Results 81 - 100 of 109
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5776 | ||
Again in verse 16:13 we see that the Spirit will be the active guide to truth. If the Spirit is here to "try and convert everyone," why does our holy, sovereign God fail in his mission? Perhaps that isn't his mission after all... A guide to truth for believers, yes. I do not believe that this verse is suggesting that the HS will be active in bringing only some to salvation, by guiding them to the undeniable acceptance of Christ because they were chosen for salvation and others were not. Verse 17:6 reinforces this: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." Again, God GAVE them to Him out of the world. Who is consistently the active agent in bringing people out of the world? ALl througout the Bible, we see it is God who (unaided by our "free will") chooses individuals out of the world and gives them to Christ. This is, of course, the High Priestly Prayer and you will remember that I said the disciples were indeed chosen, please take special note of this chapter. Who is Jesus talking about in vs 6? I believe the disciples, notice verse 7, "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;" No one knew this information at that time but the disciples (the twelve). Chapter 17 focuses on GOD giving the disciples (the twelve) to Christ, or in other words choosing them. However notice vs. 20, "I do not ask on behalf of these(the twelve) alone, but for those also who BELIEVE in Me through their word;" So the chapter clearly indicates that the twelve were chosen by Christ, but when Christ prays to the Father, He says, "those also who believe in Me." Now, if there was ever a time when Christ could have said, You Father decide who believes in Me, He would have while talking to the Father! But He did not, who does the action? Those who believe in Me, non-believers do the action! Therefore, contrary to your post, the world does NOT include "everyone." Conviction of sin does not lead to ability to repent and choose Christ. It is merely a declaration of guilt and judgment, which is reinforced by passages such as Philippians 1:27-28. Our presence here on earth is not to "win all the lost." It is to proclaim God's truth, to be the Holy Spirit's visible instruments through which He calls the elect, and to be the embodiment of the "sign of destruction" to those who will die and face just punishment. You have given me no convincing arguments that the world does not include everyone. And, what does Phil. 1:27,28 have to do with conviction of sin? As I read it, Paul is saying that the fact that your opponents are fighting against you shows that they have not received Christ; therefore, they will pay the price in eternity. Did you truly determine the doctrine of election solely from Scripture? You didn't read about it in the notes of a Study Bible or Commentary on the Bible? I take you at your word, but I have found that most people initially reject the doctrine of election until they are shown the verses that suggest it. (By the by, I do believe in some form of the doctrine of election; however, a ridged adherence to 5-point Calvinism is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of Scripture! So, I agree with you, but only somewhat.) Yes, I do have the Holy Spirit in me as you do, but a better question is, did John Wesley? How about Calvin? I believe the answer to both is yes, and yet they disagreed on this subject, so if you want to compare your resume to Wesley, and then tell him he doesn't know how to read the Bible, please do! If the HS doesn't lead all Christians to the same conclusion, the HS may think we should leave well enough alone! Romans 3 was written after Pentecost, but aren't all those statements quotes from the Old Testament? I see ch. 3 as Paul proving to the Jews that they are under sin just like the Gentiles. If the Law said that ‘None is Righteous' then they must need salvation just as much as the dirty Gentiles. (I'm speaking in terms of what the Jews thought of the Gentiles.) Besides that, ‘conviction of sin' is to make one realize their need for Christ, so these words help the HS convict of sin. |
||||||
82 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5777 | ||
This debate may be old and tired to you, but it does speak fundamentally to how we view God and how we conduct evangelism. It is highly important, even though it is not a salvific issue, that we get it right. How has God revealed his intentions with regard to salvation? What does the Bible have to say on man's supposed freedom? Take away the assumption that all men are equally aided by the Holy Spirit to receive Christ and see if the entirety of the New Testament supports such a thesis. I am always interested in how Calvinists think I view GOD. Which GOD is greater, a God who must control everything, so nothing will go wrong, or a God that knows everything possible, so He can let his creation have freewill because nothing can go wrong? A God who forces some to Him by His irresistible will, or a God that welcomes all to Him in His unfathomable love? A God who has enough mercy for some, or a God who has abundant mercy for all? A God that allows some to be saved and some to be lost, or a God that desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved? You decide. As far as evangelism, I have recently seen some prominent preachers, who believe in election, say that it is hard work to go to hell because you have to walk over the knowledge of Jesus. That doesn't sound like election! Thank you for your views and GOD bless!! |
||||||
83 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5796 | ||
My belief about election/freewill is that both are true(better stated election/responsibility, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that non-believers will be to blame for not choosing Christ, and that one I can show you in Rom. 9.), and we will never understand how! (Unless GOD decides to reveal it to us in heaven.) Limited atonement is refuted all over the Bible by John, Paul, and Peter, but these verses are 'interpreted' in an unusal way to make the 5-points work. I've made this comment before, but I know there are alot of gifts and lots of wisdom I do not have but what I do have is a sound mind and the ability to reason, and for me to rearrange verses to believe any doctrine, is wrong and my conscience cannot bear it. My understanding of 'world' does include everyone but the apostles in John 16; because, they have already realized their need for Christ through His divine choice. John uses the same word for world in John 3:16 and I believe in that usage it included everyone, including the disciples because He was speaking in general rather than specific terms, as to who has been saved and who has not. Also, in Jn. 16 Jesus uses judgment and conviction in vs 8-11. Are these the same word and if not what is the significance? Lastly, I have always gone to 'dispensational' churches and they have always been 'election' folks. Are most dispensationalist not this way? Dallas Theological Seminary is VERY much pro-Election doctrine; although, they are willing to say that they cannot understand it all. (Not 5-point Calvin, but 4, Limited Atonement.) About Rom. 9, I believe if I was so inclined I could work around these verses as easily as 5-pointers work around, say I Tim 2:4. But, I admit it is a strech. My point with Mr. Wesley is that he probably studied the Bible as much as anyone and the Spirit was strong in his life, and he, unlike some great saints, was quite careful about doctrine (specifically, election, I mean he studied it!) and yet the Spirit chose not to move him in Calvin's direction. So, if its that important the Spirit would not leave Spirit-filled saints on the side-lines. |
||||||
84 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5799 | ||
Yes, He is an active GOD, but you make my view seem dense. If GOD is actively involved everyday in every person's life convicting them and giving them signs and witnesses before they're saved, and then of course after they're saved the activity only increases. Is that sitting back and taking steps when necessary? Not in my thinking! As far as Rom 3, I am fine with that but we have a difference of opinion on what the Holy Spirit is doing! I believe Jn 16:8-11 shows that the Holy Spirit convicts the world (all who do not have Christ) of their sin(Rm.3), because they do not believe in Him. I don't remember using the words "kicking and screaming" I think you assume I have no understanding of the terms 5-pointers use, but I do. I'm no expert, but I've heard this speech before and it blows my mind that believing is a Biblical requirement for salvation so many more times than any ‘choice' but to cover that 5-pointers say, well, GOD made me do it. The Bible sure doesn't make it sound that way! Does God only have mercy for some? You think that God is required to show mercy to all or none. What does Romans 9:15-18 tell us? Which reflects God's true character? I believe that GOD has CHOSEN to offer Grace to all. The fact that He doesn't have to, just shows what a Merciful GOD He is! Rm 9:15-18 states what GOD can do, but you have to look at the examples to see what He did do! Egypt was promised punishment in Genesis, Pharaoh was the tyrant in control at the time of Egypt's judgement. And, GOD was merciful and compassionate to Moses. So, in both cases, if you look at the history, GOD was too merciful to be just, but He never hardened anyone without just cause! Paul was an expert in the O.T. his references do not, in my opinion, simply stand on their own. You have to know the background. A God "that allows some to be saved and some to be lost" is more of a description of the image of God YOU hold to. First of all, do you disagree that God allows some to be lost? If God did not allow it, it would not happen. People will spend an eternity in Hell, so God does allow some to be lost. Calvinists hold that God does not merely ALLOW men to be saved, but rather that God is the sole and efficient CAUSE of salvation, from start to finish (Romans 8:28-30). Poor choice of words on my part, but we both got the point. GOD, I believe, would allow someone to reject Him, but He would never simply reject someone without offering them redemption. Check out Rm 9:22, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath PREPARED for destruction?" (The word in all caps, in the original language suggest self-preparation. In other words, the vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction, GOD did not.) Why do you quote Rm 8:28-30, we both know there is no Biblical proof of what ‘foreknowledge' is, so to suggest that those verses prove something is ridiculous. Calvinists and Armenians use these verses to prove their points depending on what foreknowledge means, citing that text proves nothing. |
||||||
85 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5800 | ||
Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. Well that grace sounds pretty resistible, vs 20 suggests that someone is questioning GOD, and then says the thing molded cannot question the molder. But he just did!! Paul asks the question, "For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to GOD? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,' will it? Lets see, the thing molded will NOT say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this.' Yet, the man IS answering back to GOD. For who resists His will? Apparently, the man that answers back to GOD, do people answer back to GOD in the world today? YES!! Therefore, it would seem to me, that His grace IS resistable. Ephesians 1:4-11, see Robertson's Word in Pictures, "(Having foreordained us) To be taken with ‘chose' either SIMULTANEOUS OR ANTECEDENT (CAUSAL). (The words in caps mean that predestination happened at the same time as or was the cause of His choice. In other words, election did not come before predestination, and predestination comes after foreknowledge (Rm. 8:28), so GOD must have known something else. This is my understanding of this information, please study it and consider it, if I am wrong please correct and censure as necessary. In addition, Dallas The. Sem. has slightly different info, but this work has been more scrutinized.) GOD bless!! I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. Is the Reformed theology an ideology that ‘replaces' Israel with the Church? Because as I read the Bible Rm CH. 9-11 are specifically Jewish chapters, so I want to make sure my explanation does not completely contradict your interpretation. |
||||||
86 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5855 | ||
I don't think I've behaved in such a way for you to question my motives. You seem to want to put more words in my mouth than I do yours, so my asking about replacement theology should have been responded to with the same respect our other correspondences have had. The reason I want to know is, as I stated, my interpretation of Rm 9 hinges on an unsaved Jacob. The people of GOD in the O.T. would naturally question GOD saving Gentiles and forfeiting Jews, I think Paul makes it quite clear that this is what he is writing about. I assume from your response you do accept replacement theology, so please try to be open-minded with my interpretation. 1 ¶ I tell the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that my grief is great, and a never ceasing pain is in my heart, 3 for I myself was wishing to be a curse from Christ on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose are the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the Lawgiving, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen. I believe this clearly shows that the following passage is about the unsaved Jews, not Christians. 6 ¶ Not, however, that God's word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel, Paul says that GOD's word has not failed, and he is going to justify that comment. 7 nor because they are Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac a Seed shall be called to you." Gen. 21:12 8 That is: Not the children of flesh are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for a seed. 9 For the word of promise is this, According to this time I will come, and a son will be to Sarah. Gen. 18:10 So, being the son of Abraham does not guarantee the promise, so GOD does not have to save the Jews. The promise went to only Isaac not to Ishmael. |
||||||
87 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5856 | ||
10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac, 11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling, 12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;" 13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." Paul goes further, just because you are the son of Isaac GOD still has the right to choose who the promise will pass to. Offering the promise was GOD's choice, therefore He is not bound to offer it to anyone he does not want to. The point is, that GOD is not bound to save all Jews, just because they are Jews!(By the by, this belief is still held by those in the Jewish faith.) 14 ¶ What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! Paul is again speaking to Jews by considering that they probably think that this is not just! 15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity." 16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God. Paul gives Jews proof from their own Law that GOD is not breaking His promises in not saving all Jews. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." 18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens. GOD can do anything he wants! I do believe that, I don't know if Calvinist understand that this is true of those who hold a different view of election, and Arminians. We disagree on WHAT GOD wants to do. You say He wants to save some and damn others, I say He wants to offer all people an opportunity to receive salvation, and all who accept His offer will receive salvation. Also, if you read these examples in the O.T. you will find that GOD is abundantly merciful, and that Egypt's fate was sealed in Genesis, when GOD says that the nation Abraham's decendents would go to will be punished for their treatment of the Jews. GOD could punish people for no reason, but the O.T. suggests that He chooses not to. 19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Notice this is not a rhetorical question by Paul! He is anticipating the question by the Jews. My reading of Romans suggest to me that Paul either answers his teaching question, "GOD forbid," or he asks them with a negative Greek punctuation, this is shown in the NASB with a 'will he?' at the end of these questions, or He asks them himself. I don't remember many examples where he asks them for other people and doesn't clearly say 'GOD forbid' or the Greek punctuation. I may be wrong! |
||||||
88 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5857 | ||
20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? 21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? Please give me the answers to these questions, can the thing formed speak back to the one forming it? NO! Is Paul accusing the Jewish readers of questioning GOD? YES! Therefore, if the clay cannot question the potter, but the Jew can question GOD, I would say that the Jew (or anyone else) can resist GOD's will! You say, but the rest of verse 21 clearly shows that His will is to honor some and dishonor others! I disagree, I believe Paul is suggesting to the reader (Jews) to submit themselves to the authority of GOD (Salvation through Jesus Christ), because He does have the right over them! Why do I believe this? Why does v. 21 start with ‘Or'? When we use the word ‘or' we are offering an alternative to the previous statement. So, I believe he is saying, since GOD does have the right to honor (salvation) or dishonor (judgment) put yourself under His will and accept Jesus Christ! Does GOD will that all Christians, who are given opportunity, mature? YES! Do they all mature? NO! Did GOD want Job to question Him for Job's suffering? NO! Did Job question GOD? YES! Forgive me these are weak examples, but there are many such examples, and even circumstantial evidence can convict when is it is abundant enough. 22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, 23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, Why doesn't Paul use the same Greek word for ‘fitted out' verses v. 23 ‘prepared'? The word prepared has a definition, "to prepare before, to make ready beforehand"(Online Bible Greek Lexicon), whereas, ‘fitted out' has the definition, 1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete 1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair 1a1) to complete 1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust 1b1) to fit or frame for one's self, prepare 1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be Also notice that the word ‘prepare' is done by GOD, whereas there is no such suggestion for ‘fitted out', why do you suppose that is? As to self-preparation, I assume you have more training that the writer of the above mention Lexicon, Online Bible Greek Lexicon. Also, I assume you have more expertise that the note writers in the Nelson Study Bible, "The grammatical structure of the first ‘prepared' (in our discussion, ‘fitted out'), referring to the vessels of wrath, is different from the second ‘prepared', referring to the vessels of mercy. The first literally means "prepared themselves," while the second is "which He prepared." 24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations.(LITV) Who is us? Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, who submit themselves to the will of the potter! Whom He also called? Though this is not my view, one could make the argument that He called those who did not prepare themselves for destruction, or those who continue to ‘answer back to GOD!' GOD bless!! |
||||||
89 | 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." Continued... |
||||||
90 | 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!! |
||||||
91 | Sexual lust vs. other lusts of flesh? | 1 Cor 6:18 | Chris | 2775 | ||
Why is it that we are asked to overcome all sins of the flesh, with the exception of sexual lust? If we have this desire we should satisfy it in a Biblical manner (marry), but still it is treated differently than other lusts of the flesh, any ideas why? | ||||||
92 | Is I Cor. 13:2 possible vs. I Cor. 13:9? | 1 Cor 13:2 | Chris | 8815 | ||
In I Cor. 13, Paul says in vs 2, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and undertand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." But, in vss 9,10 he states, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." Is it possible to prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, or not? |
||||||
93 | Is I Cor. 13:2 possible vs. I Cor. 13:9? | 1 Cor 13:2 | Chris | 8817 | ||
In I Cor. 13, Paul says in vs 2, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and undertand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." But, in vss 9,10 he states, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." Is it possible to prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, or not? |
||||||
94 | Is I Cor. 13:2 possible vs. I Cor. 13:9? | 1 Cor 13:2 | Chris | 8827 | ||
Nolan, 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:-) GOD bless! |
||||||
95 | Hi JesusFreak | 1 Cor 14:34 | Chris | 58667 | ||
JesusFreak, 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! :-) GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
96 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 1541 | ||
This is certainly a controversial topic, and I can only give you my understanding of the Scriptures. Gal. 3:28, in my opinion, is talking about all believers being in the body of Christ. No member of the body is less important than another, but that does not mean that any member of the body can assume any position in the body. See I Cor. 12:20 Paul says there are many members but one body, but a foot cannot be a nose, ect. So, I do not believe Paul wrote Gal. 3:28 with positions of authority in the church in mind. To further add to this conclusion, I Tim. 2:9-15 seems quite adament about women not being in the highest position of authority, Paul being the author of both these letters. Anytime women are forbid something in scripture, I look to see if the reasoning is because of the social climate at the time of writing, or if it is a command from GOD; the reasoning for this one seems to be a command based upon the rights of first born and the punishment of Eve in the garden. I know some say that these verses could be translated as talking about husband and wife, but if that were the case, Paul must have no interest in what single folks do in church, he being single, because the greek words for man and woman remain the same from 2:8 thru to v15. And, there is no further discussion of what should be done in the church by single folks; Paul immediately moves to the leadership positions in the church. I should say that I would only forbid women from assuming the highest role in the church, pastor or elder. I believe that women should be deaconnesses. I also am one to simply trust the scriptures as I read them if the debate is too complicated for my miniscule mind; that may be the case here! Hope this helps! GOD bless! |
||||||
97 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 2674 | ||
This is certainly a controversial topic, and I can only give you my understanding of the Scriptures. Gal. 3:28, in my opinion, is talking about all believers being in the body of Christ or being one in Christ. No member of the body is less important or more important than another, we are all in Christ, but that does not mean that any member of the body can assume any position in the body. See I Cor. 12:20 Paul says (paraphrase), there are many members but one body, but a foot cannot be a nose, ect. So, I do not believe Paul wrote Gal. 3:28 with positions of authority in the church in mind. To further add to this conclusion, I Tim. 2:9-15 seems quite adament about women not being in the highest position of authority, Paul being the author of both these letters. Anytime women are forbid something in scripture, I look to see if the reasoning is because of the social climate at the time of writing, or if it is a command from GOD; the reasoning for this one seems to be a command based upon the rights of first born and the punishment of Eve in the garden. I know some say that these verses could be translated as talking about husband and wife, but if that were the case, Paul must have no interest in what single folks do in church, he being single, because the greek words for man and woman remain the same from 2:8 thru to v15. And, there is no further discussion of what should be done in the church by single folks; Paul immediately moves to the leadership positions in the church. I should say that I would only forbid women from assuming the highest role in the church, pastor or elder. I believe that women should be deaconnesses. I also am one to simply trust the scriptures as I read them if the debate is too complicated for my miniscule mind; that may be the case here! Hope this helps! GOD bless! |
||||||
98 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 2688 | ||
I Timothy 2:9-15: I wouldn't label this passage as Paul's opinion, and I believe many would agree with me. This passage is clearly different than the occasions when Paul gives his opinion about widowers, virgins, and folks married to nonbelievers in I Cor., where he clearly states, I say, not the Lord. Paul speaks with the statement, "I" in many commands that most consider commands of GOD. See Eph. 4:1 Therefore I implore you, Romans 12:1 Therefore I urge you, etc. The "therefore" in the two passages are different words than, "but" however they are both particles, and Paul still commands through his own person, but most agree he was speaking for the Lord. See also Rom. 11:11 "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they?" I don't think this is Paul's opinion, but he does use ‘I'. Back to the relevant passage, starting at I Tim Ch.2:1 Paul uses ‘I' and again, this is considered by many to be a command from GOD. So, I see no difference in verse 12; the particle translated, "But" in the NASB could be 'but' or 'and', so Paul, in my opinion, is simply giving additional information about women in the church. Paul states in v. 7 his authority as an apostle and starts v. 8 with the particle, ‘therefore' and v. 9 starts with ‘likewise' so the authority continues through to v. 15. If you know something about translation, I would like to know if there is any particular reason the NASB chose "But" in verse 12. It seems to me that the context would demand ‘and'. Any comment? Thanks for the comment please let me know if I'm wrong about anything, or if you simply disagree! GOD bless! |
||||||
99 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 2724 | ||
I would agree with you on I Cor 7:12. However, I don't think the same authority exists on 7:25. This is definitely an oversight on my part, but I believe many would go to great lengths to argue 7:12 as opinion, so I was trying to differentiate any of these debated "opinions" (and again, I agree with you on 7:12) versus the command style statement in I Tim 2:12. Thanks for the additional info!! GOD bless! | ||||||
100 | Should Christians Vote in elections? | 1 Timothy | Chris | 2726 | ||
Should Christians vote for their leaders? (Scriptural documentation, please.) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |