Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love [that is, unselfishly seek the best or higher good for] your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [Prov 25:21, 22] |
Bible Question: Please bear with me, as I am brand new to this forum and am not quite sure of even how to check if my question has already been asked. I am an 'older Christian' and have been raised and taught in the same church for 40 years. Our doctrinal statement has been the same this entire time. We have been blessed with a new pastor. He is a graduate from the Master's Seminary and I am being made aware of Biblical questions I have never thought to ask and my soul is searching for answers. I don't want to debate...I only want to learn. With this said, I came across a verse from John 17:9 that reads "My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you." This is Jesus talking to His Father. Did Jesus know at that time who was His Father's and who wasn't? If Jesus didn't pray for the 'world', should we? Or should our prayer be for the elect only? Is it futile to be praying for someone to be saved when 'before the foundations of the world' they were already known. I use to hold on to that verse "God is not willing that any should perish" like a bulldog on a bone. But I am now being taught that that verse is really saying "God is not willing that any of HIS CHOSEN should perish" I can't tell you how this has changed my prayer life, my view of my heavenly father. It really has shaken my foundation. I will be grateful for any and all responses. |
Bible Answer: Arminians - why wouldn’t they understand if they’re so scholarly? 'Even if they are teachers of churches who teach that [i.e., Arminianism], why wouldn’t they understand if they’re so scholarly? 'Well, they don’t understand--there are a number of reasons why people get it wrong. One is they are in a tradition where people have had it wrong for a long time. And so, that’s the way they grew up, that’s the tradition they’re in, and that’s what they understand. In other words, there is a predigested, passed-down system. Let me tell you, Arminian people can make an argument. They can make the case; they’ve been making the case for centuries for their viewpoint. 'I remember one of the exercises that I had to do when I was a seminary student, in fact, I did it on my own; I don’t think it was an assignment, but I did it--it was to read Shank’s book on Life in the Son, which is I think the best, concise argument for the Arminian position. And it is a very carefully thought out, systematic argument. I also studied the theology of Arminians--Wiley and Miley--systematic theologies written by these men. They can systematize their viewpoint and once that viewpoint is systematized at some point in history and passed down and passed down and refined and refined and refined, they have a scholastic system. I mean, essentially, Roman Catholicism is Arminian! It’s a pretty sophisticated system that can rise to pretty high levels of scholasticism. 'So, it isn’t that they’re not scholars; it’s that they tend to be in a mold or in a rut (I guess you could say) that traditionally gets passed down. 'I also think a second reason why people get it wrong--and this is true for anything--is because they don’t do the really hard work of studying the Word of God, and you have to drop your presuppositions at some point. 'One of the benefits that I had, is I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher and it was basically a Baptist kind of environment. And what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground. In my upbringing, we didn’t like the Calvinists and we didn’t like the Arminians; we sort of had that Baptist middle ground. That’s probably what a lot of you…you grew in the same kind of environment. You didn’t talk about predestination or election--that was kind of a frightening thing and that was for dead Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles--at the time, and they were over in a room somewhere contemplating their navel and reading John Calvin. You know, it was very introspective and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group and we weren’t into that. 'I went away to college and essentially I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist. So, they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a Revivalist environment, and the other was a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to imbibe all of this Arminian theology. I got out of that; I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian influences. So, I went from the Arminian kind of side to the Reformed side, and there I was in the middle of this mix and I just decided I’d go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said. I think, in a sense, all of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word of God and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible speak. Through the years, the Bible I believe speaks very clearly about what the truth is. 'But, I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a little humble pie and say, “It’s possible that I might be wrong,” and take another hard look at the Word of God, they would come to the right answers. It’s a very simple point to make, and it is this: if two people take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong.' ____________________ To read more go to: www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-19-6.htm |