10 most common Scripture twistings

[kalawine]

One of the most abused verses is "let the children come unto me" and somehow supporting infant baptism from that.

As much as I respect the Confessor (brilliant young man isn't he?) Jesus said, "Let the children come unto me" because his disciples were rebuking those bringing the children to him and sending the children away.

I would say this still provides evidence for children's being in the covenant community, but we can just leave it at this. Thank you for the compliment.

Maybe I've been too hasty. I think I know how you're applying it now. I'd like to see another thread on that subject.

 

[Confessor]

Maybe I've been too hasty. I think I know how you're applying it now. I'd like to see another thread on that subject.

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to make a watertight paedobaptist argument for it. But I just figured it wasn't an example of Scripture-twisting. It may be mistaken, but not an overblown mistake.

 

[kalawine]

Maybe I've been too hasty. I think I know how you're applying it now. I'd like to see another thread on that subject.

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to make a watertight paedobaptist argument for it. But I just figured it wasn't an example of Scripture-twisting. It may be mistaken, but not an overblown mistake.

Well, I've heard it used before and it didn't appeal to me. But that could just be because it wasn't presented very well or because I was missing something (which in my case is very possible if not likely ).

Now you've got me wanting to dig into it. Thanks! I needed a subject to jump on!

 

[Denton Elliott]

I wanted to start a list of what people thought were the 10 most common exegetical mistakes. That is, the 10 most often mis-interpreted scripture quotes/usages. I will start the list with several I am thinking of...

1) Matthew 18:20

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

2) Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

3) Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

4) Revelation 3:15-17

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

5) Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

6) 2 Opinions 2:1-2

You have a god-shaped whole in your heart. So just ask Jesus into your heart.

So here are my abbreviated answers to how these are incorrectly used...

1) should be in context with church discipline,
2) should be in context with evangelism and speaking the Gospel to people while in the midst of being persecuted (not with boxing ),
3) is talking about the state of a man's eternal soul,
4) hot is good and cold is good...people keep saying that hot is good and cold is bad. It has to do with the good use of the hot and cold waters from the surrounding cities and after it is piped in to Laodecia it is lukewarm and nasty. Jesus would rather we be for him (hot or cold) and not on the fence (lukewarm),
5) should be in context with a repentant church (i.e. believers) and not used for calling the unregenerate.

 

[Confessor]

4) hot is good and cold is good...people keep saying that hot is good and cold is bad. It has to do with the good use of the hot and cold waters from the surrounding cities and after it is piped in to Laodecia it is lukewarm and nasty. Jesus would rather we be for him (hot or cold) and not on the fence (lukewarm),

I thought "cold" referred to full-fledged unbelief, and that Christ hated lukewarmness because it reproaches His name. People don't think bad of Christ when they see atheism, but they do when they see garbage done in the name of Christ.

Actually, yeah, your explanation makes more sense. I remember a sermon where the preacher described the cold and hot water of other towns as good and Laodicea's water as lukewarm, tepid, and stale. But on the other hand, how can we say lukewarm is "on the fence" if hot and cold represent the same thing?

 

[Denton Elliott]

4) hot is good and cold is good...people keep saying that hot is good and cold is bad. It has to do with the good use of the hot and cold waters from the surrounding cities and after it is piped in to Laodecia it is lukewarm and nasty. Jesus would rather we be for him (hot or cold) and not on the fence (lukewarm),

I thought "cold" referred to full-fledged unbelief, and that Christ hated lukewarmness because it reproaches His name. People don't think bad of Christ when they see atheism, but they do when they see garbage done in the name of Christ.

Actually, yeah, your explanation makes more sense. I remember a sermon where the preacher described the cold and hot water of other towns as good and Laodicea's water as lukewarm, tepid, and stale. But on the other hand, how can we say lukewarm is "on the fence" if hot and cold represent the same thing?

Because Jesus says in verse 15:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

I believe it is clear that Jesus is saying be for Him. Why would Jesus rather someone be totally against Him? That's what clinches it for me, as well as the historical context of the two cities which were known for their good and useful water which was hot in one city and nice and cold in the other city.

 

[Confessor]

4) hot is good and cold is good...people keep saying that hot is good and cold is bad. It has to do with the good use of the hot and cold waters from the surrounding cities and after it is piped in to Laodecia it is lukewarm and nasty. Jesus would rather we be for him (hot or cold) and not on the fence (lukewarm),

I thought "cold" referred to full-fledged unbelief, and that Christ hated lukewarmness because it reproaches His name. People don't think bad of Christ when they see atheism, but they do when they see garbage done in the name of Christ.

Actually, yeah, your explanation makes more sense. I remember a sermon where the preacher described the cold and hot water of other towns as good and Laodicea's water as lukewarm, tepid, and stale. But on the other hand, how can we say lukewarm is "on the fence" if hot and cold represent the same thing?

Because Jesus says in verse 15:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

I believe it is clear that Jesus is saying be for Him. Why would Jesus rather someone be totally against Him? That's what clinches it for me, as well as the historical context of the two cities which were known for their good and useful water which was hot in one city and nice and cold in the other city.

Well, it would still make sense if He were saying that He'd prefer they be outright unbelievers than false Christians. In that case, their eternal state would be the same, except the Church would not be internally damaged.

 

[Denton Elliott]

Well, it would still make sense if He were saying that He'd prefer they be outright unbelievers than false Christians. In that case, their eternal state would be the same, except the Church would not be internally damaged.

Except for the historical account that both the hot and cold waters were good!

"The lukewarmness for which, thanks to this letter, the name of Laodicea has become proverbial, may reflect the condition of the city's water supply. The water supplied by the spring ... was tepid and nauseous by the time it was piped to Laodicea, unlike the therapeutic hot water of Hierapolis or the refreshing cold water of Colossae (Rudwick and Green 1958); hence the Lord's words, 'Would that you were cold or hot!'" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary).

Here's the article I got this quote from: Laodicea, Turkey | Lycus River Valley | Colosse, Hierapolis

 

[Pergamum]

okay, to be fair to the Presbyterians:


Philip and the eunuch: they both go down into the water to be baptised and all the baptists say AHA, and then the text says that they both came out of the water doesn't it? Was philip dunked too?

 

[Confessor]

Well, it would still make sense if He were saying that He'd prefer they be outright unbelievers than false Christians. In that case, their eternal state would be the same, except the Church would not be internally damaged.

Except for the historical account that both the hot and cold waters were good!

"The lukewarmness for which, thanks to this letter, the name of Laodicea has become proverbial, may reflect the condition of the city's water supply. The water supplied by the spring ... was tepid and nauseous by the time it was piped to Laodicea, unlike the therapeutic hot water of Hierapolis or the refreshing cold water of Colossae (Rudwick and Green 1958); hence the Lord's words, 'Would that you were cold or hot!'" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary).

Here's the article I got this quote from: Laodicea, Turkey | Lycus River Valley | Colosse, Hierapolis

While I know he's not infallible, I just quickly checked John Gill's commentary and he also stated that coldness refers to non-religion.

 

[ExGentibus]

Two verses that have been shot at me repeatedly:

2 Cor. 3:6 "for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." The Apostle is talking abouth Law and Gospel, but most evangelarminians do not even suspect anything like that and use this verse as to say "I don't waste my time reading all those dead books to learn useless theological niceties. I just follow the Spirit."

Rev. 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." This one is used to support the necessity of human cooperation and willingness to "open the door of our heart to Christ and make the decision to let Him save us."

Then of course there are the classical arminian bullets like John 3.16, 1 Tim. 2.4-6 and 2 Pet. 3.9.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The HCSB Apologetics Study Bible contains a large list of twisted Scriptures.

AMR

 

[cbryant]

Romans 8:28 - And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (ESV). Too often this is used by well meaning Christians to try and provide comfort to those in grief.

 

[WaywardNowHome]

Romans 8:28 - And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (ESV). Too often this is used by well meaning Christians to try and provide comfort to those in grief.

What is the correct interpretation of that verse? Is it to be used only in the context of salvation?

Even still, I've used that verse to comfort fellow brethren, knowing that no matter what happens here on earth, in the end we will be with Christ for eternity.

 

[Confessor]

Romans 8:28 - And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (ESV). Too often this is used by well meaning Christians to try and provide comfort to those in grief.

Is the correct interpretation of that verse to be used only in the context of salvation? Even still, I've used that verse to comfort fellow brethren, knowing that no matter what happens here on earth, in the end we will be with Christ for eternity.

The point is that it doesn't apply to reprobates.

 

[WaywardNowHome]

Romans 8:28 - And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (ESV). Too often this is used by well meaning Christians to try and provide comfort to those in grief.

Is the correct interpretation of that verse to be used only in the context of salvation? Even still, I've used that verse to comfort fellow brethren, knowing that no matter what happens here on earth, in the end we will be with Christ for eternity.

The point is that it doesn't apply to reprobates.

Alright. In that case,

 

[ww]

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them."

The Theonomist twists this Scripture to argue for the continuation of the Mosaic Law in an Establishmentarian way in all Nations when the last National Covenant was made with Israel.

The WCF states:

God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial law, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require (19.3-4).

 

[DMcFadden]

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

All you need is one part Gal 3:28, one dash of Phoebe, and two pinches of 1 Tim 2:12 with either a Paul Jewett or cultural interpretation, bake it for a hour at 325 degrees and . . . presto you have evangelical feminism!!!

 

[PresbyDane]

I am currently listening to Paul Washer sermons as a preperration for him comming to Denmark in 3 weeks and he says that the number 1 most twisted scripture verse is "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

 

[Rich Koster]

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

All you need is one part Gal 3:28, one dash of Phoebe, and two pinches of 1 Tim 2:12 with either a Paul Jewett or cultural interpretation, bake it for a hour at 325 degrees and . . . presto you have evangelical feminism!!!

Yep......FYI my signature is soon to change (the ABC part).

 

[Fly Caster]

Mat 22:21 ..."Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Used to argue unqualified submission to every claim of Caesar. Also,
Rom 13:1, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?"
--Micah 6:8

This text is used by the liberal Marxist/liberation theology proponents in mainline churches, ad nauseum.

 

[Theogenes]

What about John 3:16 which has been twisted by Arminians to support their views against unconditional election.

 

[Confessor]

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them."

The Theonomist twists this Scripture to argue for the continuation of the Mosaic Law in an Establishmentarian way in all Nations when the last National Covenant was made with Israel.

The WCF states:

God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial law, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require (19.3-4).

If the non-Theonomist interpretation of WCF 19 is correct, then the divines would have been contradicting themselves (WCF 23:3):

III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]

[6] Isaiah 49:23; Psalm 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25-28; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5, 6, 12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chronicles 13:1-8; 2 Kings 24:1-25; 2 Chronicles 34:33; 15:12-13​

Leviticus 24:16 -- And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:5, 6, 12 -- And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc.

This is clearly far from an example of Scripture twisting. I suggest we be more charitable to our opponents.

 

[Knoxienne]

Mat 22:21 ..."Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Used to argue unqualified submission to every claim of Caesar. Also,
Rom 13:1, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Thank you for mentioning those scriptures so I didn't have to.

I like what Pastor John Weaver says - most people who say render unto Caesar never mention that the same bible that says "render unto Caesar" tells us what belongs to Caesar. If we let Caesar decide, he'll take everything we have.

-----Added 6/24/2009 at 11:48:38 EST-----

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

All you need is one part Gal 3:28, one dash of Phoebe, and two pinches of 1 Tim 2:12 with either a Paul Jewett or cultural interpretation, bake it for a hour at 325 degrees and . . . presto you have evangelical feminism!!!

Another favorite verse of the Marxists.

 

[ww]

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them."

The Theonomist twists this Scripture to argue for the continuation of the Mosaic Law in an Establishmentarian way in all Nations when the last National Covenant was made with Israel.

The WCF states:

God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial law, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require (19.3-4).

If the non-Theonomist interpretation of WCF 19 is correct, then the divines would have been contradicting themselves (WCF 23:3):

III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]

[6] Isaiah 49:23; Psalm 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25-28; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5, 6, 12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chronicles 13:1-8; 2 Kings 24:1-25; 2 Chronicles 34:33; 15:12-13​

Leviticus 24:16 -- And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:5, 6, 12 -- And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc.

This is clearly far from an example of Scripture twisting. I suggest we be more charitable to our opponents.

First I subscribe to the 1788 WCF as do a great majority of Reformed Presbyterians in America today and it states the following.

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Secondly do you mean as charitable as this was by Mr Van der Molen to those who embrace Two Kingdom Theology?

John 18:36:

"My kingdom is not of this world."

Herman Bavinck counters the oft-encountered dualistic twist of Jesus' words:

Christ has indeed stated that his kingdom is not of this world, but he is not a spiritual king in the sense that he has absolutely no interest in external and earthly things. On the contrary, he assumed a fully human nature and came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it. Christ planted his kingdom in that world and made sure that it could exist in it, and, like leaven, have a transforming impact in all areas of life.”

 

[Confessor]

Wayne,

1. My point still stands in that the original divines could not have meant that lest they contradicted themselves. That others subscribe to a later document does not negate this fact.

2. I am sorry if other Theonomists have been ungracious. But that doesn't mean charity shouldn't be pursued. And besides, Van der Molen's use of "twist" in that passage is in an entirely different context from this thread. His refers to a general misuse; this thread refers to more grievous contortions of the text (hence "top 10"). If you think that Theonomists are twisting Scripture, then that's okay, but please don't present it as if "everyone knows" that those crazy Theonomists just terribly twist Scripture. You didn't say that, but that is implied from its inclusion in a top-10 list.

 

[ww]

Wayne,

1. My point still stands in that the original divines could not have meant that lest they contradicted themselves. That others subscribe to a later document does not negate this fact.

2. I am sorry if other Theonomists have been ungracious. But that doesn't mean charity shouldn't be pursued. And besides, Van der Molen's use of "twist" in that passage is in an entirely different context from this thread. His refers to a general misuse; this thread refers to more grievous contortions of the text (hence "top 10"). If you think that Theonomists are twisting Scripture, then that's okay, but please don't present it as if "everyone knows" that those crazy Theonomists just terribly twist Scripture. You didn't say that, but that is implied from its inclusion in a top-10 list.

That "others" Ben, most of the Reformed Presbyterian denominations in America subscribe to the 1788 WCF so your desire to take us back isn't going to fly with me.

This is just another example of the one sidedness of folks like yourself who can allow his comment to fly as if no big deal saying that those "crazy Dualist, it's obvious that they are twisting Scripture" and then jump on mine.

I appreciate your desire to moderate this thread Ben but if you are not a Moderator then I ask you at this point to take it up with one rather than trying to correct me publicly as one. I don't appreciate it.

 

[Skyler]

Maybe this thread should've been "10 most common non-confessional Scripture twistings"...

 

[Jim Miller]

Children Obey your parents Eph 6:1

This is used by Gothardites in my church to justify refusing to allow their adult children to move away, and get jobs!