Today, many people have great biblical knowledge because they have gone to institutes, have done extensive studies in universities and have obtained masters, doctorates, etc. And in speaking they only show what was taught in the institutes without having any self-discernment. They use Greek terms over and over again (even when they do not speak Greek) because that's what they've heard. Theological terms such as hermeneutics, omeletics, singing to Jesus (Philippians 2: 6), precautionary psalms, antithetical proverbs, vines reference, exegesis, soteriology, ecclesiology, etc. (All these terms are man's invention, not biblical). These (terms) have taken part of the theological lexicon even though they are not parts of the bible itself; The use of these terms usually gives a sense of seriousness and knowledge of the speaker, when usually he is only reciting these terms because he learned them, but is not able to properly declare a verse. There is no real need to know these terms because without knowing them you can in your own time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit get to know the scriptures in depth, how? The Bible interprets itself so that using biblical fluency or biblical context we could easily answer difficult questions, and clarify points that are not clear. I reiterate that studying the scriptures in institutes and knowing theological terms is not bad on the contrary to acquire knowledge is good, but my emphasis is the knowledge and understanding itself of the scriptures.
Often questions arise in Christians who do not have a direct response, usually leaders, pastors, and teachers only give an uncomfortable answer: "that is the secret of God, and we should not go where only God has knowledge." Obviously these answers can be given on some occasions when the question is completely disconnected from the word, such as: Can we go to other planets after all judgment, in the eternal state? This is not something that is in no way linked with the scriptures, and any answer would be conjectures of the speaker and no answer will be concrete. However there are questions that still do not have a direct biblical answer can be answered in light of the scriptures. Biblical fluidity would be to go in tune or in context with the scriptures and not go in opposition to it. For example, a bad flow would be to say: Adam had a woman before Eve, (believe it or not there is a source of doctrine that teaches that there was another woman apart from Eve, based on Genesis 1:27 where it says, male and female I believe) any scrutiny of the word can never harmonize this with the rest of the scriptures, because it is contrary to what the Bible tells us. But good serious fluency, if the question is: who was the wife of Cain? If the answer is: a niece or a sister. This is good fluency because although it is not an answer that we explicitly find in the bible yet does not contradict it, not only is this the only possible answer, for obvious reasons: First the bible tells us that God only created Eve and Adam. So Cain's wife could not come from other people, nor could she be a cousin, since Adam and Eve had brothers. We confirm this in Acts 17:26 And he hath made of the blood of all men, that they may dwell upon all the face of the earth; And has predetermined to them the order of the times, and the limits of his room.
So saying that Cain married or a sister or a niece does not contradict writing and there is fluidity in this response as the river flows through its channel. The opposite of fluency would be like being quiet by a river, when suddenly the river changes course and begins to rise instead of going down, and reaching a top, this is impossible. Now I am going to put some examples of questions that do not have specific answers in the Bible, but we can use "fluency in the scriptures to answer it.
Will we meet in heaven?
This is a question that has often arisen among Christians without any specific answer but let us see how we can respond to this: the answer is yes, let us see why; Firstly there is no indication in the Bible that God would completely erase our knowledge once the rapture takes place, in fact if God did this, there would be concrete evidence of this, and if it were we would not be ourselves since every person is what he remembers, Moreover this would go against the biblical fluidity if it did, however we see the opposite. Notice what Paul says: 1 Thessalonians 4:13 Neither do we want you, brethren, to be ignorant concerning them that sleep, that ye sorrow not as others that have no hope. If we did not know each other in heaven, Paul would not say that, even if our loved ones are saved we would not know them, which would make relevant the pain we feel when losing a loved one, since in reality his absence in a certain way It would be forever since even if we were together we would not know it. 2 Samuel 12:23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I get him back? I go to him, but he will not return to me. David seems to indicate that he would go to his son, obviously this was dead, if David would not meet him when they met again was as if in fact they never met more; In Luke 16:19 when he tells us the story (this is not a parable, it is a fact) of Lazarus and the rich man, the fact that the rich man falls into hell does not indicate that he lost no knowledge, on the contrary he says that he recognized To Lazarus, and Lazarus in paradise does not give us any indication that he has lost knowledge. We also have the moments that happened with the transfiguration of Jesus, the disciples knew Elijah and Moses whom they had never seen, this gives us evidence that our knowledge will be even more extensive than now ... we will know Paul even though we have never seen him 1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see in the mirror, darkly; But then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; But then I will know as I was known. So when we say that if we will know this it is in fluidity with the scriptures and not against. Saying no, then I would put the obligation on you to assure you not to biblical declare where in the scriptures this assures us.
Written by Robert Pool
Translated by Bruno Smith