Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Hank | 45211 | ||
Tim, down here in Arkansas where we put oil (pronounced all) in our cars, we hold on to the notion that all (also pronounced all) means the whole shooting match, whether it's describing people, places or things. So we don't have much difficulty understanding what all means by any means. When we read in the Bible the word _all_, we exegete it (there's a fancy word for an Arkie to utter) to mean everybody. It appears like to me that folks who claim that _all_ means something different from all, and withal teach that the Bible doesn't mean _all_ when it says so, have punched holes in simple language with an awl, and that's all wrong. I guess we just ain't reformed enough in our thinking down here to accomodate any meaning of _all_ but all, y'all. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | John Reformed | 45376 | ||
Howdy Hank, Matt 3:5,6 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and ALL Judea and ALL the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. Now Hank, I know you was just funnin me. You shore nuff must know that all does not mean every single one all the time. Dont'yuh? Brer John |
||||||
3 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Hank | 45403 | ||
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What does all mean in this verse, "Brer" John? Now, if you want to talk Southern talk, don't give me that "Brer" stuff! Sign your name "Bubba" John :-) --Bubba Hank | ||||||
4 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | John Reformed | 45407 | ||
Hi Hank, Well I guess a Brooklyn boy transplanted to Arizona can't fool an old razorback like you! But, seriously, I posted Matt 3:5,6 as a clear example that all is not necessarily a universal term in all cases. Hank, as soon as you reply to Matt 3:5,6, I'll answer your question. Nevermind! All in Ro 3:23 must be taken as universal because of the body of scripture that supports i'ts usage. Now will you tell me what Mathew meant by all? I gleefully await your answer. The Brooklyn Bubba, John Reformed |
||||||
5 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Hank | 45411 | ||
John, while you've been waiting with glee, I've been busy as a bee preparing an answer to your question, and the cyber-monster ate it up! In other words, it got lost somewhere between 'preview follow-up' and 'submit.' Now it was far and away the best post I've ever written, it was tailored especially to your question, and now you'll never know what you missed!.... A thumbnail sketch of what I said and then lost is this: John, I believe Matthew in 3:5,6 was not attempting to say that every human being from Jerusalem, Judea and the area around the Jordan came to John for baptism, but was merely showing that this was a big turn-out and people came, as we would say, from all over. --Hank | ||||||
6 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | John Reformed | 45435 | ||
Dear Hank, I do believe that both sides of the "free will" vs "man's inability" are both intent on defending God's glory. Where we both fail is when we lose patience with one another and begin to throw hatefull accusations of all kinds back and forth. I don't see how the Lord is glorified when brothers quarrel and fight each other. It is a mystery to me as to why the Church has split so often over the past 2000 years. All-out wars have been fought and thousands killed over doctrine. Now, don't get me wrong, doctrine is essential! Without it we would be adrift at sea without a rudder or map. It is the distillation of the truth of God handed down to us from godly men and has stood the test of time. But it is not infallible. The Bible alone is perfect and all-sufficient. Nevertheless, I'm glad every new generation does'nt need to reinvent the wheel. (although some do it every week through "new revelations") My particular denomination is strong on doctrines, creeds and confessions. It is an old denomination whose roots go back hundreds of years to Scotland, to great men like John Knox and others who fought and died to establish the right of each christian to interpret scripture for himself. I guess sometimes we must take up the sword, but God forbid, not against our brothers. Forgive me for rambling Hank. Maybe I'm just going on because it's early in the morning an I'm still sipping my first cup of java. At any rate, it's good to talk to you again. Your Brother, John |
||||||
7 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Hank | 45452 | ||
Dear John, I'd hold your previous post up high as a worthy prototype of what dialogue should be between two Christians who happen to differ somewhat on certain points of doctrine. I liked the spirit of your post, John -- non-divisive, kind, and not offensive or bigoted at all. It was a friendly discourse that went quite well with my first cup of coffee on this fine morning. I don't think you're all wrong in your views and I all right in mine -- there's that word 'all' again! -- but that we both of us, like all men, fall short of perfection: we see through our glass darkly. The only real standard we have by which to chart our course is not what we think or what others may think but what God says in His infallible word. Your fine confession that "The Bible alone is perfect and all-sufficient," is one with which I not only fully concur, but one that will surely lead to unity in the truly vital matters of Christian faith and practice. The Scriptures are the high road that all Christians need travel and will lead, I surely do believe, inexorably to dispell the disunity among Christians that is brought about by false teaching, by doing what is right in their own eyes (cf.Judges 21:25). ... To you, my Christian brother, I extend my hand of fellowship. --Hank | ||||||