Results 141 - 160 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Filled with Holy Spirit? | Eph 4:23 | Morant61 | 150064 | ||
Greetings Ray! If you acknowledge that the Holy Spirit dwells within us according to Rom. 8:11, why would you reject that we can be 'filled' with the Holy Spirit? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
142 | The Restrainer - Revisited! | 2 Thess 2:7 | Morant61 | 17492 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Here is my promised attempt to work through 2 Thess. 2:1-12. Context: The context of the passage is clear. Some had apparently heard from someone that the promised future events (the coming of Christ and our being gathered together with Him) had already occurred (2 Thess. 2:1-2). This church appears to have been undergoing intense persecution and the hope of the coming of the Lord was a precious and important promise to them (see 1 Thess. 4-5). However, Paul did not want them to be mentally or emotionally unstable because of a false prophecy, rumor, or even a false letter (2 Thess. 2:2). The fact was that these two events could not take place until two things had occurred: 1) The rebellion occurs, and 2) The man of lawlessness is revealed (2 Thess. 2:3). Unfortunately for us, Paul only alludes to some things which he had already shared with the Thessalonicans (2 Thess. 2:5). So, there will be questions about this text that we will never be able to answer. The Man of Lawlessness Much of this text describes this man of lawlessness who must be revealed before the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the Saints. It is said of him that: 1) He will be a man, but a man characterized as being lawless - v. 3. 2) He will be destined for destruction (cf. Rev. 17:8,11) - v. 3. 3) He will oppose God - v. 4. 4) He will exalt himself over God - v. 4. 5) He will even declare himself to be god in the temple - v. 4. 6) He will be revealed (passive, so someone else reveals or exposes him for who he is) - v. 8. 7) He will be overthrown and destroyed by Christ at His coming - v. 8. 8) His appearance will be with signs, wonders, and evil - vv. 9-10. 9) His appearance will be Satanic in nature - v. 9. The Restrainer All of this is pretty basic to the text. The real questions come when we turn our attention to the meaning of verses 6 and 7. It is clear that the Thessalonicans knew who or what was restraining the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:6), but unfortunately for us, Paul never identifies the restrainer. What do we know for sure? 1) Paul and his audience both knew who or what the restrainer was - v. 6. 2) The purpose of the restraint was to prevent the man of lawlessness from being revealed at an improper time - v. 6. 3) The restraint is presently active - v. 7. 4) The restraint will be removed at some point in the future - v. 7. 5) At that point, the man of lawlessness will be revealed - v. 8. Conclusions The simple fact is that no one can state with any certainty the identity of the restrainer. Scripture is silent on this issue. Thus, any attempts on our part to name the restrainer can only be considered guesses. Here are several assumptions which I believe can be made about the restrainer. 1) The nature of the restraint must be supernatural. 2) The activity of the restrainer has last almost 2,000 years now. Both of these facts indicate that the restrainer could not be a human being. This leads us to the conclusions which some have advanced concerning the identity. a) The Roman Empire. b) Government in general. c) The Church. d) The Holy Spirit. e) And (new to me), Michael the Archangel. I think a) is an impossible position since the Roman empire no longer exists and therefore could not be currently restraining the man of lawlessness. I think b) is questionable. In what sense could a government restrain supernatural evil? I think c), d), and e) are all possible answers. The only problem I have with e) is that there is nothing else in Scripture that indicates this. Dan. 12:1 does not (in my opinion) support this view. Even if it did, Dan. 12:1 identifies Michael as the protector of Israel, not the world. In my view, either c) or d) would be the most likely answers. The Church could be seen as a restraining force until it’s removal from the scene. The Holy Spirit would definitely be able to restrain the man of lawlessness. Ultimately, the real importance of this passage is not in the identify of the restrainer, but in the fact that even the man of lawlessness is subject to God’s sovereign plan. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
143 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | Morant61 | 13482 | ||
Greetings Bjanko! I am an Arminian! From that perspective, I have a question for you. You seem to be saying that only those whom God "makes believe" are counted among the "whosoever believes" passages. If God irresistibly calls people to salvation, how do you explain John 6:44 and John 12:32? John 6:44 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 12:32 says, "32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." The same word is used in both verses for the drawing of men to salvation. John 6:44 affirms that no one can come to Christ unless God draws him. While, John 12:32 says that Christ will draw all men. I look forward to your response! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
144 | Choose according to preference? | 2 Tim 1:12 | Morant61 | 165824 | ||
Greetings Doc! How does Rom. 7:14-25 relate to the theory that one always chooses according to the option that one most prefers? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
145 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Morant61 | 45030 | ||
Greetings John! Let me respond to your brain twister by twisting it back to you. If number 2 is correct, then why does the Bible command the elect to repent? Haven't their sins already been paid for? Or, why are we commanded in 1 John 1:9 to confess our sins? Aren't they already forgiven? My answer is simply this: 1 John 2:2! However, Scripture makes it clear that reception of this gift is conditioned upon faith and repentance. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
146 | Scripture? | Heb 11:40 | Morant61 | 114928 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! You wrote: " don't think you really expect to see "streets of gold," or "palaces of pearl," "seas of glass" in Heaven for the same reasons as stated above, do you?. Those kind of hard, physcial items of earthly elements won't exist either after Judgment Day." Where exactly does Scripture say that these things will not exist in the new Heaven and new Earth? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
147 | Scripture? | Heb 11:40 | Morant61 | 114929 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! You wrote: " don't think you really expect to see "streets of gold," or "palaces of pearl," "seas of glass" in Heaven for the same reasons as stated above, do you?. Those kind of hard, physcial items of earthly elements won't exist either after Judgment Day." Where exactly does Scripture say that these things will not exist in the new Heaven and new Earth? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
148 | What is the extent of Rom. 5:18? | 1 Pet 3:20 | Morant61 | 6474 | ||
Greetings Joe! Let me begin by stating how much I enjoy reading your postings. I haven't read all of the threads on this subject, but I would like to get involved. There is so much involved in this debate, but it seems that most people are focusing on the extent of the atonement. So, that is where I will begin. Please consider Romans 5:17-20. Here we have a text that deals exlicitly with both the extent and the efficacy of the atonement. Romans 5:18 makes a direct comparison between the act of Adam (the fall) and the act of Christ (the Cross). In both cases, the extent is universal. Adam's sin bring condemnation on all. Christ's death brings life for all men. Now immediately we ask ourselves, if this is the case then everyone would be saved, right? Not according to the text. Romans 5:17 again makes a comparison between Adam and Christ. Only this time the issue is efficacy, not extent. According to Romans 5:17, death reigned through Adam's sin. However, the gift of righteousness only reigns in those who receive God's grace. Based on this passage, and many others, my understanding of the extent and efficacy of the atonement is as follows: 1) Concerning the extent of the atonement, Christ died for all men. 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." There is no way to limit the extent of this verse. He atoned for our (Christians) sins, and for the sins of the world (non-Christians). The passages you list do not rule out an unlimited atonement in terms of extent (in my opinion.) I don't want to blow them off, so if there is any particular point you want to discuss, I would be more than happy to dialogue with you. 2) Concerning the efficacy of the atonement, only those who receive God's grace are included in it's benefit. The "whosoever will's" are the only ones who receive the benefit of the atonement. Like you, I have studied this topic a lot over the years. I am conviced that in many ways, both sides of the debate are saying the same thing, only with a few different presuppsitons. The end result is the same under both scemes of thought, only some (the elect or those who respond) are saved. Have you ever read anything by Robert Shank? I would be curious to see what you think about his argument. He covers his thoughts in two full books, so I can't deal with all of it, but a good summary is that election is corporate, not individual. When someone responds to God's grace, he becomes a part of the elect body, the Church. He or she, then becomes a participant in all of the blessings are promises made to the elect. I'd better go, I don't want to post too long of a message. Keep up the good posts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
149 | Acts 10:47? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Morant61 | 113753 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! You wrote: "Now on the subject of Cornelius, his family and their being saved: this too is a tough subject. I've got to say it seems to me it's fairly obvious that Cornelius was saved in much the same manner as the Apostles. Don't you know that the Apostles were all baptized AFTER receiving the Empowerment of the Holy Ghost on that sacred 1st day of the church?" Where is Scripture does it say that these two groups were to be saved in a different manner than the rest of mankind? If baptism is essential for salvation, then how could they be saved without it? Yet, we have to be baptized to be saved? In my view, Acts 10:47 is the fatal blow to the baptismal regeneration position and demonstrates conclusively that Acts 2:38 has been misinterpreted my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
150 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6540 | ||
Greetings Y'all: There have been several threads deaing with the extent of the atonment. Rather than rehasing all of those discussions, I would like to propose something different. A limited discussion on 1 John 2:2. Personally, I think the best way to debate an issue like this is to deal with a limited number of verses. Since I proposed this, I will start first. Here is my take on 1 John 2:2. The question concerning the extent of the atonement is simply this: Did Christ atone for all or only the elect? Many verses, which seem to indicate that Christ died for all, can be interpreted in such a way as to limit the extent of the word 'all.' However, 1 John 2:2 seems to be perfectly clear. There is a contrast here between believers (our sins) and unbelievers (the whole world). Christ is the propitation for all sin. Now, what does it mean that Christ is the propitation for all sin? The word 'hilasmos' is only used twice in the New Testament (Here and in 1 John 4:10). It signifies a turning a way of God's wrath by an offering. The entire ministry of Christ is signified by this word in 1 John 4:10. The gift of salvation in Romans 3:25 is described using a related word 'hilasterion.' This same word ('hilasterion') is used in Heb. 2:17 to refer to the priestly ministry of Christ. In my opinion, this verse is decisive. Christ died for the sins of everyone. The Cross is the one and only act of atonement for all men and for all sin. I don't see anyway, in light of this verse, that one can argue that Christ only died for the elect. p.s. - A note for all those who respond. Unless one is dealing with heresy, I view debate as an opportunity to sharpen our understanding of Scripture. By interacting with one another, we can see how others view Scripture, consider other points of view, and sharpen our ability to deal with objections to our viewpoints. We may never agree with each other, but I can live with that! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
151 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6564 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I have to disagree with your first point. Theology and doctrine should be based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. While you definitely need to look at all of Scripture to formulate doctrine, you must understand the individual verses first. I think this is where so many people go wrong. They start quoting a bunch of verses without ever really dealing with what the verses are actuall saying. In terms of the extent of the atonement, I do believe that this is a decisive verse. It does not deal with everything relating to the atonement, but it does deal with the extent of the atonement. Allow me to briefly touch upon your points. 1) Does "world" refer to every individal? There is a comparison here. John is comparing the sins of us (obviously the Christians to who he is writing) and the sins of the whole world (the sins of everyone else). He doesn't say all Christians everywhere. He specifically says the sins of the world and then qualifies that further with the word 'whole.' If you are going to interpret this phrase in some other way, you must provide a rational to do so. There is no mention in 1 John of Jews and Gentiles, so that won't work either. Other than your doctrine, do you have contextual reasons to interpret the 'sins of the whole world' to mean something other than the sins of the whole world? 2) Hyperbole? Vague? It sounds clear to me! Hyperbole would definitely be a legitimate linguistic device, but what evidence is there that hyperbole is being used here? Simply listing three or four possible options without providing any evidence does not eliminate the plain reading (the most natural reading) of the text. 3) Your third point is only a problem if you hold to a Calvanistic viewpoint of Sovereignty and free will. From my standpoint, the atonement is an accompished fact for every individual. However, only those who receive the gift of salvation partake in the benefits of it. From a Calvanistic standpoint, Christ cannot have died for everyone, or everyone would be 'saved' simply because Calvin never allowed for any human freedom. 4) The unforgivable sin is more a problem for Calvanist than for Arminians. This is a good illustration of why we need to deal with individual passages. If Christ died for the 'sins of the whole world,' then the doctrine of the limited atonement cannot be Biblical. So, this key verse must be dealt with. |
||||||
152 | Whole world or not? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6573 | ||
Greetings Sam! I agree that dealing with one verse is stacking the deck in my favor! However, it is my thread and if you don't want to play by my rules, I will take my thread and go home! :-) Seriously though, I did try to limit the discussion for a reason. The debate between Calvanism and Armnianism deals with many issues: The sovereignty of God, freewill, the order of decrees, human nature, original sin, grace, and a host of other theological issues. The problem I have is that many times we never deal with a particular point, but only throw around a bunch of "yeah, but what about this verse"'s. So, my goal was not to eliminate debate, but simply focus it. Now concerning the meat of your post! 1) You asked, "Did Christ die for the sins of all humans or for all humans who sin?" I'm not sure I see a huge difference since we all sin, but I understand where you are going. Can the phrase "the sins of the whole world" not mean every inividual? I say no! The term sin is modifed by a plural personal pronoun. It is not just sin, but our sin for which Christ died. Then, John goes on, not just our sin, but the sin of the whole world. If John is speaking of individuals in the first phrase, he must still be speaking of individuals in the second phrase. 2) How about John 10:11? First of all, each passage must be interpreted based upon it's own context. If in fact 1 John 2:2 refers to the whold world, that fact does not automatically mandate that "sheep" in John 10:11 must also refer to the whole world. John 10:11 and 1 John 2:2 are different books, and in different contexts. The sheep "parable" in John 10 is a story told to make a point. It was not intended to be a theological textbook for or against either Calvanism or Arminianism (though it may speak for or against either). In the sheep passage, Jesus makes several statements about His sheep. However, He does not say how one becomes (if possible) one of His sheep. He does not say why some are and some are not His sheep. And, if I understand your point correctly, the fact that Christ died for His sheep, in no way is a statement that Christ did not die for those who aren't His sheep. For instance, if I said that God loves Christians, does that mean that God hates non-Christians? There isn't any statment in John 10 that Christ did not die for anyone other than His sheep, while 1 John 2:2 specifically says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Aside: There are several issues that must be addressed in John 10 if we are to understand the theology of it. a) Who are the sheep? Elect as opposed to non-elect? Christians as opposed to non-Christians? Jews as opposed to non-Jews? b) Why does John 10:15 say that Christ died for "the sheep" and not "my sheep?" c) Who are the other sheep of John 10:16? I am more than happy to discuss other verses, post a thread with a verse or passage that you want to discuss and I'll respond. However, no one has yet given me a contextual reason why "the sins of the whole world" does not really mean the "whole world." The reason I chose this particual verse for debate was beause the phrase "whole world" cannot mean anything else. Either Christ was the propitation for the sins of the whole world or He wasn't. Which is it? In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
153 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6575 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't expecting such a quick reply! My counter reply is: You cannot understand the whole unless you understand the parts. An appeal to the whole, to me, means I can't explain the verse! :-) 1) I don't believe I said there was only one way to read it. What I recall saying was that the natural reading is that the whole world refers to the whole world, not just part. For instance, if I said that I ate a whole apple pie today, the natural reading would be that 'whole' refered to the entire pie and not just a part of it. 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)" So, did He or did He not atone for the sins of the whole world? This is the natural reading. If you are going to read it otherwise, you must provide reason for understanding "whole world" in some other way than "whole world." 2) I'll deal briefly with the individual verses that you list later in your post. a) Romans 9:12-15: Is the election refered to here one of salvation or purpose? No where in this passage does it say that Isaac was saved and Esau was lost. In fact, Romans 9:11-12 states that God's purpose in election, which was not based upon works, was that the older would serve the younger. How does this contradict 1 John 2:2? b) Jude 4: You lost me on this one! God long ago, wrote about certain godless men who would deny Christ. How does this relate to 1 John 2:2? c) Eph. 1:11-12: This one deserves much more discussion (maybe a new thread!) My short response is this: The purpose of election in Eph. 1 is to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. The Jews (the we of vs. 11) were the first to respond to the Gospel, but the Gentiles, (the you also of vs. 13) were also included among the elect when they responded to and believed the Gospel. My understanding of election is corporate in nature, not individual (per Robert Shank). Note however, that these verses no where state that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world. Where is the contradiction to 1 John 2:2? d) Rev. 20:15: Whose names are written in the book of life? How do they get there? Does this verse say that He did not die for those who are not in the book of life? 3 and 4) From my perspective, you are confusing he offer of the gift with the acceptance of the gift. Atonement has been made once and for all for all sin by Christ on the cross. However, the gift must be received or it does not save. In essence, Christ paid for our sins and now says, "Are you with me or against me?" If we reject His offer, we are lost. 5) Election history: Did God choose to save the indiduals you listed first and choose to condemn the ones listed second? Or did He choose to work through the first and not the second? This is one reason why Calvanist's (in my opinion) prefer to look at the whole and not individual verses, because there is not a single verse that says Christ died only for the elect or only for some. The fact that God choose to make David king over Saul does not mean that some are elected to salvation and others are not. 6) Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject. Thanks for you reply! Might I suggest that we narrow the focus in the future. These posts are getting long. You might pick one passage or one area that we could focus on for discussion. I'll go with the flow. Suggestion: Things like T.U.L.I.P. are helpful in distguishing between Calvanism and Arminianism. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
154 | All, but not All? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6629 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for narrowing the focus! Is or can the gift be accepted? Let me stick with one of the passages that we have been dealing with - Romans 5:17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." I don't think that you would diagree that contextually the gift in Romans is salvation. In this passage, Paul is making a lengthy comparison and contrast of the act and subseqent effects of Adam's sin and the act and subsequent effect of Christ's death. To summarize Paul's point, death reigned upon all because of Adam's sin, but life regins in those who, according to v. 17, receive God's abundant provision of grace. The word receive is a Present Active, Participle. They did the receiving. To me, when he Bible says that someone received something, it's pretty clear. Concerning hermeneutics: I have been kind of joking around with you, but I do think this is an important point. Obviously, you need to look at all of Scripture to shape and accurate understanding of doctrine. We would agree on that point. However, you must deal with Scripture. Doctrine is not built by simply adding up the verses (558 say election vs. 400 say free will, therefore, election wins.) If you have a clear statement in even one verse that disagrees with your understading (or mine) of a doctrine, we must reexamine our presuppositions, not simply ignore the verse because it doesn't agree with our theology. (I'm not implying that you are doing this. I'm simply making the statement because I am concerned that appealing to the whole of Scripture without dealing with Scripture will lead to that problem.) p.s. - If I eat a whole pie, did I or did I not eat every part of the pie? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran. |
||||||
155 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6650 | ||
Greeting Orthodoxy! 1) There are two problems with your first paragraph. First of all, Rom. 5:15-17 specifically state that the two are not exactly parallel. Secondly, you never even attempted to deal with the word 'receive.' V. 17 specifically says that it applies only to those who receive it. 2) I think I dealt with this question in another post (I'm not sure it was in response to you though.) I see the atonement as uncondition, whil election is conditioned upon our acceptance. 3) Or, there is a third option. God offers salvation, not willing that any should perish. I've got to go to work now! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
156 | When is all not all? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6757 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Thanks for the input! As I had discussed with Othodoxy, I believe that invidiual verses must be dealt with in our theology and doctrine. This verse just cannot be made to fit a doctrine of a limited atonement (in my opinion.) However, it is not just this verse but a clear pattern of Scripture as well that Christ both atoned for the sins of the world and wills that all men be saved (hence the offer of salvation to all is real.) Consider the following verses of Scripture: 1) Concerning the extent of the atonement: a) 2 Cor. 5:19 - "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. " b) John 3:16-17 - "‘‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." c) John 12:32 - "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” d) John 6:33 and 51 - "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ..."I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” e) Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." f) 1 John 4:14 - "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." g) 1 Timothy 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." 2) Concerning the will of Christ to save all: a) 1 Timothy 2:4 - "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." b) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." c) Romans 11:32 - " For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." I believe that all of these verses demonstrate the love of God, in that He died for all and res all to be reconciled to Him. The tragedy is that so many fail to respond to the grace of God. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
157 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6871 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I agree that answers 2 and 3 are not valid under Calvanism. However, Calvanism is the only way to view the Biblical data. What about response number 1? Under Calvanism, can yo exlain 'receive' in Rom. 5:17? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
158 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6873 | ||
Follow up - I made two mistakes in my reponse to this post! First of all, I thought I was responding to Orthodoxy (sorry JVH0212)! Secondly, I meant to type that "Calvinism is NOT the only way to view the Biblical data! Sorry! Tim Moran |
||||||
159 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6977 | ||
Greetings Joe! Obviously Calvanists and Arminians approach Scripture with different sets of assumptions. However, Scripture should be the final arbitrator. During the course of this thread, several people have asked me about specific passages of Scripture. I haven't tried to give honest and thorough answers about each passage. However, no one has responded concerning those passages. For instance, you asked me about Rom. 5:17. Then you asked me for Scripture demostrating that salvation is something that can be accepted or rejected. I responded with a fairly detailed examination of 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Before we go on to discuss why some accept and some don't, would you respond to these two passages from your perspective. a) Romans 5:17 uses an active voice for the verb 'receive.' The normal meaning of this would be that the subject does the receiving. How does this square with Calvanism? b) The most important passage is 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Paul describes there his ministry of reconcilation, given to him by God, in which he implores and persuades men to be reconciled to God as though God Himself were making the plea. Paul does so because the love of Christ compels him. His final command is this: Be reconciled to God. This passage seems like it is describing Arminianism perfectly. God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ (unlimited atonement), but those to whom Paul is preaching must "be reconciled (conditonal election)." As a Calvanist, how do you interpret this passage? Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran p.s. - Let us know how the mission trip goes! |
||||||
160 | Why would you include 1 John 5:7? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 98558 | ||
Greetings Justanotherchristian! Welcome to the forum! I was curious as to why you feel that a reading which is only found in four manuscripts (none of which date before the 10th century), out of the thousands in existence, should be included in the text of the Bible? There may be many textual variants over which people can legitimately have differences of opinions, but this one seems to be a 'no brainer'! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |