Results 41 - 60 of 126
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166013 | ||
Hi Kalos. Please forgive me for commenting that I did not know what you were attempting to show by your response. Anyway, I'm cut-pasting your post for future reference. Thanks and, I am so sorry for the mix-up. In the first place, I didn't even notice you were responding to Mark (I need glasses for my glasses), and in the second place, I was reading quite fast just to pick out what I wanted to cut-paste to Word and respond later (way too much coffee). |
||||||
42 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166011 | ||
I don't quite get what you're attempting to say by your response... | ||||||
43 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165922 | ||
Not being a scholar of the language, allow me to explain my point of view, which does not necessarily disagree with your view except in your definition of hatred as "a strong dislike" or "not emotional hatred." It seems a correct understanding of this verse may center on the word translated "hate". Robertson: "Hateth...An old and very strong verb...to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language..." (Word Pictures). Evans: "This may be an example of the Semitic expression of preference," however, "it may also express Luke's rigorous outlook" (Saint Luke). Liefeld: "It is important to understand the ancient Near Eastern expression without blunting its force" (Expositor's Bible Commentary). The word translated "hate" is the same used in Matt 5:43; 24:10; Luke 6:22,27; John 3:20; 7:7; 15:23; Rom 9:13; Rev 2:6,15 (cf. Young, Strong). Vine: "to hate...(a) of malicious and unjustifiable feelings...(c) of relative preference..." (Dictionary) Lenski: "Instead of leaving [the Greek word] in its true sense 'to hate' it is generally reduced, even 'watered down till the point is gone'." (St. Luke's Gospel; his further remarks are quite interesting, which is somewhat a different perspective than what we are discussing but it makes good sense to me). The point is that, according to above references, Luke chose to use a very strong Greek word (as it seems the English translation rightly conveys) to express Jesus' teaching. I concede that Luke's readers may have recognized that the verse spoke of preference but that just proves the point; they knew not to take it literally. There was an intended meaning in the word "hate" other than as stated. Therefore, it seems, Luke did not intend for his readers to understand Jesus "exactly" from what was stated via the normal meaning of the Greek word "hate" but some other meaning is intended. A mere conjecture is offered with reference to Jesus' use of the Aramaic since I do not know what word he used (only because I don't know Aramaic). However, if it was equivalent to the strength of the Greek word, the same can be said: Jesus knew exactly what he was saying but exactly what he meant was something different from what was exactly stated. The fact that his hearers readily knew he took the word to mean something other than what its literal meaning might suggest only supports this view. Please note, Mark, with all due respect, you apprehended the text not on the basis of the word itself but on the basis of (1) a form of teaching understood within the culture; (2) other relevant verses that bring light Luke's understanding of Jesus' statement; (3) in relation to other texts about the command to love, which I am not against doing. However, as far as I can tell, you did not come to understand what Jesus meant by the "plain reading" of the word "hate," which is, as Robertson states, in Greek is a "very strong verb...to hate, detest." One last point. Again, I think we make the Western mistake of dichotomizing persons, a thing it seems unheard of in the Eastern world like "emotional" hatred; if one "hated" or "loved" it was understood as being done with one's whole person. I hope I explained my point clearly. |
||||||
44 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165914 | ||
Thanks for your response, Mark. Please allow me to leave a response also for "other readers to ponder". Please note, although we may know where each other stands, there is no problem (on my part, at least), since no one is trying to convince the other, to exchange views on the different texts that support each other's position. 1. In accordance to Eph 5:20, does anyone ever thank God that children are being raped, that the cancer patient is going through pain? 2.If (1) sickness is God's will for believers and (2) sickness brings God glory, why (1) pray for healing in the first place, and (2) if we do get healed, why not pray we get sick again? 3. The good things that come out of affliction (1) do not come out automatically, (2) depend on the person's response. Suffering can either bring a person nearer or further from God. Believing that God's intention is that his children be healthy is not a matter of "humanity" but a matter of God's word (Psalm 103:3; 3 John 2; Malachi 4:2; Matthew 7:11). From my perspective, believing God's desire is to heal all who are sick (Jesus' practice in the Gospels) and for us to be healthy is, at least, one thing that "the Sovereign Lord has determined will make me like Jesus". There are many verses in the Bible where God grants healing. In all seriousness (there is no sarcasm intended at all), (1) I have not yet found a verse in the Bible where God promises sickness. (2) Matt 4:23 does not read that Jesus went making people sick. |
||||||
45 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165908 | ||
Hi Shythiyl, I apologize, but I don't understand your comment. |
||||||
46 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165520 | ||
Hi Tim, I'm sort of slow myself in answering. I can agree with your comment regarding Rom 7 although I do not think Paul intended to be understood as describing in particular his own experience. Phil. 3:6. Unless I slipped, I did not assert that the apostle was “perfect.” I did say he was “blameless,” but as a believer. Before conversion and as a Pharisee, the apostle saw himself as righteous according to the Law. Phi 3:12-14. It seems here that the apostle’s mention of perfection is not with reference to his moral character but to his resurrection; at least, that is what it seems when context is considered. 1 Tim. 1:13,15-16. I think v.16 highlights the suggestion that the apostle’s reference to himself as the worst sinner is within the context of his acts, specifically against the Church, as a Pharisee before his dramatic conversion. It is not what he thought of himself at the time but only in hindsight. It does not describe his present experience as a believer, unless it is suggested that the apostle, as a believer in Messiah Yeshua, is engaged in sins that are worst than the worst offences of the ungodly? In hindsight Paul saw he did not keep Torah, at least, not in the spirit although in the letter he may have. I repeat, I did not say that the apostle claimed to be perfect as a believer, however, he did not claim to be in the habit of sinning; he claims to be blameless. Rom. 3:20; Gal 2:21; 3:10. There is no denial of this. This fact makes it all the more glaring for Paul since he claims to have kept Torah, seeking life by its observance. Also in summary, the apostle claims in hindsight as a believer that (1) he was a sinner, (2) his life as a believer is blameless before God and man, (3) the righteousness he attained as a Pharisee according to Torah was to no avail since it was unacceptable before God. To clarify Phil. 3:6, (1) There seems to be confusion between being “perfect” and being “blameless.” Paul claims to be blameless, not perfect; and (2) There seems to be no contradiction with the other verses because his reference to “perfection” is with respect to the divine act of being resurrected from the dead, not moral character. Just a couple of more pennies for the tin... |
||||||
47 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165270 | ||
Hey Doc, For clarification, let me just add that I am not sayong Paul was righteous before conversion; only that he thought himself to be righteous according to Torah. |
||||||
48 | Paul's physical description | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165260 | ||
...just seeking clarity. | ||||||
49 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165240 | ||
I fail to see why Paul cannot use the "first person" as a device in writing to others to explain a point. Sometimes, too much of an argument is made based on the grammer or the meaning of a word (not that it should be dismissed) and that is why some mistakes are made in interpretation, that is, in attempting to understand the intended meaning of the text. In any case, I am unfamiliar with Greek and cannot answer based on the Greek language or grammer (I'm bad enough with English!). But let me give and uneducated answer: Rom 7:6. Here the apostle is literally referring to himself. The illustration using himself begins from verse 7 through to the end. In these verses he is expanding on the illustration of marriage to make his point. Note that what he says in verse 6 is contrary to the what he states in the verses that follow. Regarding vs. 7-25, I have stated before my reasons for disagreeing with the interpretation that these verses literally describe Paul before or after conversion. In any case, "ongoing struggle against our 2 natures", however, the struggle in Rom 7 is seen as a losing battle against sin; it does not depict one who is walking in the Spirit as Galatians depicts it. Also, allow me to back up a bit. I do not mean that Paul was not a sinner or a slave to sin before conversion, nor do I mean to say that in all respects Rom 7 does not depict, to one degree or another, in one form or another, the apostle's plight apart from grace. Paul may have been a covetous person. The point is, he did not see himself as a covetous person before conversion. He saw himself as righteous according to the Law. Paul may have contended with a guilty conscience for some time, nevertheless, he seems to have mollified it's pangs with an evaluation of himself as righteous. I am saying, Rom 7 does not necessarily have any literal reference to the apostle's life before or after conversion. He is making a general statement concerning the law and man's condition in relation to it; it is applicable to every man as a sinner (not as a believer, cf. v.1). The point he wished to make was not so much what his life was or is like but what the Law is and its function (v.7). For example, before conversion Paul could not have seen that the Law was death (v.9-10) to him because he felt that he was following the Law and thus was, not a "sinner", but a righteous man; he felt that the commandment gave him life (Phil 3:6). Paul persecuted the Church because he thought it was the righteous thing to do. After his conversion, the apostle learned that his zeal for God, rather than establishing righteousness for him, brought him under the divine disapproval (Rom 10:3); and it is through hindsight he says, "when the commandment came to life, sin sprang to life, and I died" (v.9). I do not advocate "sinless perfection", however, I do believe the attainment (on this side of heaven) of living blamelessly before God is possible. I have met two persons who I believed lived such a life, at least, as long as I've known and been in close or intimate contact with them. That one may struggle against sin does not necessarily nullify the possibility of living in Biblical perfection (or blamelessness); Gal 5:16-17 does not speak against its attainment but for it. |
||||||
50 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165237 | ||
Hi Doc, Verse 7 is describing the Law as holy and v.13 as highlighting sin. Regarding v. 18a, even unbelievers can be conscious that nothing good dwells in them. Not knowing their sinful condition is necessarily their problem; their problem is, once being conscious of it, they refuse to come to Christ for deliverance. I think that v.18b,19,21 are good descriptions of the unregenerate. Some even confess their situation in like terms. Again, the problem is not so much that they cannot realize their sinfulness but they cannot see the value of believing in Christ for deliverance. Verse 25 to me reflects the sinner’s plight without grace and the divine influence or work of conviction upon his conscience (it is possible the first phrase of thanksgiving is out of place). To me this verse is equivalent to what is stated in vs.19-21. So, yes, if anything, these verses are descriptive of the unregenerate. In light of Romans 8, I do not see how it can be otherwise. With all respect to the Puritans, if one is living this kind of struggle, of coveting (v.8), “of flesh sold into bondage to sin” (v14), of always doing what he does not understand and what is contrary to his good intentions (15-20) as a “prisoner of the law of sin” (v.23), and serving the law of sin through indulgences of the flesh (v.25) on the contrary, he ought to take the time to reexamine his spiritual state to see if he is of the faith (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 1:6; 2:4,29; 3:6-7; 5:3-5). No one is denying that there may be a struggle in the believer’s life but as I think another poster pointed out, it is not a struggle of losing and falling into sin as Rom 7 depicts it; but it is a struggle in which the outcome is victory over sin. Whether or not consistent victory over sin is actually the case in one’s personal life is not my argument. That the struggle in the Christian life should be one of victory is my point. If Romans 7 is descriptive of the apostle Paul’s way of life, notwithstanding Rom 8, we are looking at, from my point of view, a pathetic state of affairs. I would question how one could call a life of always wishing the good but always doing the evil instead as walking according to the Spirit. |
||||||
51 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165236 | ||
Hi Doc, I have not noticed Paul using this sort of literary device in any other epistle. However, I am not convinced that its absence in any other of his epistles warrants dismissal of its use here. Briefly, my position is taken for the following reasons: 1. If Rom 7 is the apostle’s experience as a believer, chapter 8 seems to contradict it; the experience described in either one rules out the other. For example, one cannot simultaneously live in “of flesh” (7:14) and be “led by the Spirit” (8:14) or be “sold into bondage to sin” and be “free from the law of sin and death (8:2). 2. As far as before his conversion, Paul seems not to have been conscious of being a sinner against the Law but as one who followed it in all respects (Phil 3:6; cf. Rom 10:3), therefore, he would not describe himself as one who was covetous or unable to do the good that he desired to do (7:8,18-19). 3. As far as being a believer in Messiah, it does not seem feasible that Paul would admit, on the one hand, that he is absorbed in “every kind of coveting” or is “doing the very thing I hate” (7:8,15) and, on the other hand, boldly declare that when he returns to them, it will be “in the fullness of the blessing of Christ” (15:29) or, as in another epistle, that he has lived his life with a “clear conscience before God and men” (Acts 23:1; 24:16; cf. 1 Ths 2:10; 1 Cor 11:1). My position, as in the views of others, does not answer every question that may come up to refute it but, for me, it resolves most of my questions and better upholds the message and substance of the Gospel. |
||||||
52 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165231 | ||
Hi Doc, With respect to Phil 3:6a, it seems to me that that apostle Paul did not consider himself a "wicked, sinful man" while he was persecuting the Church (cf. Jn 16:2). His evaluation of himself in 1 Tim 1:15 was on hindsight, which makes his statement in Phil 3:9 all the more insightful and effective against self-righteousness. The darkness (preferable to using the word "black") of Paul's sin is all the more dark indeed because, as a Pharisee, he was convinced of his own right standing before Yhwh. As an aside, to my way of thinking the texts, Rom 6:18 refers to the effects of enabling grace, not "judicial" righteousness; here it is the righteousness one practices as a result of being set free from sin through grace (cf. v19-23). |
||||||
53 | But now...! | Rom 8:1 | atdcross | 165184 | ||
Thanks, Doc. I forgot to mention the grandchild is a boy named Josiah... | ||||||
54 | But now...! | Rom 8:1 | atdcross | 165182 | ||
Brad, thanks for the encouragement. I just read your profile and you reminded me to add the following to my own: "I am married with two daughters, ages 22 and 23, who are both serving the Lord; my older is married with one child (just born on 12/21/2005) and serves in a local church while my younger daughter is in her third years with the FIRE School of Ministry in North Carolina." |
||||||
55 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165166 | ||
Thanks, Hank. Have a great year in the Lord. | ||||||
56 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165165 | ||
Hi Tim, Did I say Happy New Year?! It is good to find common ground and to allow differences to sharpen our knowledge of God. With respect to the apostle "describing himself prior to his conversion," consider that position in the light of Phil 3:6 - "as to righteousness in the Law, found blameless." This verse seems to go against your comment that Paul, "as a Pharisee, who loves the Law of God, but finds himself unable to obey it, who wants to please God, but cannot." Two questions: 1. How do you reconcile your comment with what the apostle says in Philippians? 2. If Rom 7 describes his experience prior to conversion, how would you reconcile the apparent contradiction between what the apostle says in Phil 3:6 and Romans 7:8? (Should I have posted this as a question?) |
||||||
57 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165155 | ||
Your question, "Have you noticed that Rom. 7:14-25 doesn't describe a struggle to avoid sin, but a complete inability to avoid sin?" is something I had thought of but failed to note in these discussions. I appreciate your observations and pointing this out. The Christian life is not one of being overcome by sin but of overcoming sin. If one is overcome by sin, I would think that person needs to rethink his/her position in Christ. Holiness is not a thing of dreams. |
||||||
58 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165154 | ||
I usually do not give out information as such on profiles since my experience has been that others make unwarranted assumtions and use it to argue for their position, although one's profile is totally irrelevant to any Biblical or theological discussion. However, understanding that others can appreciate one's background and better understand why certain positions are held, as per your request, please read my updated profile. |
||||||
59 | But now...! | Rom 8:1 | atdcross | 165153 | ||
Hi Tim, Very good and informative point! I wholeheartedly agree with your presentation of Romans 7 and 8. |
||||||
60 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | atdcross | 165076 | ||
Hi Edwin, 1 Jn 5:1 - The text is not translated as saying, "Everyone who is born of God believes that Jesus is the Messiah," but the opposite, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is born of God." To answer your hypothetical question, odds are it is possible to get more converted if the sacrifice of Christ was for all in the crowd rather than a certain few. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |