Results 41 - 60 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Theo-Minor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | A possible translation error? (Lk 2:2) | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126177 | ||
Leslie ... It was a comprehensive answer for a comprehensive question. I DO appreciate your efforts. I have already apologized for my previously poor behavior, so accept it or not, and let's leave it at that. So, are you suggesting that it can only be translated as "first," or that it is usually translated that way? (Genuine question; no sarcasm intended). Can it be "before," indicating or denoting a "foremost" position or rendering of time? I recognize that it may often be used a certain way, but we have English words that are often used a certain way, but have alternate meanings under some circumstances. A rendering of "before" would certainly solve a big problem with the chronology of the birth according to the listed facts. Theo-Minor |
||||||
42 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126147 | ||
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The law is gone for our righteousness' sake. Why are we doing this train of thought again when the previous thread on the same subject was restricted? None of the arguments have changed. Things have still passed from the old law, invalidating the Matthew passage (til heaven and earth pass away ... one jot or tittle will not pass ... til all be fulfilled) as an arguement. As pointed out in the previous thread on this general subject, things have passed from the law, indicating that all has been fulfilled. In addition, Paul says more times than I care to record that we are not under the law. Again, why is this topic still being debated? We are not under the written law. God's law is now written on our hearts and minds. These are the terms of the new covenant. Written ordinances are contrary to us. The Law causes sin to revive and kill us spiritually. The letter of the law is not the point. No one was able to satisfactorily debate this point last time. Unless some new arguements have come up, it will not be satisfactory this time either. Theo-minor |
||||||
43 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126132 | ||
I really am sorry guys. At present, my friend and I are in a debate with some head-strong "elders" that refuse to see reason after sending him a horribly ugly letter that had no hint of love whatsoever. They'll argue over pronouns and turn off their heart radars. SOMEtimes, semantics can be a bad thing. It is definitely important to understand exactly what is being said in a passage, but sometimes arguing semantics ends up being nothing more than splitting hairs, fostering the continuation of an argument that someone can't win (no direct implication intended to anyone here). For example, there was once a discussion with a fellow that insisted we still can't eat pork. We showed him Mark 7:19: "... because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" Now, it's clear as day that Jesus declared all foods clean, so it's okay to eat pork. He wouldn't hear it. Instead of answering what was plain, he found a way to spiritualize it, defy it, ignore it, and ultimately walk away from it because he didn't WANT to agree with what it said. It defied his opinion. Semantics, while good if used properly, has perverted a great number of passages and derived meanings that were never intended. The 1st John 3:6 passage (which I'm not trying to bring back up and argue) is a prime example. Does it say "habitually" or any other such word? Or is that a matter of semantic scrutiny to make a plain passage suit a doctrine because they can't understand the mystery? This is my problem with semantics. I use them to seek truth, not to argue a doctrine. My doctrine has changed a number of times because I refuse to be right (if that makes any sense). I WANT someone to prove me wrong (key word being PROVE). If someone has a more sound argument than I do, fantastic. I'm more interested in becoming wiser, smarter, better informed, and more completely built upon the rock than I am in being right. As you say, "everyone may not always agree with me ..." I'm really not seeking agreement, but acknowledgment if I make a valid point. Know what I mean? I'm not so full of myself as to leave no room for God. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. But by the same token, if we are practicing humility, if I'm right, I expect it to be acknowledged. I guess, in short, what I'm getting at is that knit picking over individual words when it doesn't really change the meaning of the passage when read in context and continuity with the Bible as a whole is derisive. It just creates confusion. I don't really WANT to leave. I want to share the hard years, months, weeks, days, and hours of study and knowledge I have. But there has to be fruit in the discussions. I've already seen two discussions get restricted because it got touchy, and no resolution was ever made. Why in the world would we want to kill the thread before all those observing can see the outcome based upon solid discussion by people with good, credible knowledge? That seems silly to me, however controversial the topics. Additionally, I was harsh to someone. It was wrong. Someone corrected me. I stopped, apologized, corrected my behavior, examined myself, and recognized my own hypocrisy. I'm grateful for the correction. kalos is good about that sort of thing, but others have had more pride than I think a single individual can swallow. How can we have good, edifying, Christian conversations that lead to the furthering of the Kingdom of Christ if we aren't able to examine ourselves? I guess I'm just too critical. I'll try harder to be understanding, patient, and longsuffering. Theo-Minor |
||||||
44 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126123 | ||
Grrrr, kalos! *laugh* semantics over semantics. I'm just going to laugh and leave this be. Thanks for the spelling correction (I didn't actually know how to spell it). Theo-Minor |
||||||
45 | Freewill before the fall? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126119 | ||
Agreed, 1000 percent. Freedom of choice, but not always of circumstance. Theo-Minor P.S. I had a long night. I didn't mean to blow at you. For whatever reason your last response to me struck a nerve. Please forgive. |
||||||
46 | Country Girl: Scripture...or Opinion? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126117 | ||
What does length of time on this forum have to do with anything Hank? Because I have been on this forum for three days does not mean I've been a Christian for three days. Ugly is ugly. Your comments to her were less than nice, and you should have worded it better. You could have accomplished the same thing in a nicer way. I've had to moderate myself as well. I'm guilty of the same thing to Leslie. I was harsher than I should have been, and also presumptuous. I own my ugliness. I'm not so full of myself as to leave no room for God. In responding to me the way you did, you have rejected reasonable correction by being ugly to me also in turn. I corrected myself. Can you not do the same? Are you so offended because someone thought you were being harsh? I meant well. My intention was bring down the insult level. Perhaps you didn't see it as insulting, but I promise she did. I don't have to be her to know it. I'm human, and I would have been insulted right down to my toes. One of the very first questions ever asked in the Bible ... Am I my brother's keeper? The answer is yes. We are each other's keepers. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. Harsh should be reserved for obstinate people, not for the well meaning. I've followed a number of Country-Girl's posts. She has expressed a great number of valid, reasonable doctrines, statements, and opinions. She may not be able to back them all up, but I can. I find no fault in what she's saying on the majority of her posts. Instead of criticizing her lack of scriptural use, why don't you politely correct her with your use of scripture. Now, please, don't be nasty to me again. I'll reiterate that I was trying to be helpful, not to beat up on you. You were not going to bring about any good whatsoever by criticizing her. If she won't hear sound and credible arguments, by all means, criticize her. But in either case, you were unreasonably harsh to her; it's very much my business as she is my sister, and you have now been nasty to me for pointing out that you were being nasty. And I'll say again, how long you've been on this forum makes no nevermind to me. For all I know, that same amount of time is the length of your Christian walk. I don't know. I can tell you that I have been an active Christian since September 19th, 1988. I'm not a babe, and I won't tolerate someone rebuking me for trying to calm them down in regard to someone else. Be offended by this if you please. Or better yet, restrict it like some of the other topics that didn't go the way someone wanted them to. Ban me as well if that's where your heart leads. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. Theo-Minor If this fellow decides to make me disappear, keep the faith Country Girl. You are absolutely on the right track. |
||||||
47 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126111 | ||
Why do you insist on playing symantics? Wish, will, want ... it amounts to the same thing and doesn't change the point. God doesn't want anyone to perish. God doesn't will that anyone perishes. God doesn't wish for anyone to perish. If he doesn't want it, wish it, or will it, but proceeds to make a decision for the eternal well-being of an individual before they are ever given an opportunity to make a choice, then he is ultimately condemning people without a chance. This is contrary to his will, wish, or want. He doesn't want anyone to perish, but he's going to harden some hearts so they will regardless? He doesn't wish anyone to perish, but he's going to see to it that they do anyway? He doesn't will anyone to perish, but that's just too bad, because He's not going to choose everyone? Some are just out of luck? My point is based on sound logic, and also based on sound scripture. At this point, I choose not to look up all the relevent passages because I get the feeling that they are just going to be disseminated in turn by symantics and opinion, and a valid point is going to be dismissed yet again. I won't lie. I'm getting irritated. I've made valid points on several subjects, and it seems like I'm talking to myself. As soon as a topic comes close to a conclusion that isn't what someone likes, the topic gets restricted. Is it because I am being argumentative, or is it because someone else is being stubborn and unbending? I really don't believe I'm being argumentative. I'm ready to leave this forum. I feel like everyone just wants to hear what they want to hear, and that's a waste of time. If we aren't going to take things to conclusion, concede when someone presents a better point, and otherwise seek the truth instead of individual points of doctrine, why bother discussing this stuff at all? Theo-Minor |
||||||
48 | Do you believe in being chosen? | Gen 2:9 | Theo-Minor | 126099 | ||
I'm getting the impression from these posts that you are discussing "pre-destination." I'll throw in my two cents. God is willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance. If God predetermined everyone's outcome, then he is willing to let some perish. Second, is it possible the "pre-destination" passages are saying something akin to: "God predetermined man in general for salvation to those that would believe?" Thus, by this example, people are predestined. Not predestined to a choice they are going to be compelled to make because God made his decision ages ago, but predestined for salvation through the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world, so long as they should choose to answer the calling. I don't really agree with pre-destination myself. I think the passages are misinterpretted that leave people concluding that some were created and born with no hope at all because they were not amongst the elect chosen by God before they were ever given an opportunity to accept or reject. This defies the idea that God is willing that none should perish. Food for thought ... Theo-Minor |
||||||
49 | The rapture, A comming event, Pg 3. | 1 Thess 4:16 | Theo-Minor | 126047 | ||
I agree with you. It can be interesting. It is also only a problem if we stubbornly cling to our views. This is precisely the point I'm making. Everyone is going to do just that. People have been debating this topic for almost two thousand years. They either believe that the second coming has not happened and spiritualize what does not adhere to this opinion. Else they believe it happened already and assume that which they cannot verify. History and logic support one view. Lack of history and logic support the other. Where is the common ground? What will be accomplished by this topic? I'll participate insomuch as this. Direct written history supports "virtually" all of the Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, barring the second coming itself. As for that, it is my opinion that Jesus told us plainly that we wouldn't know it except by certain signs, like armies surrounding the city, etc. His coming would be like lightning flashing from east to west. It would be like a thief in the night. It would be like the days of Noah; they wouldn't know until the woe was already upon them. It would be like the days of Sodom; they wouldn't know until it was too late. The only warning the Christians had was the abomination of desolation as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. When they saw him standing in the holy place (which could be viewed as either the temple, the inner sanctuary, or merely Jerusalem and the mountain it was built upon; "God's holy mountain") they were to flee. They were not to go back for anything. Historically, the Christians fled to Pella in 66 AD, as according to Eusebius (the father of church history). They are recorded as having believed that "the abomination of desolation" was surrounding the city. There is so much historacity behind a proposed 70 AD completion of prophecy, it would take a large volume book to write it all. I know, because I have them all over my shelves. Seutonius, Tacitus, Thallus, Josephus, Pliny younger, Julius Africanus, Diogenes, Aquilius Niger, etc. It is once again my "opinion" that no person can make an informed decision on the matter until they have thoroughly read the histories. The correlations between prophecy and historical happenings is frightening. This is all I really have to say on the matter. I'm eager to discuss something else, but I'll do the best I can to discuss reasonable questions and consider reasonable suggestions. Theo-Minor |
||||||
50 | The rapture, A comming event, Pg 3. | 1 Thess 4:16 | Theo-Minor | 126043 | ||
I know this is a forum for discussion, but it is my opinion and recommendation that this topic be dropped. Those that believe it happened already will continue to believe so because of the evidence they see. It is not disputable. Those that believe it has not happened yet will continue to believe so because of the evidence THEY see. It, too, is not disputable. Until and unless someone can interpret the Revelation to its utmost (which has yet to happen), neither side can guarantee they are correct. I see a normal reading of scripture according to dispensational theology as proclaiming the second coming of Christ in the time of the first century because Jesus says it will happen to that generation, the apostles all believed it would happen in their lifetimes, history supports supposed interpretations of the Revelation, and Jesus' coming would be like a thief in the night, or like lightning flashes from east to west (i.e. no one would see the coming itself, only the obvious results of it). In addition, prophetic voice of the Old Testament concurs with a fulfillment of the proposed preterist interpretations. Most particularly Daniel and his ten/eleven horns in correlation with the eleven Roman rulers (as seen from a first century Jewish perspective). Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Ten in all ... then an eleventh, Vespasian, that pushes three horns, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, out of the way. This in accordance with the beast of chapter 13. Seven heads, being seven kings according to chapter 17, one slain, but healed. Then there is an eighth according to chapter 17, which is actually one of the seven, and this one goes forth to ruin. "Ruin" an active verb in the syntax of the sentence. Julius is slain (the head that was wounded to death). So the first head becomes Antony (again from the first century Jewish perspective of rulers over Judea). The second head is Augustus. The third head is Tiberius. The fourth is Caligula. The fifth is Claudius. The sixth is Nero. The seventh, which will only remain for a short while (Chapter 17) is Galba who reigned for only seven months. Then there is an eigth, who is actually one of the seven, this being Vespasian. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are not considered real emperors by most scholars and historians, and they have almost no place in the histories of Josephus in regard to them being emperors. Next, according to a normal reading of scripture, it should be noted that one of the kings was currently in power as stated in chapter 17. Now, with a proposed date of early 60s AD for the writing of the Revelation (See "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who makes a very good and credible arguement for the dating of the book), Nero fits the parameters. "Five have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come, and when he comes, he must remain a short while." At the time of Nero ... Antony fallen (having taken the place of Julius according to chapter 13) is one, Augustus fallen is two, Tiberius fallen is three, Caligula fallen is four, Claudius fallen is five. Nero is. Galba is yet to come, and when he comes, he will remain a short while (seven months). Then, on top of that, Nero Caesar written in Hebrew, counted according to the Hebrew counting system, totals 666 ... and this without any funky arithmetic. Each character has a value. Add them up and you have the number. In addition, textual criticism reveals versions that read 616. As it happens, when the Latin version of Nero Caesar is translated into Hebrew (which drops the end "Nero versus Neron"), the same Hebrew counting system talleys to 616 missing the value of 50 from the missing "N" in his first name. While this most certainly looked like I did what I suggested we should not do, understand that I am really just trying to make a point. The Revelation is a touchy subject. A preterist will not convince a premillenialist and vice versa. This topic is pointless. It is my suggestion that we focus on the things that matter today, in our own lives, and not on things that have either happened already or are yet to come. If it already happened, we are in the kingdom of Christ. We should live accordingly. If it hasn't happened yet, we should live accordingly, else we won't be ready when it does. Got it folks? This topic is a bad one, and WILL lead to strife, because no common ground will be discovered. Theo-Minor |
||||||
51 | Where does the Bible SAY that? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126038 | ||
Amen, brother! Cast out the bondwoman and her child, for the child of the bondwoman will not be heir with the child of the freewoman. Theo-Minor |
||||||
52 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126019 | ||
Hey Ray, You had asked me similar questions, and now Stultis ... I took the time to do some looking, as I didn't want to give you a hasty answer. In both the cases here in this letter, and also in the questions you asked me, the words are the same words. If you have an interlinear, take a look at them. The same greek words are being used. Light/light Love/love. God is "love" is God is "agape" Capitalization of Deity is, in my opinion, a knit-picky topic. The autograph manuscripts were written completely in upper case letters. None of the apostles made a distinction. Capitalize what you please, and don't capitalize what you don't please. God is light, and so are we. We have become partakers of the divine nature. God is Love. It is in Love that we dwell, and it is Love that dwells in us. We walk in the Spirit according to the Spirit that gives us power. Does that help any? Get an interlinear Greek/English and a few good Greek lexicons. I believe you'll find a lot of these answers yourself with the right resources. All my love, Theo-Minor |
||||||
53 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125926 | ||
WalkingTalkingBible "LeslieN, are you a new convert? I ask because you seem a little lifted up in your own eyes." That is basically what I was getting at. You put your note as a whole much more loving and eloquent than I did. I think all I managed to do was insult with poorly chosen words. Theo-Minor |
||||||
54 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125925 | ||
I still don't think I was judgmental. I made a reasonable observation according to what I saw. I also explained myself thoroughly in the second note and made plenty of reasonable, logical statements that it "seems" you are going to ignore. To forgive is to give up your right to do hurt back to someone that has done hurt to you. You are not giving up that right, but throwing in a comment at the end of this most recent note in order to get the last word. That's not really forgiveness, so don't insult my intelligence. Have your last word. I'm done. Theo-Minor |
||||||
55 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125917 | ||
I agree. | ||||||
56 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125916 | ||
No one has yet to truly dispute anything I've said. Throwing out passages that contradict does not answer the plain statements. Paul says we are not under the law. Call it Torah if you please, call it Old Testament. It all amounts to the same thing. As someone pointed out, the law identifies sin. If we are under the law, sin is revived and we die. If we are under grace, walking in the spirit of the New Covenant, we will live. You choose as you please, but if you are still subject to the law, you make void the "New" Covenant, and condemn yourselves to judgment. The law we are now subject to is brotherly love. Knit pick over Matthew if you please, but Paul's statements quantify the ramifications of the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus made his statement while the Old Covenant was still in force. He said that nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. Something has passed from the law. The sacrifices are gone. Laws concerning fasting are gone. Laws concerning traditions are gone. Some of you have mildew in your houses. By the standard of the law, you should burn them down. You can't keep the laws that are convenient and disregard the rest. If you fail in one part, you are a transgressor of the law. If you have mildew in your house, and you refuse to burn it down, then you are being directly disobedient to God, and "habitually" "practicing" sin. Since you are doing this willingly, there is no more sacrifice for you concerning sin. This thing is but one small example amongst many. If you are guilty of even this one small matter, you are a murderer because of the law, and are thereby condemned because no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. If this is what you want, have at it. I challenge any of you to produce a scripture that says we are still under the law following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which event brought in the New and cast out the Old. The Old is good for reference. It is good for instruction to teach the loveless how to love. But we are no longer under a schoolmaster. I am under a New Covenant, established upon better promises, because God found fault with the first one. His laws are now written on my heart and mind. Defy that as you please, but it is plain scripture and coming out of the mouth of God himself. As for sin ... I am a workman approved of God, and I am not ashamed. Sin is not MY master. If sin is yours, I pity you. I am not the one with an interpretation issue. Your rendition of 1 John 1 is paradoxial. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Therefore, confess your sins to God, and he is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So, because we all have sin, let us pray together and confess. NOW, do we have sin anymore? If you say no, you're a liar and the truth is not in you. If you say yes, then God is a liar, for he was not faithful to do as he said. Jesus came to take away the sins of the world. If we still have sin, then HE FAILED! But for the sake of arguement, let's go ahead and confess again. Maybe THIS TIME he'll forgive and cleanse us. The more reasonable interpretation of 1 John 1 is that it applies to a person that needs to be cleansed, not someone that has already received their cleansing. And now that we are cleansed, we should go and sin no more. Because we have been born of God, we are not able to sin anymore. "Habitually" is an implication derived from a word study that showed 1 John 3:6 was written in a present perfect tense. i.e. "sinning" "Those abiding in God are not sinning." But the syntax of present perfect is that it is happening RIGHT NOW. If you are committing a sin RIGHT NOW, then you are sinNIG. At each moment, we are not committing a sin, and thus not sinning. This is the truth of the matter. This particular scripture would never have been scrutinized if it said, "Those abiding in God are not eating carrots." It defied man's tradition, contradicted fleshly teachings, and thus needed to be adjusted to suit itching ears. To me, it says what it says. If you choose to attribute words like "habitually" to it, that is your option, but no such word exists in the original text. If you are truly abiding in God, you are not sinning (from one moment to the next). If you are, you do not have God. Further, the context suggests precisely what John seems to be saying. Jesus came to take away sins, and in him is no sin. How can we have sin and abide in him when in him is no sin? I've been on both sides of the fence folks. I was an advocate of the law and inherent sin. I have seen the truth of the matter. If you can't see what I see, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue typing the same thing over and over again just to have it ignored, criticized, and scrutinized because someone disagrees (but is unable to discredit, only contradict). Theo-Minor |
||||||
57 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125897 | ||
The Old Testament is gone. God found fault with the first covenant and replaced it with a better covenant, established upon better promises. This new covenant is in the heart and mind, not on paper, and the Old is decayed and ready to vanish. Galatians 3:30 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. ... Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the freewoman.(Galatians 4:21-31) Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace. 1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. We are not under the Old law. This is scriptural. The Old is gone, the New is in. If the Old has not passed, then we can't have a New, merely an ammendment to the Existing. Theo-Minor |
||||||
58 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125894 | ||
Following him ... My bible says that we do not sin, will not sin, and are unable to sin. (1 John 3:6-9). My bible also says that if we willfully sin after coming to the full knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice concering sin. (Heb 10:26) It also says that no man putting his hand to plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:16) I don't know how you substantiate "We do the same thing when we sin again just as those in the OT did we go to the blood." If you continue to sin after receiving the sacrifice of Jesus' blood, you are just mocking God and nailing Christ back on the cross. (Heb 6:4-6) Theo-Minor |
||||||
59 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 125891 | ||
Til heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. The sacrifices passed from the law, so we must assume that either heaven and earth passed away, or that phrase is figurative, similar to, "unless hell freezes over." Because something has passed from the law, we must also assume that it has all been fulfilled. In addition, he may not have come to abolish the law, but according to Eph 2:15, that's exactly what he did. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ..." Paul also says that we are no longer under the law. See Galatians. Five out of six chapters directly address the fact that we are not under "law," whether the Old, or new ones created by men that are mere shadows of the Old. The "commands" we have in the NT are directly to the purpose of love. "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, clear conscience, and sincere faith." (1 Tim 1:5) Theo-Minor |
||||||
60 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125887 | ||
Hey Ed. I wasn't referring to Peter's use of the phrase. While it is certainly one amongst many that add weight to the discussion, there are many others to consider. As a matter of dispensation, we have to go from particular to general, not general to particular ... meaning that we should view all the evidence and form an opinion, not form an opinion and bend the evidence to that opinion. Consider these passages: Romans 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. Galatians 2:6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. Job 34:18 Yet He is not partial to princes, Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; For they are all the work of His hands. Job 37:23-24 As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him; He is excellent in power, In judgment and abundant justice; He does not oppress. Therefore men fear Him; He shows no partiality to any who are wise of heart. Somehow, I think you might be missing my point. God treats everyone the same. Some he blesses more than others, some he gifts more than others. There are some he chooses for things, and some he does not choose. My point was never that he does not or could not have a favorite. Only that your station in life has no bearing on God's decision. He will choose whom he will, whether rich or poor, king or servant, young or old, wise or foolish. God does not show partiality. Whether or not he favors one above another is not relevent to the point I was making originally that God can choose whomever he pleases. In this thing I am not mistaken. Remember that he once chose a donkey to rebuke Balaam. It isn't and wasn't my intention to say that God shows no favoritism. Only that he can choose anyone, and your age, race, social standing, education, trade, etc., has nothing to do with anything. Theo-Minor |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |