about how to study and teach His Word...


Isa 28:9-25
9 Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

The above is where Apostle Paul was drawing from in Hebrews 5 when he rebuked brethren there for still being on the "milk" of God's Word when they should have become teachers themselves and on the "strong meat" of The Word.


10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom He said, "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."

That His Word, "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a litte;", would be that "rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest"?

YES! God's Word line upon line, LET GOD SPEAK to His people, not some slicer-dicer of His Word that never gets around to actually teaching what God says in His Word as written!


13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

And there it is above, God using their own mocking against what He says about His Word being "precept upon precept, ...".


15 Because ye have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:"

The result of their mocking and tomfoolery with His Word is that instead of entering into His Rest, they instead have made a covenant with death, and are in agreement with hell itself, and even think themselves so high and mighty that when that overflowing scourge shall pass through, they believe it shall not harm them! This rebuke from GOD to them is a little like His rebuke against the false preachers in Ezekiel 13 that hunt souls to make them fly (i.e. push man's false doctrine of a pre-trib rapture theory).

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act.

Those who have actually studied... enough of their Bible ought to easily grasp what timing and future event God is pointing to in the above. It is about His future judgment on the last day of this present world when that symbolic "stone" Jesus Christ returns, and His "consuming fire" and hail will destroy man's works off this earth.


22 Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth.

That further confirms God is pointing to the end of this present world with the above.

23 Give ye ear, and hear My voice; hearken, and hear My speech.
24 Doth the plowman plow all day to sow? doth he open and break the clods of his ground?
25 When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast in the principal wheat and the appointed barley and rie in their place?
KJV

In this latter section of the Isaiah 28 Chapter, God is using agricultural examples of how to approach the teaching of His Word. Does a plowman continually plow the ground and never get around to sowing the actual seed into the ground? That's what God is asking above.

Comparing that with the teaching of His Word, is the Bible teacher to continually plow the same ground, over and over and over again, and never getting to the actual sowing of the 'seed'? What did Lord Jesus say to Peter when He asked if Peter loved Him? "Feed My sheep".

So talk by those who make excuses, like, "How much time do you think we have to teach God's Word line upon line?", are just excuses.

 

[Frankj]

"If that means those are small matters, then it shouldn't be something that 'creates' a division in the Body of Christ. Yet that's exactly what those kind of small matters have done throughout Christian history."

And the Devil knows this and exploits it to the max in ways we don't even realize he is doing while he does it.

This is how he prevents the Church from exercising the full power Christ brought to us, by fighting among ourselves over that which is petty instead of agreement among us, being of a single mind about it.

Because if we are in complete agreement on something we can actually do those things Jesus told us we could do and that would mean the end of his, the Devil's, power on earth.