Results 421 - 440 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | IS BAPTISM NECESSARY | NT general | Beja | 220863 | ||
Mamametal, I believe this is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27. In that passage it speaks of the new birth in a few different terms. These are: sprinkling with clean water for clensing, taking out the heart of stone for a heart of flesh, and putting His Spirit within us. I can't prove that is what He was referring to, but I can tell you I'm not alone in this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
422 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220839 | ||
Lightedsteps, Sin seperates us from God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
423 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220830 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not trying to argue that one can loose their salvation. I don't think that this passage is teaching that a person can loose it. I believe whole heartedly in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. But I can tell you for certain where the IF came from. If you want to have IF in there at all it is unavoidably connected to the "falling away." Your end conclusion I wouldn't begrudge. But you have to translate the falling away some how and the options are limited. I can tell you for certain that what it is defined as impossible is the renewing to repentence. In the greek there is really no room for confusion. The main clause is "For it is impossible to renew them to repentence." Now from there you can argue the passage multiple ways, but that much greek grammer constrains us to. There is a fellow that frequents these forums, Bro. Tim. He seems to be more proficient in greek than I am and I would urge him to validate or correct my claims here if he notices this post. But once again, I don't think you are comming to a wrong conclusion, you are just reaching it in a way the grammer won't support. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
424 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220821 | ||
Fundamentals, I've debated this question more than once on this site, so when you asked I was rather determined not to get involved in the conversation once more. However, the answer given by lightedsteps very much should be addressed. To put it simply, what he has told you about the "IF" in the sentence is wrong. His interpretation is literally impossible due to the way it is written in the original greek. Verse 6 says, "Kai parapesontas, palin anakeinidzein" Feel free to take my word for it, but anybody who does not take my word for it let me break this phrase down for you. Kai (and, even, also) This word simply connects this section to what has come before. 'Palin anakeinidzein" means to renew again. It goes on to say "to repentence" but I didn't want to reproduce the entire verse in Greek. Now here is the point. There is one word left, "parapesontas." This is a participle of the verb which means "to fall away." Notice this, there is no IF or WHEN in the text at all. In fact, this is true of all verses 4-6, there is no word in this entire text for IF or WHEN. The word IF isn't even in the text! Either of those words ONLY comes into the text as you try to translate this participle. Participles can be translated in different ways. Some possibilities could be, When they fall away Having fallen away If they fall away because they fall away etc. Translations deal with this participle in different ways. I'm not trying to tell you or anybody how to translate this participle. But what I am saying is that you can not translate it in a conditional sense, into "If they fall away," And then take the if and move it else where into the sentence! The IF is ONLY there by virtue of you taking the "to fall away" participle in that sense. You can not treat the IF as an independent word in the sentence and debate where it is applied. This is literally a grammatically impossible interpretation of the greek. I hope this helps. I know it didn't answer the verse for you, but I didn't want you to go away with an answer that is literally impossible grammatically. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
425 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220664 | ||
Val, 1. The book of Hebrews does not specifically say, "The law was abolished." In fact, if you do a search with a simple tool, you will find that the absolutely only time these two words are used in a verse together within the entire New Testament is in Matthew 5:17. I do not deny that Hebrew has a passage in particular which if read a certain way would amount to such a statement. But say those words "specifically" it most certainly does not. I'm thinking of Hebrews 7:12. But I would agree with John Gill when he says that this is not referring to the moral law but the systems of sacrifices. I think the context supports this. 2. "It was for Israel" If tithing was specifically instituted at mount sinai as a pact with Israel and ended with Christ, then why did Abraham tithe? 3. "We just have different perspectives" "Let us agree to disagree" The entire point of my post which you first responded to, was to help people understand what presuppositions causes the multitude of answers on the question of tithing. I was attempting to do this as a service because I worried about young christians seeing a simple question getting such wildly different answers. The way one answers the question of tithing is based on how one answers the question of the law's role with a Christian. You yourself are proving that your answer is based on this. What I wanted, was to present the question of the law clearly and let readers think through that so they could understand and formulate their own opinion on the tithe as it pertains to Christians. If you want us to agree to disagree, then let it lay there, with us letting people disagree on the role of the law in Christianity. That is where the disagreement is, not on tithes. The stances on tithes is merely a symptom of ones stance on the law. 4. "The other subjects you mentioned would be covered in their own topics." I am only discussing two topics, law and tithing. And both of these you once again made authority like statements on without quoting any scripture whatsoever. In conclusion, I do not mind letting us agree to disagree, or even letting the discussion end. But what we are discussing is a question that great minds have written many many pages on in the past. All I am attempting to do is give people a chance to think through these theological issues which shape our views on many things such as tithes. If you wish to discuss it with me, I very much welcome your careful presentation of your view from scripture. But if you have no interest in doing that, and just want to agree to disagree, I am happy to go along with that also. But please choose. Either articulate your position from scripture, or disagree silently. But don't just make decisive statements regarding the law over issues that have been debated for centuries as if you can declare the issue clear and closed, and that without quoting scripture. If you wish to look further into this via a book, I highly reccommend Edward Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity. Its a good place to start. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
426 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220659 | ||
Val, How shall I respond? Your post ignores every question I posted for thought and simply says that I'm wrong. My very first question was asking people to consider what scripture means by such things? Does every command need to be repeated in the new testament, or does the new testament assume the morality of the old? Show me please where the new testament forbids beastiality. And if you can not, shall I assume it is permissible since it is not repeated in the new? ENGAGE with what I said. Second, I think what you said was not very gracious. Why would you accuse me or anybody's motives as simply wanting to spend your money? I assure you that giving, and giving to the church specifically is biblical. Romans 12:13 says we are to be, "contributing to the needs of the saints." Galatians 6:6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 1 Cor 9:13,14 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. Might I ask where the money is to come from for this? Is it not people giving to the church? I challenge you to study 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18. Specifically to a word study on the word translated as "honor" in verse 17. Then see how paul uses the same Ox example in 1 Cor 9. I assure you I need no "tithe law" to scriptually preach that people should be supporting the church and pastor. My motive is not some worldly enjoyment of spending "other people's money." My goal is that I very much want to learn what scripture teaches so that I may walk obediently before my God. I challenge you again to actually engage with my post rather than simply dismissing it. What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17 and the following verses? How would you biblically argue that beastiality is wrong? What if I deny that it falls under the blanket categories of fornication and immorality? Can you prove from scripture that when the NT says that we are no longer under the law, it means, "Nothing said in the old testament can any longer tell us how one ought to live?" My post was meant to help us start looking at our assumptions yet you responded with nothing but unspoken assumptions. Please clarify. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
427 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220644 | ||
To various parties reading the tithing thread, As we have seen very clearly, the question of tithing is unavoidably tied to the question of how the law applies to New Testament believers. This is a question that impacts a great deal of things. Unfortunately it is something we have failed to understand more often than not. I would rather not debate the question on the forum, but I'd like to give some questions to help people think through the question. 1. When scripture says we are not under the law but under grace, does it mean a.that the moral laws of the old testament are no longer to be understood as how we should live? b.or does it mean that we are no longer going to be judged by them for our acceptance before God? 2. To facilitate this question, think through the ten commandments. Have they been abolished by Christ as rules for His people? Don't give a blanket theological answer, go back and look through them one at a time in Exodus 20 and ask it individually. 3. Did Christ teach that he was going to do away with the law? See Matthew chapter 5:17 and following verses. 4. Clearly scripture teaches that the ceremonial laws that were just meant to point to a future reality in Christ are gone. These are things such circumcision, festivals, sacrifices, dietary laws etc. IF you have decided FIRST that we are not judged before God based on the moral law, but we still are guided and instructed by the moral laws, such as do not murder, do not commit adultery etc. THEN you must decide how tithing fit into the old testament. In Short, was it a moral command or one of these ceremonial commands? Was tithing a sign given to point to Christ? Or was tithing as a command to honor God from your wealth an actual moral issue? 5. Now, if you have decided that even though we are not condemned by the law any longer, but we are to walk rightly according to it, and that tithing is infact a moral issue, we must consider how a christian was meant to view the law, even while walking in obedience to it. 6. In that case I would turn you to 1 Tim 1. What you will find is that the law will never be a problem to one following Christ by walking in the spirit, for the spirit is going to lead you to worship, love, and give. None of which are against the law. (I imagine galatians 5 is in my mind as I say this also.) The reason when you ask about tithes we get as many answers as we do, is that their answer assumes their stance on everything above. Whether they have actually thought through those questions or not, they have fallen into some stance on them. Now, in my opinion, those who think we have nothing to do with the tithe, need to think very hard about points 1 through 3. If somebody may say they think we should still walk in accord with the ten commandments, they may decide that tithing was simply a sign, to what I couldn't guess. I think its part of the moral law, but each must decide that themselves. Then on the other end of the spectrum there are those who think tithing is the point. And we best follow every point of it. They have an opinion of whether it is gross or net, etc. To them I would suggest you think very hard about point 6, as well as read 2 Cor chapters 8 and 9. I would encourage them to see that the point is not nearly so much about the money as a giving heart. And a giving heart will never struggle with tithing in the same way that somebody motivated entirely by love will never struggle with murder. I do not expect this to settle any disagreements, but only to help people think through the issue, and to understand why nobody agrees. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
428 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220594 | ||
Daughter, Forgive one error in my last post. For some reason my mind leaped to 1 tim 4:3 while I was posting and the marriage statment I mentioned was from that. Doesn't affect the totality of the post but it was an error and needs to be admited. I'm not actually sure how to edit one of my posts or if you can. But since I'm posting again, I think even more relevent than what I said previously is the "Therefore" which begins col 2:16. The immediate context is verses 14 and 15(actually one sentence in the greek). "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against uswhich was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross, when He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." So the REASON that nobody can judge us with regards to a festival or sabbath (v16) is because Christ has but an end to the decrees which WERE PREVIOUSLY hostile to us, the old testament expectations in the law. Given this context, and given that verse 18 seems to move on from old testament things hostile to us, onto asceticism or things coming from visions, which in reality is the context for the human commands statement, it seems that context is clearly in favor of this being old testament festivals he refers to iin 16. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
429 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220593 | ||
Daughter, What translation are you using? I vastly prefer the NASB translation which accurately translates the greek conjunction (kata) into "in accordance with the commands and teachings of men." Meaning it is men teaching them to continue doing these things, not referring to whether or not they were found in the old testament scripture. Obviously I disagree with how you consider the context. Not only in the way I said above, but also some of the things he mentions are from the old testament, and some are not. Not marrying and harsh treatment of the body which follows the statement for example. What about circumcision in verses 12 and 13? He is clearly saying christ has ended any need for that. Even should you not agree here, the council in acts 15 makes it clear that there is no need for the gentile Christians to follow the ceremonial laws of moses, which include the festivals. Why? Because all these things pointed to Christ. I agree whole heartedly with John Calvin when he argues in the institutes that it was fit for these things to end with the comming of Christ lest we were unclear about to what they pointed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
430 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220550 | ||
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" Colossians 2:16,17 |
||||||
431 | Pharisee expectations on baptism | John 1:25 | Beja | 220396 | ||
Dear Doc, Just shortly after posting my question I discovered just this very thing on the internet! A fine response by him for sure. I thank you very much that you continually not simply answer questions, but that you put us in touch with these great minds from past generations. I think you are very well aware that this is exactly what we hurt for today, having mistakenly thought too much of modern wisdom and cast off such benefits that have been given us from past generations. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
432 | Sexual | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 220170 | ||
My apologies, it seems I have answered a double post by accident. I assumed since I was answering an original question there was no thread to catch up on before posting! My bad. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
433 | Aren't there differences? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 220138 | ||
Makarios, Would you not include 1 Timothy 2:12-15 as one of the key texts? This also seems to be rooted in creation and not a cultural norm. Forgive me if its been discussed earlier in this thread and I missed it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
434 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220068 | ||
Dodoy, I believe its time that I washed my hands of this discussion. Normally I would have known better but your personal profile made me believe you really wanted to learn. I can see now that is not true. At this point I could fully explain your view to another person. Because I've asked questions, listend, and tried to understand you. You have not done so with with my view. Let me address a few statements and then I'll not reply further. 1. You asked if I have scripture to support that judging sin is judging people. Isaiah 53:5 says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities." How is it that the judgment of our sin was the death of a person? And if the judgment of our sins was the death of a person what do you imagine it means when the sins of the world is judged? The rocks and trees? 2. You look for a text that says judging sins is the same as judging people? You might as well look for a text saying that the sky is blue. It is the assumption in every sacrifice made in the old testament when an animal takes the place and the sins of the people is placed upon it. 3. You said that Christ working in us is your defense to God leaving us to finish part of it, but you ignored the part of my post where I predicted that very response from you (because I was listening to you in other posts, trying to understand you.) Because then you must either say that God helps some effectively and others He does not, or once again His working in us gives us all partial help and then we must make up the difference. 4. You want scriptural proof that being saved from sin is to be saved from the lake of fire? My friend that is what all of Christianity has seen the text to plainly mean. Why are any thrown into the lake of fire if not for sin? Failing to overcome? 5. You claim that I need verses to back up such logic then you say "that because Christ came to save sinners, and since all are sinners therefore christ saved all?" Sir, there are children that could show you how short that logic falls. It would be like me saying that I went to the grocery store to buy food, and it is all food, therefore I came to buy all of it. Just because Christ came to save sinners, does not mean all sinners are saved. 6. Yet in all of this you still have not responded to what I think is the greatest hole in your thinking. You still have not explained what being saved from sin does mean to you. Your reasoning is that there are those who are justified and glorified who then perish in the lake of fire? You have robbed "saved" "justified" and "glorified" of any meaning whatsoever. What do these terms then mean if not what I am saying? To sum it up: You continue to cry out for verses to show you wrong, while what you are saying has gaping holes. And you say, do not show me the holes, rather refute the assertions I am making. Understand this, any heresy can make sense out of their favorite verses. It is the verses they DON'T want to discuss that shows them wrong. But I'm finished. The reason I began the discussion is no longer there. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
435 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220066 | ||
Light, Doc can certainly answer the question for himself, but I thought I might be able to help you understand it. Basically what the term boils down to, is the teaching that has been what Christians have principally believed throughout the time between Christ's birth and now. Now this isn't to suggest they all believed the same thing. But that on many doctrines any time somebody did disagree it was obvious that they were outside the traditional Christian teaching on the subject. The basically is referring to the teachings of the apostles, the early church, some of what the Catholic Church has believed especially during its earlier time depending on exactly where you want to see it to have begun and ended; then especially what was recovered through the protestant reformation and during the puritan era, all the way up to the last 100 or so years where we have seen such an unbelievable casting off of the old teachings of Christianity for everybody to decide what is right in their own eyes. You would be surprised how much substantial teachings were agreed upon during these time periods. At least agreed upon to the point that the ones that disagreed stood out pretty clearly. Now here is what the word gives us in practical terms. When you believe something that is heterodoxy (different from what Christians have always believed) then in order for you to be right, the entire history of Christian religion must have been wrong in order for you to be right. Now...I heartily agree that just because people have always believed something doesn't make it right. And orthodoxy is not an absolute proof of truth. I am a baptist. I believe that only professing believers should receive baptism, yet if you look at Christian history the vast majority has held to infant Baptism. So I do think sometimes the historical position of Christianity is wrong. (Thought I do not think the apostolic church baptised infants.) Yet at the same time our indipendent times lead us to another error. We need to think long and hard about how serious it is to hold to a heterodoxy opinion. You are saying that you alone have come upon some special wisdom that no soul throughout two thousand years of Christianity has figured out but you. You are saying that throughout all Christianity God has seen fit to leave His people in the dark on a subject, until your brilliance has cast light on what He has left hidden. Once again, I'm willing to weigh all views against scripture, but at the same time I think a man must grasp the seriousness of this. And it should be with great fear and trembling, and with expectations that we may be missunderstanding something that any man should disagree with the entire Christian history of thinkers, in which I assure you there were greater men than you and I applying their minds to such things. So in my opinion it is this practical implication of the word "orthodoxy" that makes it significant to us. I hope this helps. Save me if I've explained this poorly, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
436 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220055 | ||
Dodoy, Yes, that is absolutely what I mean. God's judging the world and judging sin is the same thing. When God say He is going to judge sin, that means He is going to judge the sinners. Judging sin means judging people. You can't seperate the two. The cross itself should be testimony to this. In order for God to judge the sin of a believer, He had to judge a person! And that judgment fell on our sinless Lord rather than ourselves. Had God been able to judge sin abstractly in some other way than judging people then our Lord died for no reason. But He did die for the sin of those who would receive Him through faith and repentance. So saved from sin, does indeed mean to be saved from the final judgment when God will throw sinful humanity into the lake of fire. Sin isn't what is going to destroy us in the end, a Holy God is going to destroy sinners in the end. This is what it means to be saved, even to be saved from sin. If there was not a judge going to judge me then me and sin would still be getting along wonderfully with no need of anybody to save either us. Also, with regard to the doctrine of man. Doc and I are not introducing a second topic without reason. Discovering where you are wrong has everything to do with what Doc posted. Once you understand what scripture teaches about who we are, then you are going to see how that condition is undone. The point being worked towards is that if any part of this is left to us then we will perish. All portions are entirely from God. Yet your view of salvation leaves all mankind, having had some assistance from God to get us started, no we are left to keep our own names from getting blotted out. To which we are trying to show you, the moment God leaves any part to you and I, we would all fall without exception. Should you then say that God chooses some to effectually work in them to succeed (phi 2:12,13), then you have created an interesting scenario. You say that all are saved from sin, but then God chooses to save some from God, and others He chooses not to save from God. Now, that last part certainly is scriptual. But then once again, you've rendered the idea of "being saved from sin" absolutely meaningless. The fact that Christ died for their sin in your view, has ultimately done not one thing for them, seeing as God has then left them to perish from further sin without the necessary grace to "overcome." What we say, is that it all is one continuous saving grace from beggining to end. Those whom He has saved from sin...and those whom He predestined, He also called, and those whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30) Now the meaning of justification is that we are declared inoccent from sin and stand in Christ's perfect righteousness before God. In other words, this is us being forgiven/saved from sin. Yet you are arguing that there are those who are justified, but they are not glorified. Even though we see clearly that all those he Justified, He also glorified. Which refers to our final ressurection and partaking of Christ's full likeness. I've given more in this post than I can probably reasonably expect somebody to process in one lump, but I'm trying to get you to see that we must look at the whole of it at once if you are to see your error. And so, we were beggining with the doctrine of Man. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
437 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220031 | ||
Dodoy, Doc just gave you some very important stuff. Infact, he just pretty much nailed much of what I was going to write to you. I'm glad he did though because I think he did a better job of it than I would have. If you really do want to learn where you have been taught wrong, it has to begin with the doctrine of man. I suggest you slowly and thoroughly study what Doc has told you in this post, reading every verse quoted. What does scripture really say about who we are? What does it indicate about what we would choose if left to ourselves? This is not the end of what you need to know, but it is the bed rock on which the rest is built. I'm not sure there are many wrong views of salvation that don't have their errors first stemming from cracks in this foundation. On a side note, I still think you need to pursue what you mean by being saved from sin. You keep asserting that we are "saved from our sin." But what does that mean? Why do I need saved from my sin? The answer to that question is going to be important. Because the only reason I need saved from my sin, is because God is going to judge it. Therefore, to be saved from sin, is to be delivered from God's judgment on sin. But, focus not on that, but on what Doc wrote to you. That is where we have to start if you really do want to know where you've been taught wrong. Oh, and well said, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
438 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220017 | ||
Dodoy, I have not forgotten. I've not found time to type it but I have had time to do some thinking on it and to consider what verses to show you and in what order. But it would help me if you could explain what you just said a little better. Grasping what you believe would help me select scripture. 1.) In what sense can any person be "saved from sin" yet not receive eternal life. The very term "saved" is understood as being saved from something. That thing they are being "saved" from is a guilty verdict from God on the day of judgement. So when we say the word "saved" we are talking about being spared on that day the Lord judges all the earth. So in what sense are they saved, and yet judged on that day? In short, can you explain your terminology. 2. When you say only the righteous will be rewarded with eternal life, can you define what you mean by "the righteous." Do you mean that only those who through their deeds are righteous will receive eternal life, or do you mean only those who receive the righteousness of Christ counted for them through faith? Helping me understand these things will help me know which scriptures to present you with. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
439 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220007 | ||
Dodoy, Let me suppliment my arguement with this passage. Isaiah 45:5-7 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." This passage affirms that there is no deliverance of any type, nor calamity of any type that is not ultimately from the hand of God. The arguement is simply this: I'm the only God out there, who else could it be? This doesn't prove my reading, but it supports what I'm saying with regards to all deliverance of any type of worldly distress is ultimately from the hand of our God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
440 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220006 | ||
Dodoy, A few points. 1. Unless I missunderstand what you've posted, you didn't actually engage or interact with anything I said. You simply stated that I was wrong. Perhaps I didn't follow what you said well enough. 2. If you will allow me to paraphrase what I'm suggesting the passage says: Verse 10: For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, (Who is the only hope of any salvation for any man), especially of believers who he saves in the greatest of possible ways, from eternal judgement. Now, I you may certainly think that is not what Paul is saying. All well and good. But, you can not argue with any success that based on only the immediate context and basic grammer, that he can NOT be saying that. 3. Are you actually trying to argue that the Bible CAN NOT be using the word savior in any sense other than of eternal salvation, simply because we know that Christ saves? Simply use any Bible search tool and you will see the word is used to refer to being saved on a smaller scale quite fequently, as in being saved from armies, or disease, or hunger, etc. You can argue that he means otherwise if you wish, but you can't simply say because we know Jesus saves from sins, therefore a reference to God being a savior is only and always limited to that sense. 4. Finally, you said "In what context did Paul say God is teh Savior (NOT just a Savior) of all men?" I'm not sure what you are asking, best I can tell you are asking a rhetorical question that you answer in the following line suggesting the context is 1 Tim 1:15. But are you honestly suggesting that 1 Tim 1:15, something stated three chapters earlier is undeniably what Paul has in mind with no unpacking of the things said in between? And saying that as if it should seal the case with no question? My final point is this. Given the immediate context and grammer alone, and if we read it with no other theology in mind, both are completely possible interpretations of the passage. That being said, I would argue that the wider Biblical context (all of scripture) rules out a universal salvation interpretation. I'm not presumming to convince you of that, however. I'm only trying to argue that my interpretation fits the passage. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |