In discussing the Bible members of the discussion often make the following mistakes:

1. Reading the Word for debate, not devotion.
2. Riding hobby horses.
3. Interpreting Scripture in the light of events, not events in the light of Scripture.
4. Overspecificity versus the "whole counsel".
5. Baggage handling.
6. Confusion of terms.
7. Premature enlightenment.
8. Overvaluing reason over revelation, or even giving reason equal status with revelation.
9. Reaction against error versus response to truth.

A lot of these points need a little clarification, so here they are in a little more detail:

1. Reading the Word for debate, not devotion.

It is a truism that we find what we look for. Christians know that also we find Who we look for. If we make our searching in the Word personal (applying the Word personally to ourselves and searching for the Person of our salvation) we have the promise of success. But if we search merely for argument ammo, we make ourselves even less capable to discuss the topics. The same Holy Spirit who teaches us enlightens those who seek Him. David gives us his secret:

"I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation." (Psalm 119:99)

That last word "meditation" ("sichah") is used of speaking to a person, or to oneself, in conversation. Here it assumes a living faith with a living Person. A side benefit to a closer walk with God is a better assurance of things that others just argue about.

2. Riding hobby horses.

Sometimes when I see someone's name on a post I know already what the post will be about. I hope I am not that way. If I am - tell me! Some people join groups and feel their way into the flow of discussions. Others ride their hobby horse right into the forum and come right to their one topic which is both cornerstone and canopy to their faith. It is often their Shibboleth that you will and must pronounce to their satisfaction. Hobby horses can be: Spiritual gifts, Conspiracy, 666, Mark of the Beast, "The Antichrist has to be (fill in the blank)", etc.

3. Interpreting Scripture in the light of events, not events in the light of Scripture.

This is a biggie. When the twin towers were destroyed there were the inevitable allusions (rather an illusion to an allusion!) to Revelation 18's Babylon. But any consistent reading of Scripture can demonstrate that New York City cannot be Babylon. I believe the desire to see the US in prophecy (Hey, aren't we important?!) leads to this current events eisegesis (reading into the Text what is not there). It is interesting to read old books from the early 20th and 19th century to see who the candidates were for the Antichrist, or what the mark of the beast is supposed to have been.

4. Overspecificity versus the "whole counsel".

There are two ways that this seems to play itself out. One is to have a verse-heavy view of Christianity; like saying "God is love" (a real verse) and making that a foundation for a real unbalanced understanding of God, denying His holiness, the need for judgment, etc. As far as prophecy is concerned, "God has not appointed us to wrath" may be a verse that is over-quoted to make it say something that was never intended. "With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years" is likewise misused to mean that certain "days" in prophecy passage must be understood. Some have taken permission from this "key" to make the six days of creation be the measure of the time we have left before the assumed 7th day, the supposed Millenium.

The other kind of overspecificity is in single words. Once again, "day" of the Lord Has to be 24 or 12 hours long, because everyone knows that this is how we refer to days. But this is forgetting that there is also the "day of salvation". Thank God that was not 24 hours long!

5. Baggage handling.

We often come to these discussion with certain preconceptions or even strong biases. This can cause us to lack that objectivity that can help us dispassionately evaluate what someone is writing. I know that I am guilty of this when it comes to the Pretrib view. I feel I have wasted a lot of my Christian life in the pretrib view when I could have advanced a lot further in my understanding in that time. This pitfall is also what causes a lot of the Roman Catholic bashing (I am talking about Them - not It). Martin Luther said that mankind is like a drunk falling off a horse. He gets on again only to fall off the other side. We likewise go to alternating extremes.

6. Confusion of terms.

You ask a Oneness Pentecostal like Tommy Tenny whether he believes in God the Father and in Jesus as the Son of God, he will say "Yes" most likely. But he sees "sonship" and "fatherhood" as two different offices of the same God. Neither will you find out that he doesn't believe in the Trinity - as understood by orthodox Christianity - unless you press further into his writing or sermons. This is confusion of terms, probably willful on the part of the false teacher like Tenny, but naive on the part of the undiscerning Christian.

"Sonship" and "fatherhood" mean totally different things to Oneness preachers than to orthodox Christians; They view the terms in a modalistic way, of different offices of the same God. We view those terms as defining aspects as two distinct persons of the Trinity. Many of these heretics are given a free ride because Christians assume that we all use the same terms the same way. In similar ways, Creflo Dollar, Rod parsley, T.D. Jakes, Kenneth Copeland and others sneak in their false teaching with many of the right words.

7. Premature enlightenment.

This is a big problem especially in Bible schools, but also in our everyday Christian lives. It seems that many Christians try to rush to judgment on building their belief system. If God hasn't taught us on a certain aspect of Christianity, we need to wait for His teaching us, not believing in XYZ because everyone in our church believes in XYZ. Who knows? Maybe God wants to use you to tell others that WXYZ is a more complete view. God says that He will guide us into all truth. If we are willing, obedient and studious, these things will come in good time.

8. Overvaluing reason over Scriptural revelation, or even giving reason equal status with that revelation.

The cults use human reasoning a lot. They start out with the premise "What kind of God would (fill in the blank)"? Yet God says this:

�For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,� declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8 - 9)

There are many books and websites out there that purport to be about God that have no clue about Him, because all they go on is human reasoning.

Refining the focus to prophecy, we still have the same problem. Much of what is offered as Biblical truth, is yet no more than human reasoning. When some insist that we will not go through Any part of the Tribulation, they resort to the proof of "God wouldn't beat His Bride, would He?" But the purpose of tribulation is not punishment ("beating") as it is refinement and purification. In this sense, all Christians need tribulation, to refine us, to burn away the dross. It is only after the refining is done that God comes for us as Saviour - and to the willfully obstinate as Judge. But to say that tribulation (or "The Tribulation Period", a term not found in Scripture, though demanded by Dispensationalists) could not happen to us is to betray the same spirit that spoke through Peter when he reproved our Lord and said, "This will not happen to you, Lord!"

9. Reaction against error versus response to truth.

Often when we are convinced that we are wrong in something we go to the other extreme. Maybe we do this as a way of compensating for our previous leanings, as if two imbalances equals one orthodoxy. The early Church did this in their defenses against heresies. For instance they had to deal with the inroads of the Gnostics and their doctrine of esoteric knowledge (as if the deep truths of Christianity can be learned from the secret doctrines of the Apostles that only few knew about). They countered this with the principle of Apostolic Succession (No, there is no secret "better" teaching for the "really elect"!) What Christ taught was passed down from the Apostles to the Church Fathers, etc. The only limitation to the learning of these doctrines is the lack of receptivity in the hearers, not a holding backing of the "deeper teaching" for the initiated few. All of this church history is just to say that the early church went to the Other extreme, as if All of the fountainhead of blessing and knowledge was in the hands and heads of Apostolic Church (=Roman Catholic Church).