Results 1 - 20 of 45
|Results from: Notes
Author: Chris Ordered by Date
|1||Unmarried men pastors?||1 Timothy||Chris||59513|
No, unfortunately I never got anything on the last question. Sorry
|2||Tim, more help please??||Gen 2:1||Chris||58669|
As a witness to two sets of new grandparents I can tell you that you will just get younger when that little baby is born!!
|3||Hi JesusFreak||1 Cor 14:34||Chris||58667|
One important observation needs be made, Jesus didn't write any of the Bible! The apostles or their aids guided by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. If your suggesting that Paul didn't have the Holy Spirit's guidance, then how do you know if Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did? The Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit therefore all of the Bible can be compared to itself and cannot contradict itself. If you think the Bible contradicts itself you need to do more studying, but rather than looking for reasons to disavow part of the Bible you need to look for truths that clarify the Bible. The letters in red have no more prominence than the letters in black, as they were all written by men.
An additional note on the Holy Spirit: the Spirit leads in truth, therefore if something is leading you to accept falsehood, namely that the Bible is not inspired or that the Bible contradicts itself, that is NOT the Spirit of the Living GOD. Remember John's warning from the Holy Spirit, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (I Jn. 4:1, NKJ) And remember that it was through Paul that the Spirit wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (GOD-breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16-17, NKJ) Remember that the Holy Spirit is GOD therefore He cannot lie or contradict Himself.
I apologize for your difficulties due to this post, but you must realize that you're accusing an apostle 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit of discrimination towards women. This is the same man that exclaimed, I count all as rubbish, that I might gain Christ! (memory, sorry if a little off) And, "I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me!" (memory, Gal. 2:20) Such a charge is foolish in the mind of a devout Bible student who has studied Paul's life and behavior with women and men, and to take it further the charge is not just against Paul, but against GOD Himself, as the Holy Spirit commissioned the words that you have criticized! But, that doesn't authorize children of GOD to show anger or contempt and I apologize again. Good luck with your other posts, and I'll be praying for you and I'd ask the same from you! :-)
|4||Time lapse between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3.||Gen 1:2||Chris||58564|
I know this is an old post, so I apologize. But there is some Scripture that supports the Gap theory. The first important point is the difference between the words 'created' and 'made' in the creation account, I'm sure you know the difference between these two. The Gap theory proposes that Gen 1.1 is the creation of the universe and earth, whereas everything after that, up to the creation of man, is a refashioning of sorts. The purpose of the refashioning is that the original creation was judged for something, the usual suggestion is the fall of satan.
What is the support? First, look to Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else." (ASV) Notice that both 'created' and 'made' are used in this verse, so there is a recognition of the difference. It says that GOD didn't create the earth 'void' translated here waste, but it is the same hebrew word used in Gen 1:2, 'and the earth was formless and void' (from memory). Now, you may say, as many have, 'but that is not what Isaiah is suggesting.' Well, that's a matter of opinion, but it is most certainly what Isaiah said! So, this is the reason why this theory should be looked into, not to counter act evolutionists and/or geologist.
OK, so there might be a reason to question the exact meaning of Gen 1.1-2, but why the suggestion of judgement? I'm glad you asked! :-) The only other times that 'without form and void' are used as conjuctions speak of terrible judgement via the wrath of GOD! Isa. 34:11, "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out on it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness." (AKJV; confusion, without form, emptiness, void) Jer. 4.23, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." (ASV; waste, formless)
So, we have reason to believe that the earth was not originially created without form and void, and we have reason to believe that the earth was without form and void due to Divine Judgment, which is a wonderful segway to mention that, as you know, 'was' in Gen 1.2 can be rendered 'became'. In addition to this we have the curious use of the word 'made' throughout the Creation account rather than 'create'. And that brings us to your text; Ex. 20:11, "for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Notice that this verse uses the word 'made' not 'created', hence GOD refashioned the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the verse says nothing of when He created it.
I see no reason to be dogmatic about something as ambiguous as the Creation account, but others do and it is very important to remember that Scripture should never be presented to unfairly favor one side or another. There are parts and interpretations of the Bible that suggest a young earth, but there are parts and interpretations that suggest an old earth too! So, let GOD inform us completely when He deems appropriate.
|5||Stae violation of worshhip, what to do?||Bible general Archive 1||Chris||58319|
I agree that people should be free to worship how they wish, but where on earth did you learn to interpret your reading? If you think that Hebrews Ch. 4 is about the Saturday Sabbath you have truly missed the boat! We don't need to go into whether Paul wrote Hebrews, but this sabbath issue takes the cake. Is the word sabbath mentioned in Hebrews Ch. 4?
Hebrews Ch. 4 is about how the Christian enters into the rest of GOD continually, not on Saturdays, when s/he gives up their work toward salvation and rest in GOD's finished work at calvary. This is the Spiritual representation of the Sabbath and it shows that for the Christian there isn't a one day literial fulfillment of the Sabbath, but rather a continual Spiritual fulfillment.
People should have the right to worship when they please, but Hebrews Ch. 4 doesn't support your preference.
|6||4th commandment has been done away?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58260|
I know your pain my friend! I've been there!!: )
|7||4th commandment has been done away?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58038|
There in lies the problems, is lying always wrong? I think we could find at least one time in the Old Testament where a person lied for the good of Israel and the New Testament says that she acted in faith. So to say pleasing GOD is as simple as obeying the Moral Law is questionable.
Secondly, I didn't say we shouldn't look back for guidance, I said we shouldn't look back to find what rules we must keep and what we are allowed to do. There are certainly important principles as I spoke of in the Law, but for a Christian to focus on I can and I can't leaves no room for the guiding of the Spirit of GOD.
|8||4th commandment has been done away?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58036|
I responded to Tim's post, if you want to check it out.
|9||4th commandment has been done away?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58035|
Just because one has a new desire and calling doesn't mean one will contradict everything in the old calling. If I see Christ in everyone I meet and I represent Christ to everyone I meet, I would not break many of the ten commandments. But this doesn't mean my focus is 'I shouldn't lie!' rather it is I am seeking Christ in every endeavor. The Law of Love -ie Law of the Spirit, Law of Christ- will often coinside with the Moral Law, but Pauls says that if our focus is on the Law we are enslaved again to the flesh, so seek Christ in everything and abide in His love so that it permeates through you.
This is a short summation of how I interpret Christian behavior. There are other issues such as Sanctification and Purity that do go along, but the focus is Christ and His love.
The problem I would have with the Moral Laws or Morals of the Law is that it suggest that we still go to the Law and hunt for 'how should I behave or what should I do' which puts us right back where Paul is in Ch. 7 or Romans. I believe a study of the Law is important for understanding how Christ fulfilled it and to glean in broad principles to more closely seek Christ - ex. sexual purity is a broad principle versus going around trying not to commit incest, fornication, beastiality, and homosexuality.-
|10||4th commandment has been done away?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58027|
GOD doesn't want us to live by the Ten Commandments because they cause in us death! The Ten are good, holy, and spiritual but as long as I have a flesh body they cause sin in me. See Romans 7:4-12(LIT):
So that, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, for you to become Another's, to One raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin were working in our members through the law for the bearing of fruit unto death. But now we have been set free from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so as for us to serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said, "You shall not lust." (Ex. 20:17) But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart from law, sin is dead. And I was alive apart from law once, but the commandment came, and sin came alive, and I died. And the commandment which was to life, this was found to be death to me; for sin taking occasion through the commandment deceived me, and through it killed me. So indeed the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Then that which is good, has it become death to me? Let it not be! But sin, that it might appear to be sin, having worked out death to me through the good, in order that sin might become excessively sinful through the commandment.
It may be a nice world if everyone followed the Ten Commandments (TC) but people would still
be going to hell if they didn't know Christ, so I'm not so sure that should be anything that we
should be desiring. I don't live by the TC because Paul says we are no longer under the Law, he also claims that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it (over 600 ordinances and commands). I have some questions and comments that I would appreciate a response to:
1. Can you show me anywhere in the New Testament where the TC are separated from the rest of the Mosaic Law? I don't see anything in the NT to suggest that the TC are separate and Paul quotes from the Law in Gal. 3:10, 'Accursed is everyone who does not abide by ALL things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.'(NASB, emphasis mine.) In vs. 12 of the same ch. Paul says, "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.'"(NASB) So, are you saved by faith or Law; because Paul says it can't be both!
2. When the council of Acts 15 got together why didn't they tell the Gentiles to follow the TC if
they were required? The council came together because some believed, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."(NASB) If we were under the TC why didn't Peter and James conclude that the Gentiles must adhere to the commandments?
3. How do you interpret Gal. 4:21 - 31? How about Gal. 3:23 - 29? Are we back under the
tutor of the Law, and if so, what does Paul mean when he says, 'we are no longer under a tutor.'?
4. How do you interpret II Cor. 3:7 18? Clearly, Paul is speaking of the TC, 'engraved on
stones'. And these letters engraved on stones are called the Ministry of Death and the Ministry of Condemnation. If the TC caused in us death and condemnation, how can we now be under them
and be free?
We'll stop here, and I hope you will continue this discussion with me!
|11||Still under 10 C's?||Ps 111:7||Chris||58022|
I disagree about making judgements. We must discern the truth of whatever we encounter, and we do this by considering the legitimicy of their sources. I have found several cases when AF pulls a verse, like Romans 7:12 out of context to make it sound like we are under the Law, when if you actually consider the whole chapter, that is not at all what Paul is suggesting. I would encourage you to do a careful study of the entire book of Galatians, as these believers also wanted to live under the Law. If anyone tells you that Paul didn't mean what he said, ask yourself why he said it. In Galatians Paul condemns the believers for returning to the Law, he shows that Grace and Law cannot be mixed, and that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it! I will be praying for you my friend and I hope you will pray for me!
|12||Is I Cor. 13:2 possible vs. I Cor. 13:9?||1 Cor 13:2||Chris||8827|
you quote Mr. Henry, "II. He hints that these gifts are adapted only to a state of imperfection: We know in part, and we prophesy in part, v. 9. Our best knowledge and our greatest abilities are at present like our condition, narrow and temporary. Even the knowledge they had by inspiration was but in part. How little a portion of God, and the unseen world, was heard even by apostles and inspired men!"
I previously would have agreed with Mr. Henry but only because, if I assume the gifts vs 2 are possible, with this view it is the only possible interpretation. But, even doing this I had that aggrevating feeling that the interpretation I gave these verses seemed doubtful at best.
In truth I see no 'hinting' by Paul that vs. 1 and 2 are limited! Rather I see Paul concluding that Love is perfect(vs.8a), and he immedately starts writing about the limitations of gifts(vs.8b), specifically prophesy, tongues, and knowledge. Paul cant be suggesting human limitation in vs. 9 because he says even in the tongues of angles! I dont know of any other Scripture that speaks of a heavenly language but II Cor 12:4. With these facts in view, I am leaning toward the interpretation that Paul is exagerating to the point of impossibility in vs 1 and 2 to emphasis the point of Love. I see 'all faith' as perfect faith, including a perfect human faith (I deem this impossible) and a complete gift of faith (administered by the Holy Spirit, I see the gifts such as prophesy, knowledge, and faith as moment by moment gifts that change considering the situation. Therefore, I believe it is impossible to have all gifts of faith from the Holy Spirit.)
I am now trying to consider whether this interpretation is allowable in the light of Mat. 17:20! If not, I will be forced to accept the limited interpretation I formerly had, and the one Mr. Henry had as well.
Just my interpretation:-)
|13||Mat 17:20 vs I Cor 13:2?||Mark 9:23||Chris||8787|
|Very impressive, Ray!
I think you and I are on the same track when considering these Scriptures. I'll take a little more time to consider your answer, and get back to you!
|14||What????????????????????????????????????||Bible general Archive 1||Chris||8543|
I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism, and the aspects of dispensationalism described by Mr.
Clark are correct. Unfortunately, his attempt to discredit this theology is shameful, at best! This author has chosen to set up dispensationalism as a ‘straw man.’(A perspective so weak that any rational interpretation of scripture rejects that perspective.) This is always done by making general claims about some form of Biblical interpretation and neglecting to mention the justifications and arguments for that interpretation. In this case, Mr. Clark makes some assumptions of his own and, without mentioning the dispensational view, concludes that dispensationalism is idiotic! I’m going to attempt to mention the weaknesses in Mr. Clark’s
argument and give Biblical support of the dispensational view, but whether I succeed or fail, I’d encourage you to neglect this writer’s opinions; because, he obviously is willing to misinterpret the facts, or ignore them altogether, to support his view. I don’t want you to think I’m judging you or your theological perspective, there are many dispensationalists that set up reformed theology as a ‘straw man.’ And, I would not suggest reading them either! Any debate must be well considered and well researched, if the writer doesn’t do his/her homework, they should always be ignored.
Ten Commandments before Moses: Gen. 2:3, 9:1-17; Romans 2:12-16.
The claim was that Genesis ‘implied’ that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. I disagree, if the giving of the Ten Commandments was so important for Moses as to be referenced more than once in the Law, why would they not warrant mention in the book of Genesis? You quote that the Commandments were repeated to Noah, where? See Gen. 9:1-17: in vs. 4 we see a prohibition from eating animals with their blood still in them. (Would that be ceremonial? It’s not
one of the Ten, is it?) And, if we study vs. 6, we see that it is not a prohibition against murder, though clearly that was wrong by the vss implication, but rather a method of governing human activity. Whoever hurts a human being, by humans he will be hurt; hence the dispensation of
human government. I don’t see anything in these verses that resembles the Ten Commandments!
Finally, see Rms 2:12-16, in these verses Paul states that Gentiles did not have the Law (which
includes the Ten), but if Adam and Noah had the Law in the form of the Ten, then the Gentiles
would have had some of the Law but see vs. 12 ‘without the Law.’ But, Paul says in vs 14 that the Gentiles who ‘instinctively’ or ‘by nature’ do the things of the Law, so there must be an instinct in man to live according to some of GOD’s Laws, and I believe any resemblance between Genesis and the Ten can more appropriately be explained by this ‘instinct.’
Romans 5:13, 14:
There are two main interpretations to these verses! Some interpret it in a similar way to Mr.
Clark, without adding infant and voluntarily! Dispensationalism is actually more appropriate, in
my view, with this interpretation! At the end of vs 13 we read, “but sin is not imputed when there
is no law.” Mr. Clark, along with many others, realized that this ‘law’ is not the Law of Moses
(and again, the Law of Moses includes the Ten), so what is this ‘law’? Obviously, it is some
standard GOD set up before the Law to determine whether a man was righteous or not. This is
exactly what Dispensationalism says! Each dispensation has a standard to which man must attain to be pleasing before GOD, some get closer than others (Noah, Abraham, Job).
The other mainstream interpretation of these vss would be rejected by anyone of the Reformed
persuasion, so there’s no use in discussing how well it interacts with Dispensationalism.
Dispensational Support: Romans 3:21; 4:15, 16; 6:15; 7:1-6; 8:3-4
I didn’t continue past the book of Romans, I feel anything more would be repetitive.
3:21 - ‘apart from the Law’ the righteousness of GOD is displayed in Christ without the burden of
4:15,16 - Salvation comes to those NOT under the Law!
6:15 - We are NOT under the Law (there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Paul only means
SOME of the Law) but under GRACE!
7:1-6 - When one dies they are FREED from the Law, we have died with Christ! See vs. 6, “But
now we have been released from the Law,” again, nothing to suggest that Paul only means SOME
of the Law!
8:3,4 - The requirement of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, including the Ten
Rebuttal of so-called ‘contradictions’:
Of course Paul is NOT disparaging toward the Law! It is Holy, but we are NOT! Paul states that knowing the Law gave sin opportunity, so even though the Law is Holy, its affect on a man with a sinful nature is devastating, so GOD delivered us from the Law, including the Ten!
|15||Sabbath-did you know?||Matt 12:1||Chris||7836|
|In defense of JVH, there is no passage in the New Testament telling us to observe a Sabbath DAY! In fact, the verses JVH cited suggest just the opposite, and if we are in a perpetual state of Sabbath(Heb 4:9-10), there is no single day in which we practice rest, it is practiced everyday. So, the issue is not mixing the Sabbath Day and the gathering day, but rather no longer observing a single day as the Sabbath and choosing a day in which Christians should gather together to encourage and exhort one another. The Bible seems clear that they chose the 'Lord's Day' which is the first day of the week, or Sunday the Resurrection Day. This is not a Biblical requirement or command, it is simply the day the apostles chose.|
|16||Sabbath-did you know?||Matt 12:1||Chris||7768|
|Written by JVH0212:
"Q: "...by what Scripture do you not keep [the 4th commandment]?"
A: The Scriptures are:
Acts 15. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
In *Galatians 4:10-11*, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
In *Romans 14:5*, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
Heb 4:9-11. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "
I saw these Scriptures on a previous posting about Sabboths. I adapted it a little, but JVH always does a great job with finding Scripture. If you know a better interpretation of these verses please let me know!
PS I don't believe we are bound by the Law, ANY of the Law(including the 10 Commandments)! I try to love all people just as Jesus loves me; if I do that I will not do many of the things prohibited by the Law, on the other hand, there will be many things that the Law prohibits that will not affect me in the least and I am in no way required to observe them. Whether I observe some of the commandments or not has no affect on my Salvation!
The point that needs to be made is that Sabbaths and Circumcision are 'eternal' covenant commands, so some ask why we don't observe them, guess what? We DO! Notice Paul states that we, "were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;" Also, notice JVH's last quote Heb. 4:9-10, "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of GOD. For the one who has entered His(Christ) rest has himself also rested from his works, as GOD did from His."
What is the rest of Christ? Salvation by faith NOT by works. And, if our works are over because of His (Christ) work we can enter GOD's rest, the perpetual state of Sabbath! So, we observe both these eternal covenants but in Spirit not in the flesh; because as our Lord said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Jn 6:63
|17||Critical Text vs. Received Text||Bible general Archive 1||Chris||6900|
|I'd like to add one more thing, Nolan. I truly believe that the CT and MT are great texts, thoroughly reliable, but often times I pick and choose which I believe is more accurate in certain situations. Examples:
Mark 16:9-20, I tend to favor the CT, because the language in these verses is substantailly different from that of the rest of the book. There is also a viable reason for adding to this text, I believe the end was lost, and some good minded scribe was trying to remember the basic message given by Jesus.
John 1:42,21:15-17 - I favor the MT, because we know from Matthew that Simon was called, "BarJonah" bar is an Aramaic word meaning son. So, was Peter the son of John or Jonah?
Col 1:2 - This one drives me crazy! Paul always begins his letters with a salutation from the Father and the Son, off hand I don't know one letter by Paul that didn't include some time of greeting in the name of the Father and the Son, but the CT states, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father." That just doesn't sound right!! Here I obviously prefer the MT, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
|18||Critical Text vs. Received Text||Bible general Archive 1||Chris||6899|
Actually, the Critical and the Majority are almost identical in Revelation, it's the Received Text that has so many variations. (I think the reason is that the fella that put the text together only had 6 Greek texts and all of them were missing portions of Revelation, so he translated the Latin Vulgate BACK to Greek.) Actually, the Majority Text is 'critically' appraised just like the Critical Text, but the two oldest manuscripts, which are the basis for the CT, are not given extra weight.(At least this is my understanding, I'm often wrong on these issues and my memory is not always reliabe! Darkness to Light is quite thorough on this issue, but you will have to ignore some of the reformed theology talk!)
The Majority Text does give older manuscripts more weight, but not as disproprtiantly as the Critical. I would simply like a NASB Bible with all the variants between the CT and MT compared, in the back of the Bible or in the margin, like the NKJV. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses the RT and shows variants between the RT and MT and CT, so you end up looking in the margins more than you do in the text! (slight exaggeration:-) I also noticed that a new translation , the Holman Christian Standard Bible lables all varients but it doesn't tell you which is a varient from the MT verses a variant from the RT, HCSB uses the CT for the text. I don't trust the RT if the MT does not agree with it, see I Jn 5:7b in a KJV or NKJV, "For there are three that bear witness (in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.)" The brackets show what amount of this verse is in neither the MT nor the CT! This addition is only in a handful of manuscripts, and I do believe there was some tampering with the holy Scripture but it was late (after 1000AD?) shortly before the printing press. These variants are clearly weeded out by the Majority Text.
One other note, an honest consideration of the book of Hebrews forces one to admit that the writer was using the LXX for quotations rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. And, some of the quotations used are not found in the Hebrew OT, so if GOD decided that the LXX was good enough for quotations in the NT, any of these three mss will lead us to the truth!
|19||Holy Spirit's power of Conviction||Rom 5:6||Chris||5992|
|(Continued) As for I Tim, please consider Barnes New Testament Notes:
‘Who will have all men to be saved.' That is, it is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires. The word will cannot be taken here in the absolute sense, denoting a decree like that by which he willed the creation of the world, for then it would certainly be done. But the word is often used to denote a desire, wish, or what is in accordance with the nature of any one. Thus it may be said of God that he "wills" that his creatures may be happy—because it is in accordance with his nature, and because he has made abundant provision for their happiness—though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to make them happy. God wills that sickness should be relieved, and sorrow mitigated, and that the oppressed should go free, because it is agreeable to his nature; though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to produce it. A parent wills the welfare of his child. It is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires; and he makes every needful arrangement for it. If the child is not virtuous and happy, it is his own fault. So God wills that all men should be saved. It would be in accordance with his benevolent nature. He has made ample provision for it. He uses all proper means to secure their salvation. He uses no positive means to prevent it, and if they are not saved it will be their own fault. For places in the New Testament where the word here translated "will" (yelw) means to desire or wish, #Lu 8:20 23:8 Joh 16:19; #Ga 4:20 1Co 7:7 11:3 14:5 Mt 15:28
Mr 7:24. (Please take special note of this verse, "And from there He (Jesus) arose and went away to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He WANTED no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice." Emphasis mine, the word in all CAPS is the same word in the Greek that some translation render ‘will' in I Tim 2:4.)
This passage cannot mean, as many have supposed, that God wills that all kinds of men should be saved, or that some sinners of every rank and class may be saved, because
(1.) the natural and obvious interpretation of the language is opposed to such a sense. The language expresses the desire that "all men" should be saved, and we should not depart from the obvious sense of a passage unless necessity requires it.
(2.) Prayer and thanksgiving #1Ti 2:1 are directed to be offered, not for some of all ranks and conditions, but for all mankind. No exception is made, and no direction is given that we should exclude any of the race from the expressions of our sympathy, and from an interest in our supplications. The reason given here for that prayer is, that God desires that all men should be saved. But how could this be a reason for praying for all, if it means that God desired only the salvation of some of all ranks?
(3.) In #1Ti 2:5,6, the apostle gives reasons showing that God wished the salvation of all men, and those reasons are such as to prove that the language here is to be taken in the most unlimited sense. Those reasons are,
(a) that there is one God over all, and one Mediator between God and men—showing that God is the Father of all, and has the same interest in all; and
(b) that Christ gave himself a ransom for all—showing that God desired their salvation. This verse proves
(1.) that salvation is provided for all—for if God wished all men to be saved, he would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; and if he had not made such provision, it could not be said that he desired their salvation, since no one can doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation of all;
(2.) that salvation should be offered to all men—for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not proper for them to announce anything contrary to this;
(3.) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must be their own—and it is a great sin, for there is no greater crime which a man can commit than to destroy his own soul, and to make himself the eternal enemy of his Maker.
Great debate and GOD bless!!
|20||Holy Spirit's power of Conviction||Rom 5:6||Chris||5991|
|This will be my last post as well, Joe. I'm sure you're thinking, ‘FINALLY!' I just want to start by saying what an honor it has been to debate this issue with you! You have been polite, insightful, and thorough and I appreciate your point of view. And, you have truly made me seriously consider my opinion! So, thank you!
I just want to finish with two issues you had previously mentioned which we see in different ways. Romans 8:29 (I apologize for quoting the incorrect verse in a previous correspondence.) dealing with ‘foreknowledge,' and I Timothy 2:4.
First, Rm 8:29, I interpret this and the accompanying versus as a progression. In other words, each element mentioned is necessary before the next element can be accomplished. So with this interpretation, it would be impossible to take foreknowledge out of the equation; because, if we did the equation could not work. As to the differences in the view of foreknowledge, I would like to quote the Nelson Study Bible article titled ‘Election,' "Arminians, those who embrace the position of the seventeenth-century Dutch pastor Jacobus Arminius, understand ‘foreknowledge to mean GOD's knowledge in advance of those who would repent of their sin and believe the gospel." Later the article states, "Calvinists, named for the French Reformer John Calvin, understand ‘foreknowledge as a ‘relational' term. In other words, foreknowledge refers to GOD's intimate knowledge of and love for His elect before they coma into existence." And finally, the article concludes, "Put simply, Calvinists define ‘election' as the ‘unconditional choice of GOD that is the ‘cause of our faith. Arminians, on the other hand, would define it as the ‘conditional choice of GOD that is the ‘result' of our faith."
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last  >>|