[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Theology / Re: Calvinism
« Last post by Herman Stowe on Today at 12:02:10 AM »
John 1:29
  • "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

It is self-evident (in any Biblical thinking) that Christ did not take away the sin of everyone in the world without exception. Else, no one in the world would have any sin, and thus everyone in the world would have become saved (Universalism).

 )Bible-Red( Well said. You can't be condemned if you have no sin.  ]ThUmBsUp[ ]ThUmBsUp[
2
Theology / Re: Paul and Women
« Last post by da525382 on Yesterday at 10:56:35 PM »
My take on Betty's comment was that she was completely in agreement with you all, that Paul was actually elevating women at that time to that of equality with men (there is no male or female in Christ) and that what today's view of Paul as degrading women is actually just the opposite when viewed in the context of the status of women at the time of Christ.

No I don't think Paul was elevating women at that time to that of equality with men, I think that he was putting women down, not building them up. His opinion was that women were not good enough or smart enough to lead men, the same as all the men of that era thought. That's not what God said, it's Paul's misogynist traits showing through. He gave his opinion, which is why it's not authoritative. My minister also says that this was Paul's opinion and based on the times, and is not what God wanted.

It just STM that if Paul's perspective was that there is neither male nor female in Christ and that husbands should perceive and treat their wives as Christ does His own church, then this distinguishes him from a perspective of purposefully and misogynistically treating women like furniture, which was evidently prevalent in the culture then, especially the gentile culture.
3
Theology / Re: Calvinism
« Last post by Tony Warren on Yesterday at 10:42:05 PM »
>>>
Why Not? When I see John 16 and 1 I take it for what it's worth.
<<<

John 3:16
  • "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

savedbysovereigngrace is correct. The basic flaw in your assumption that the word "world" in John 3:16 must mean every single person in the world without exception is illustrated when we compare scripture with scripture and see how God uses this word in other places in the same context. When we do that we see that God is speaking of all the world who are loved of God, NOT every single person in the world without exception. A good example of the proper understanding of this word (in context) is is found in the first chapter of John:

John 1:29
  • "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

It is self-evident (in any Biblical thinking) that Christ did not take away the sin of everyone in the world without exception. Else, no one in the world would have any sin, and thus everyone in the world would have become saved (Universalism). So any educated Biblical view of the love of God for the world, as pertaining to everyone without exception is clearly untenable. Christ didn't come to take away the sins of everyone in the world without exception, He came to take away the sins of everyone in the world without distinction. Israelites, Romans, Greeks, Ethiopians, etc. He came that all nations, kindreds and people in the world (Romans 16:26) might find salvation. Christ by His death took away the sins of all "His People" in the world, but certainly not all. As in fact is illustrated again in John 17:

John 17:9
  • "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Here again, why would Christ not pray for the world IF He came to take away the sins of the world, if the world there meant everyone. Obviously it doesn't. Unambiguously Christ distinguishes between those of the world which He is not making intercession for, and those in the world whom God had given Him. The word world is used here to describe all in the world who are not elect of God, not all men in the world without exception. Again, unambiguously the word world here in this context is used to describe everyone 'except' the elect. Not every single person in the entire world. When Jesus says 'I pray not for the world,' it is not saying He doesn't pray for one single person in the world, but is using the world to refer to only the non-elect of the world--the ones whom God so loved He gave His life for.

1st John 4:19
  • "We love him, because he first loved us."

All these God appointed are the world that God so loved, that He gave His only begotten son for. Not all without exception. Again:

1st John 3:1
  • "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."

The world doesn't know these elect. The word "world" here doesn't mean everyone in the world didn't know them or us. It refers to the non-elect of the world only. Moreover, Christ does not 'know' the whole world in this sense either, thus it would be impossible for Him to be saying He bestows this love upon
that whole world without exception. Whom He knows, He loves (1st Corinthians 8:3).  He bestowed this love upon all the elect in the world without distinction, not all the world without exception. Thus we understand that when Jesus speaks of the world He loves (in John 3:16), it is not everyone in the world. He gave His only begotten son not for everyone without exception, but for His people (Matthew 1:21). When He sent the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, it was Christ who took away the sins of the elect in the world. For God does not love the world, He is at enmity with the world, as is illustrated in verse after verse of scripture. God says Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated. There we have the word love contrasted with the word hated, meaning that one of these men God didn't love. Even if some were to twist the word "hated" (as people often do), it is still used in contrast to loved--meaning God didn't love Esau. How then can we in good conscience declare that God loved everyone in the world without exception, without contradicting His word? There would be no contrast between His love for Jacob and Esau. There are two types of people in the world, those God loves and those God hates. The unsaved world and the Saved world. Same as in Romans 11:

Romans 11:15a
  • "if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world..."

Here, in this verse, we have the same usage of this word world to refer to a segment of people, not all people in the world. If the casting away of Israel was the reconciling of the world, then clearly the world is seen here not to mean everyone in the world, but only those of the world who come to be reconciled with Christ. Likewise, John 3:16 is simply illustrating that the world which God Loved is the world God sent His son to redeem.

"They shall call His name Jesus for He shall Save His people from their sins." Those He loved are His people of the world under the effectual calling of God and are the only ones redeemed by the death of Christ. For it is evident the world (if that includes all in the world) were never loved by God, nor did Christ shed His blood in vain for anyone in the world. Therefore an understanding of the word 'world' in the all inclusive sense is found untenable. At least from a sound, scholarly and Biblical perspective.

The wicked are not part of 'the world of John 3:16.' Selah.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
4
Apologetics / Re: Are Parents to Blame for Christianity's Decline?
« Last post by Erik Diamond on Yesterday at 04:42:12 PM »
Quote
No, no evidence   That's not evidence, that's a bible passage.

So a bible passage, that we testified, which is directly from God Himself is not considered an evidence to you? No wondering that you cannot receive the Truth. 

2 Thessalonians 2:9-11
[9]  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10]  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[11]  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
5
Theology / Re: Paul and Women
« Last post by Erik Diamond on Yesterday at 04:36:03 PM »
Quote
No I don't think Paul was elevating women at that time to that of equality with men, I think that he was putting women down, not building them up. His opinion was that women were not good enough or smart enough to lead men, the same as all the men of that era thought. That's not what God said, it's Paul's misogynist traits showing through. He gave his opinion, which is why it's not authoritative.

You think Paul's writing was only an opinion? Do you every really think that God would allow Paul to write his own opinion in Scripture about women under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

2 Peter 1:21
[21]  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No, you are WRONG. The Holy Bible is a direct Word of God Himself that He used men like Paul to write down exactly what He wanted him to write through the Holy Spirit!

John 5:39
[39]  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

God did not use man to write their opinions as a testimony to Him! Everything in Scripture that you read are all a TRUE TESTIMONY of God!

If you think Paul's writing in Bible is just his opinion that you can tear some out of Scripture because it does not apply to our culture or time, then you do NOT believe God and His Word.

Quote
My minister also says that this was Paul's opinion and based on the times, and is not what God wanted.

I am not surprised with why you are deceived in your false prophet's church. His testimony did not represent God. 
6
Apologetics / Re: Are Parents to Blame for Christianity's Decline?
« Last post by Betty on Yesterday at 03:53:04 PM »
There also is no evidence of the Church's decline.

 )S_Confused(  No Evidence?

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )


No, no evidence  )Say_what( That's not evidence, that's a bible passage.


Quote
Quote
That's a myth conjured up by conservative Christians to justify their attacks on the church.

The attacks on the church are by liberal Christians changing times and laws, and by conservative Christians rooted in this physical world and its kingdoms. Not by Bible believing Christians who read and understand that abominations that lead to desolation.

That's your opinion, not evidence. Why don't you and Erik actually give evidence instead of your personal views. You're as bad as Paul.
7
Theology / Re: Paul and Women
« Last post by Betty on Yesterday at 03:50:51 PM »
My take on Betty's comment was that she was completely in agreement with you all, that Paul was actually elevating women at that time to that of equality with men (there is no male or female in Christ) and that what today's view of Paul as degrading women is actually just the opposite when viewed in the context of the status of women at the time of Christ.

No I don't think Paul was elevating women at that time to that of equality with men, I think that he was putting women down, not building them up. His opinion was that women were not good enough or smart enough to lead men, the same as all the men of that era thought. That's not what God said, it's Paul's misogynist traits showing through. He gave his opinion, which is why it's not authoritative. My minister also says that this was Paul's opinion and based on the times, and is not what God wanted.
8
Theology / Re: Calvinism
« Last post by Betty on Yesterday at 03:47:06 PM »
Why Not? When I see John 16 and 1 I take it for what it's worth.

John 3:16-17
For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to be judge of the world; he sent him so that the world might have salvation through him.

What I ask of you reformed people reading these verses what does it mean, you just claim it means "not all the world" when it says all the world. Yet you want me to think you take the word seriously.

9
Theology / Re: Calvinism
« Last post by savedbysovereigngrace99 on Yesterday at 01:55:20 PM »
Quote
I guess it's authoritative except when it contradicts your point of view. But if you don'rt like that scripture, how about this one.  John 3:16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

Which world, Drew? Read the next verse:

Joh 3:17
[17]  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Mat 1:21
[21]  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Obviously not for everyone in the world!

Good post. I think most people when they see the word world in scripture like in Jn 3:16-17 they automatically assume it means everyone without exception. Thats a mistake though the word world in scripture rarely means that.
10
Theology / Re: Paul and Women
« Last post by da525382 on May 18, 2018, 09:58:56 AM »
My take on Betty's comment was that she was completely in agreement with you all, that Paul was actually elevating women at that time to that of equality with men (there is no male or female in Christ) and that what today's view of Paul as degrading women is actually just the opposite when viewed in the context of the status of women at the time of Christ.  I am not a historian, but I think Jewish as well as gentile culture back then was not positive for women, especially in the context of the legalism of the time.  Yes, it was supposed to be a positive thing for women via the Torah, but just as many other things, the legalism of the time was not a good thing for women and Paul was trying to actually elevate them to the level of the bride of Christ, that is, parallel their value with Christ's value of the church, which is really an ultimate perspective of women.  I think that's what Betty was trying to say, but maybe I'm wrong.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]