Results 1521 - 1540 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1521 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29000 | ||
The last few verses of Mark have come up a couple of times in this discussion, and I would like to park there for a moment to look at them: 'And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."' --Mark 16:15-18 I would like to know why many people interpret this to mean that everyone who is a believer should speak in tongues and should ask for it. I often hear of people telling others to trust the Holy Spirit and open your maouth and start uttering. However, I rarely hear anyone telling others to trust God as they pick up the rattlesnake or to believe on God as they drink the bleach. It seems pretty inconsistent to me that one claims to trust God for tongues but doesn't have enough faith to juggle cobras or chug the arsenic. If we are to truly operate in the gifts, we shouldn't be limiting ourself merely to tongues. Speaking of tongues, this post is indeed tongue-in-cheek, so I assume no responsibility for those who actually destroy their stomach lining by following this counsel. You see, these verses in Mark do not appear in the earliest manuscripts we have available, so they are quite possibly a later addition to the divinely-inspired text. --Joe! |
||||||
1522 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29259 | ||
Rob: You write: 'I don't believe that I said that this means that someone that is "filled" will have to speak in tongues. It does say, though, that signs will accompany those that believe.' Well, that is a clearly biblical statement, but it is not the statement that has been made in this thread. I tend to lean against the Mark passage being original simply because I find it to be NOT to be in harmony with the rest of the text. We see absolutely no other mentions of drinking poison and handling poisonous snakes without getting killed by their bites. While it is certainly within the abilities of an omnipotent God to accomplish such tasks, we see no record of this actually happening in Scripture. Furthermore, what we do see among the saints in the early church is that they are far from being impervious to harm. People are quick to cite this verses to support that true Christians are somehow impervious to the physical troubles in this world (if they only have enough faith), but from Acts 7 on we see that, yes, God's people are indeed going to die for the sake of Christ, all according to what Christ said and God's decree (Philippians 1:29, 2 Timothy 3:14, John 15:18-21). Of course, I may be wrong here, but I do not see the text really fitting with the style or the narrative in Mark's gospel. It seems like it is a "tack-on" by a later writer stylistically and contextually. --Joe! |
||||||
1523 | Who is the Spirit and what is He like? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29286 | ||
Another interesting aspect to this is to note that John the Baptist was the "Elijah" that preceded the ministry of the Messiah. Luke 1:17 refers to John the Baptist as coming in the spirit and power of ELijah, and Jesus goes into an exposition of this Old Testament prophecy (from Malachi 4:5) in Matthew 11 and Matthew 17. So we have at least two individuals in Scripture referred to as having the spirit and power of ELijah: Elisha and John the Baptist. This would lend to a preliminary understanding on my part that we are talking about something more significant than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is an aspect of the life of every believer. So what do the rest of you think? --Joe! |
||||||
1524 | Who is the Spirit and what is He like? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29329 | ||
I agree. Significant was a bad word choice. A better way to say what I meant is that perhaps it is something distinct from (or in addition to) the typical indwelling of the Holy Spirit of every believer. Or the Holy Spirit working in a different way. That is what I would like the Forum to address. --Joe! |
||||||
1525 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29381 | ||
I am sorry that you find my remarks to be immature. I didn't realize that you viewed asking for all the gifts referred to in the questionable last few verses of Mark to be putting God to the test. If the description provided in these verses applies to all believers, then I do not see how drinking poison could even be considered to be putting oneself in harm's way at all, but a sign of one's faith. The fact is that people take one phrase out of this passage and make a generalization that it applies to all believers, but leaves all of the other phrases connected to it alone. To me, that is very telling. And whether asking SPECIFICALLY for the gift of tongues is indeed supported by Scripture is the very theme of this thread. Perhaps you could shed some light on how God promises to grant every believer the gift of tongues when Paul emphatically stresses that the very opposite is God's sovereign plan in 1 Corinthians 12:27-30. I have cited that passage about a dozen times, and no one who says that tongues is for everyone has touched it with a ten-foot pole. Not all speak in a tongue, DO THEY? No, because God gave different gifts to different people. Bottom line. And I apologize if you find my remarks belittling. Harsh rebuke and strong language, however, is not something that Jesus refrained from (check out his conversations with the Pharisees and his suggestion that those who have body parts that cause you to sin should be cut out). Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, his comments to the Galatians that the Judaizers should go ahead and emasculate themselves completely, and James calling his addressees "adulteresses" all demonstrate that the Holy Spirit does indeed inspire strong and forceful language that some might even call sarcasm. What you are promoting here is false teaching regarding the operation of the Holy Spirit, and I certainly am not going to coddle you while you continue to do so. Apologizing in advance, --Joe! |
||||||
1526 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55007 | ||
Thanks for the re-post. We certainly have gone at least 15 minutes without a debate on the Trinity, so I am pleased that you re-hashed something that was settled 1700 years ago yet again. RevC's comments, while extensive, are not a successful defense against the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. First of all, no Trinitarian denies points 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32. I don't know what he was getting at here, but all of those points fall within trinitarianism. As for the rest of the points, they are either irrelevant (e.g. number 1), based on false premises which have nothing to do with Scriptural revelation whatsoever (such as items 20-21), are not supported by the Scripture verses given (e.g. number 29) or clearly can be seen as non-Oneness in their context (such as number 22, after reading down to Revelation 5:1-6, which shows the One on the throne, God the Father, giving the book to the Lamb, Jesus). I will state my challenge from before. I will hereby renounce Trinitarianism if any of the following things can be shown by you to be unscriptural. 1. There is one God 2. The Father is God. 3. Jesus is God. 4. The Holy Spirit is God. 5. God can exist as all Three simultaneously (e.g. the baptism of Jesus or the transfiguration). 6. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit do things to each other (Son obeying Father, Father sending Son, Father and Son sending Spirit, Son praying to Father, Father talking audibly to Son, The Son being the mediator and intercessor between us and the Father, the Spirit praying for us to the Father, Father being well-pleased by the Son), and referring to each other in the third person (i.e. using the word "He" in speaking of another One of them). This shows a clear subject-object distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity was not some concocted scheme to accommodate paganism. Nor was it Constantine's iron-fisted control at Nicea. All of the biblical truths above, taken together, mean that God is either triune or deliberately deceiving His creation to make them think that He is. I am more comfortable with the former conclusion! The biggest laugh of all is that the Oneness adherents see no problem with a God who has multiple personalities and talks to Himself and about Himself AS IF He were three in Person; but refuse to acknowledge the true biblical distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to their own destruction. --Joe! |
||||||
1527 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55008 | ||
Thanks for the clear example of muddle-headed accomodation to heresy that is so characteristic of the anemic American evangelical church. HamsteRulz hates Jesus Christ, or he would not distort what the Bible says about Him. It is called discernment! But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." --2 Peter 2:1 --Joe! |
||||||
1528 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55017 | ||
That's a lot of words, but I am unclear...which one of the 6 points I made are you denying to be Scriptural? As I said before, just prove any ONE of them to not be taught in the Bible, and it is "Goodbye, Trinity!" Best of luck! --Joe! |
||||||
1529 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55026 | ||
One other thing: I don't know if your post is standard Oneness teaching or not, but the God you believe in seems pretty weak, as if He is "sick and tired" of the perfection in heaven and how He seems to be almost pleading for us to like Him. If your God is not sufficient in Himself, then your God is not the God of the Bible. God "married" Mary? I bet Joseph really felt awkward! Or did God divorce her first? "The Holy Spirit is a small portion of God Himself that dwells in those that ask of Him." A "portion of God"? I thought that God wasn't DIVIDED... :) ""The reason why Jesus refered to God(Himself) as the Father was because that is who He was physically. Physically God was Jesus' father even though Jesus was God." Oh, "I am my Father." Makes perfect sense! Jesus did say that "The Father and I are one." Where, however, did he explicitly say that "the Father is I"? Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane the following words: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me." --John 17:20-23 So Jesus prays that Christians will be one just as He and the Father are one. So, according to Oneness, Jesus is praying that all Christians will be the same Christian. If Jesus is the Father, then Jesus is praying that I will be John Wesley and Martin Luther and Hank and kalos and my wife and Jonathan Edwards and Charles Stanley and John Calvin and the apostle Paul. I urge you to read through the New Testament without insisting to yourself, "There is no Trinity; there is not Trinity; there is no Trinity," and see what you discover about the way the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit truly co-exist and interact with each other. --Joe! |
||||||
1530 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55172 | ||
I don't recall ever stating how I feel about you as a person, which would be ridiculous since for all I know you are my next-door neighbor. Nor did I cut you down to shreds. I may have done so to Oneness theology, but I did so with the clear revelation of God's word. If you are worhiping God falsely, HamtseRulz, you need to repent of it and worship God as he shows Himself to be in the Bible. To point out the errors of what you have been taught is not a spiteful or cruel thing. And, like I said before, of I am wrong on any one of those six points I made, I warmly welcome your correction and will reject the concept of the Trinity. But if I am not wrong, perhaps you should start examining the Scriptures as I suggested and question what you have been taught. Feel free to come back and use Scripture to answer the objections I raised at any time. --Joe! |
||||||
1531 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55297 | ||
Your post surprises me, because most Oneness people have a problem with the last two, since that is where Oneness falls apart. You wrote: "The Father is not God, the Son is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit. There is a difference." No, no difference in the way I was stating it. When you say "Our Father, who art in Heaven." Are you addressing Him as God"? When you say, "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ," are you referring to God? When you read, "the Spirit helps us in our weakness," do you consider that passage to be referring to God? That is the point I was making. I realize that you consider all three to be Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is established in part by the notions that the Father has the nature and attributes and being of God, and so do the Son and Holy Spirit. Please explain to me how you can hold to the last two points and still be an advocate of Oneness. You wrote: "There is a different way of showing that someone is wrong other than calling them a false prophet and their teachings to be heresy." Never said YOU were a false prophet. Your teaching is heresy, and you believe mine is as well. We are called to speak out against false teachings, and the inspired apostle Paul had must more scathing things to say about the false teachers of his day. You wrote: "In the begining there was no Father, Son, or Holy Spirit it was just God." My Bible reads thusly: "n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." --John 1:1-2 Who was this who at the same time was WITH God and WAS God IN THE BEGINNING? --Joe! |
||||||
1532 | IS TONGUES FOR TODAY? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Reformer Joe | 55499 | ||
Hey, I appreciate your response, but use of paragraphs would make it much easier to follow. You wrote: "In saying that God can be the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit all at the same time and God can correspond with Himself so to speak at the same time as well." It would be more than corresponding with Himself. It would be sending Himself, mediating between us and Himself, interceding for us before Himself, presenting us to Himself as righteous, being on the throne and at the right hand of Himself at the same time, giving His people to Himself, being a object of His own wrath, being the One on the throne giving the book to Himself as the Lamb before the throne in Revelation 5, and on and on and on. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all really Jesus Christ, He sure seems to go a long way to make Himself look like more than one! You wrote: "The Holy Spirit does not pray for us but is rather our interpreter." That is not what Scripture says: "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." --Romans 8:26-27 The Spirit intercedes for the saints, because we DO NOT KNOW how to pray as we should. You wrote: "As for John 1:1-2. What is the Word? The Word is just as it is said ... The Word. It is the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan. Lets look at this in Scripture." Let's. By replacing the word "Word" with "the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan," let's see where that gets us: "In the beginning was [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan], and [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] was with God, and [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] was God." The Bible was God? Prophecy was God? God's plan was God? "[The Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan], and apart from [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] nothing came into being that has come into being. The universe did not come into existence apart from the Bible and prophecy? "In [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] was life, and the life was the Light of men." So [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] is the Word, and now we must conclude that it is the life and the Light of men. So let's take this further. "[The Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan], to them [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Seems pretty unlikely. This is the clincher: "And [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about [the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, '[the Bible, prophecy, God's will, God's perfect plan] who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" Does this really make sense to you? All of John 1 is talking about the Word, Jesus Christ, who was with God in the beginning and at the same time was God. There is no other logical understanding of this chapter. --Joe! |
||||||
1533 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | Reformer Joe | 26313 | ||
Lisa: Joyce Meyer is a strong argument against women preachers, if you ask me. http://www.equip.org/free/DM472.htm --Joe! |
||||||
1534 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Reformer Joe | 86135 | ||
It must be emphasized that God the Holy Spirit has done an amazing work within the Worldwide Church of God in bringing it to Christian orthodoxy. One can read about it by looking at the history of the organization on their web site: http://www.wcg.org "goodnewsminister" apparently is a member of a splinter cult known as the Living Church of God, one of the groups who longed to cling to heresy rather than stay with the cult God was bringing into line with biblical truth. Why he is still allowed to post here is beyond me. --Joe! |
||||||
1535 | Clarity - Jesus being sin and in Heaven | 2 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 83502 | ||
"Once he took our sins upon himself, he paid the price for mankind and He was able to bust out of hell and beat up the devil." I must have missed this action sequence in my Bible. What verses tell us that (a) Satan is currently in hell; (b) that Satan is the ruler/governor/whatever of hell; and (c) that Jesus "beat up the devil"? --Joe! |
||||||
1536 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80559 | ||
Hi. You wrote: "God inflicted me with sickness to teach me endurance...Thess scriptures tell us that because of our association with Christ Jesus, the world will hate us and persecute us and even try to kill us...And the more diligent and faithful the greater the persecutions." In many cases, yes. However, how is Paul being shipwrecked an example of persecution by Christ-haters? A more complete list is below. How many of these things come from human beings, and how many do not? "I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure." --2 Corinthians 11:26-27 Speaking of the "thorn in the flesh," you wrote: "Nothing here even remotely eludes to sickness or desease, much less sickness and desease GOD sent to humble!" There has been much debate on the exact nature of the thorn, of course, but there are a few things that we can be certain of: 1. While it was from Satan, it is also true to say it was given by God, since the purpose was to keep Paul from exalting Himself. Satan's purpose is never to humble us before God our Father. 2. Paul prayed for it to be removed, and God refused to do so, for a very specific purpose. So whether we are talking about sickness or not, God ordains that uncomfortable, unhappy, and dangerous things happen to His children for His glory. Why someone would simply cut sickness out of that list of uncomfortable, unhappy, and dangerous things doesn't make a lot of sense. One more note on sickness: Paul praises Epaphroditus as an example of godly faith in Philippians 2 for sacrificing himself for the cause of Christ in spite of his life-threatening illness. Not once is anything mentioned about a lack of faith or a failure to realize that sickness is not for God's people. This would have been the ideal time to mention that Epaphroditus "didn't have to be sick," but we see nothing of the sort. --Joe! |
||||||
1537 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80569 | ||
Hi again; you wrote: 'Given by God and allowed by God are totally different. Scripture says it was a messenger(angel) FROM Satan. Scripture does not say "from God". God simply did not 'remove' it AND told Paul why!' Let's look at the verse in question: 'Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.' --2 Corinthians 12:7-9 We see the verb "given." The messenger is definitely of Satan, but precisely who did the giving? If we say that this was a gift of Satan, we have a theological problem: "Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself"...Satan gave me a thorn in the flesh? Does this make sense to you? Either God did the giving or Satan is willingly doing the sanctifying work of God. Speaking of Epaphroditus, you wrote: "Paul did praise him for his Godly faith in continuing in service despite the sickness in his body and secondly God healed him." I must admit confusion on your position here. Why did FAITHFUL Epaphroditus get so sick and stay sick so long, if it was never God's will for that to happen? And, yes, God healed HIM. That was an act of His sovereign mercy, according to Paul, and not an obligation on God's part. Where do we see that He is obliged to heal everyone in the same manner? And regarding 1 Peter 2:24, let's look at the context: "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls." --1 Peter 2:21-25 Now, reading the whole paragraph, is Peter's focus sin and spiritual healing, or illness and physical healing? Please support your answer in the context of his argument in the paragraph, chapter, and epistle. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1538 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80686 | ||
"This does not create a theological problem for me." Then which is it? Did God give the thorn in the flesh or was Satan willingly doing the sanctifying work of God? 'In context...the truth that "by His wounds we were healed" does not change. His wounds, our healing.' Yes, our spiritual healing. That is what the context suggests, and no support is found for any alternative understanding. To say that the single clause in 1 Peter 2:24 refers to physical sickness would be forcing a meaning onto the text that doesn't fit in with anything Peter is talking about this passage (or even in the whole of his epistle). You many choose to hold to that understanding, but that doesn't change the fact that, exegetically speaking, it is an unwarranted one. --Joe! |
||||||
1539 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80886 | ||
"However, Jesus did not 'suffer' from sickness and desease...until He took ours." What verse says this? "You will also notice when you read this commentary that although Matthew Henry acknowledges that healing is part of the atonement, he 'issues a disclaimer' which had absolutely NO scriptural references to support the disclaimer. This disclaimer , and I agree, instructs the believer to search the scriptures regarding healing." Could you be more specific as to Henry's "disclaimer"? I read nothing at all which suggests that Henry's understanding of Isaiah 53 leaves any room for a promised "physical healing." http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/MHC23053.HTM Respectfully, I think you are locked into a misunderstanding of the general Christian perspective on sickness. I agree that Paul likely does not have the flu foremost in mind when he is talking about himself being afflicted for the sake of the gospel. However, that is a completely different argument than whether it is God's will that sickness exist or not. You have not made a compelling case at all for the view that all Christians on earth should be physically healthy. Obviously, God allows illness and injury and infirmity in his faithful children, and biblical examples such as Epaphroditus and Timothy demonstrate that lingering illness is not a result of a lack of faith. God can and often does heal, but that act of mercy is neither always promised nor always immediate. The "health-and-wealth gospel" is not a historic Christian doctrine, but rather is a 20th-century phenomenon (unless, of course, you count Christian Science, Unity, and other mind-science cults that started popping up in the 19th-century). In order to even make a case for this teaching, one has to begin with the presumption that it is true before going to Scripture. Then one proceeds to find texts such as 1 Peter 2:24, which contextually have nothing to do with disease, and forces a foreign understanding on them. It is a pernicious doctrine because it denies the sovereignty of God in allowing disease to exist for His glory (Romans 8:28). It also dishonors those who have suffered disease and agony in their service to God. Do you really presume to sit in judgment over pioneering Christian missionaries from ages past who died from malaria, scarlet fever, and the like because they refused to sit at home in comfort and relative safety? Do you really conclude that this doctrine, which was non-existent until the last century, really reflects Christianity? Did God really allow such an important, "MAJOR" element of His gospel to be absent from the church for century upon century until we "enlightened" couch-potato Christians suddenly figured it out? Not terribly likely, in my opinion. You can make all the emotional appeals as you would like, accusing people of "penciling things in" and of denying that Jesus ever healed anyone. When the heat subsides, however, one can step back and look to see that WOF doesn't have very much light at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1540 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80946 | ||
The quote you gave was not from Matthew Henry's commentary on Isaiah 53, but rather from the IntervArsity Press Commentary volume on the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 8, by Craig Keener: http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/webcommentary Please be more careful with your attributions, because Matthew Henry would never have embraced "health and wealth." Your out-of-sequence cut-and-paste job of this commentary also makes for a very confusing read. Nothing you cited is from Matthew Henry, and it seems you are confusing Carson's quote with Keener's commentary. Speaking of D.A. Carson, his book _Exegetical Fallacies_ would be very instructive here... --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 ] Next > Last [97] >> |