by Isaac Barrett
This review will analyze John Piper’s four main arguments in his exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9. Two of these arguments, he makes from outside the text in question. One argument is from Ephesians and the others are from Philippians and 1 Corinthians. This first article in the series will focus on those external arguments. Piper believes that this passage, and others, directly teach that faith is effectually given or is a gift from God. Effectual faith, according to Piper, is given by God, and an individual cannot resist this gift. Faith happens when God changes the will of an individual. Piper concludes that there is nothing an individual can do to have faith.
Piper’s exegesis can be found from this video entitled, “Is Faith a Gift of God?“. His arguments will come with timestamps as references.
First, the text of Ephesians 2: 8-9 (ESV):
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
The basic argument John Piper will be making is that faith in Christ is an effectual gift and that, outside this effectual gift, man has no ability to have faith in Christ. For his first stab at proving his case, Piper turns to the preceding paragraph:
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world…But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2: 1-7 (ESV)
Dead Like a Corpse is Dead
Timestamp: 3:47
Piper’s first argument is that ‘dead’ means ‘corpse like’ and therefore ‘faith must be a gift’. He points to verse 5 where it says “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved”. Piper believes that dead means a complete inability towards God. This is the foundational argument behind the doctrine of Total Depravity or Absolute Inability. Under this doctrine, it is believed that man must be given grace in order to be enabled to believe. This grace is described as an inner working of the Holy Spirit, not merely hearing the Gospel. The claim is that we must be made alive in order to be able to put our faith in Christ. Dead men can’t do anything, including believing, repenting, or having faith.
The problem with the corpse like dead argument is that the Bible clearly defines spiritual deadness as a separation:
Death As Separation
Isaiah 59 ESV
“your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear”
Luke 15:24, 32 ESV
“For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found”
“for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found”
Romans 6:11 ESV
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
James 2:26 ESV
“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead”
Genesis 35:18 ESV
“And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”
St. Clement Of Alexandria 190AD
“death is the separation of the soul from the body”
“Death is the fellowship of the soul in a state of sin with the body, and life is separation from that sin.”
Unless we assume that Paul offers no clarity to the text of Eph 2: 8-9 in the surrounding verses, we cannot ignore that this is what Paul has to say about separation in the sentences immediately following the passage Piper is exegeting:
Ephesians 2:11-19 ESV
“…— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall…so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross,…18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”
Biblically all forms of death are a separation. Physical death is the separation of body from soul. Spiritual death is man’s separation from God. Believers are supposed to be separated from sin, yet we are still able to sin. Piper’s interpretation focuses on characteristics of a corpse, instead of the separation. He then applies these characteristics to us in order to say that we can’t respond to God positively at all. The problem is that there is no verse that actually says this or one that compares spiritual death to a corpse. The Bible uses many words to refer to our fallen spiritually dead condition, including being “separated“, “alienated“, “strangers“, “far off“, “lost“, and having God’s face hidden from you. Adam and Eve died the day they ate the fruit, but their death was a spiritual separation from God. They had to leave the presence of God. It didn’t mean they couldn’t hear God, as they and their children spoke with God after being separated. Being spiritually alive is defined as “alive”, “brought near“, “made us both one [us & Christ]”, “reconciled“, “found“, “fellow citizens”.
The definition of death as only corpse like is a definition that ignores the spirit. To the Israelites, physical death meant that person’s spirit was separated from its body. Their spirits are in Sheol while their corpses remain here. When you are dead, you are not simply a corpse, you are a spirit and a corpse. The parable of the prodigal son provides us with a full application of this Biblical definition from a soteriological perspective. The son was “dead, and is alive”, he was “lost, and is found“. Piper’s argument that spiritually dead means corpse is not directly supported scripturally. So far, it does not seem sufficient to claim that faith is effectually given by God, let alone that Ephesians 2:8-9 specifically teaches it. Deuteronomy 30 has the opposite order where the Israelites are commanded to repent and return (notice implication of separation) to the Lord. Only then, does God “circumcise your heart”, which is being made alive. We are not made alive in order to repent and return.
https://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm
Can the Dead Not Have Faith?
There is an underlying assumption of John Piper’s that cannot go unchallenged. He assumes that the spiritually dead cannot have faith. But is that so?
In the text of Eph 2: 8-9, there is no direct connection of being “dead in trespasses” to faith. Actually, verse 4-5 support the opposite conclusion. The statement, “made us alive together with Christ”, is immediately followed with a disclaimer that this being made alive is to be saved by grace. Immediately prior, it says that this saving happened “even when we were dead in our trespasses“ (i.e. spiritually dead). We were spiritually dead at the time that we were saved by grace. Verse 8 & 9 then clarify that this grace that saves is received by “faith”. If we need to be made alive in order to have faith then we would have to be saved in Christ before having faith. The problem is, you cannot be in Christ without faith. Piper’s interpretation flips the order that is clearly seen in the text. This is done in order to claim that faith must be a gift from a logical perspective.
Faith As a Gift Outside of Ephesians 2
Piper argues that there are other passages that show faith is an effectual gift:
Philippians 1:29 says it has been “granted” to you to “not only believe in Him”, “but to suffer for His sake”. Therefore, faith is a gift in Paul’s understanding.
1 Corinthians 1:28-31 says that “God chose what is low and despised” so that “no human being might boast” (same concern as Ephesians 2) and that “from Him you are in Christ”. It is from God that we are in Christ Jesus, we did not put ourselves in Christ Jesus. From God you are grafted into Christ Jesus. You didn’t raise yourself from the dead (i.e. Lazarus) and therefore you didn’t create your faith. Don’t rob God of the glory in saving us, including of giving us saving/effectual faith.
To Grant Means to Enable
Piper assumes that the word “granting” means the exact same thing as the word “gift”, and therefore saving faith is effectually given to us. Under Sola Scriptura, if Paul meant gift, he would have written gift. Instead, Paul wrote granted, which means enabling or allowing. We can safely assume that Paul used a different word because it has a different meaning. Did God enable or allow us to believe in His Son? Absolutely! He sent his Son to die as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and then He sent messengers into the world proclaiming the Gospel that we might hear it and to be received by faith. If a father is “granting” permission to a man to marry his daughter, did the father effectually make the man propose or ask for permission? No, he did not (that is called a shotgun wedding). Granting simply does not mean effectual causality. Did God causally give suffering to the Corinthian church? No, but He enabled/allowed his children to both believe and suffer for His sake. If God didn’t give the suffering to the church, then why would we assume that he gave faith to them? Concluding that Paul understands faith as being effectually given because he uses term enabled/allowed, seems incorrect.
Faith Does Not Make You Alive
Piper confuses the regeneration process of being made alive with a person having faith. He says ‘we did not put ourselves in Christ Jesus’, which is true. The Bible makes it clear that this happens by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:4,8 “[God] made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved… through faith”). Being made alive or regenerated is the work that saves us and it happens by grace. Romans makes it clear that our faith is “counted as righteousness”. Faith is the first event, in this verse, as it says that the gift of salvation by grace is “to be received by faith”. Faith itself does not make anybody alive.
Piper asserts that we “didn’t raise [ourselves] from the dead and therefore you didn’t create your faith”. The problem with his analysis is the order of events. Romans and Ephesians say we are to receive the gift of justification/salvation, which is to be made alive in Christ, through faith. If faith comes before regeneration, how can one conclude that in order to have faith we must first raise ourselves from the dead? Piper’s assertion seems to be a direct contradiction to Paul’s writings. Our faith itself does not save us and does not justify us. God makes faith a requirement to Him to justify, regenerate, and to save us. In no way can we assert that faith itself has the power to raise us from the dead. Faith without God’s work is a meaningless dirty rag. Faith itself is powerless.
Deuteronomy 30 reaffirms this order. It says first “return to the Lord your God… and obey his voice” and “then the Lord your God will… have mercy on you… And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart”. Piper, as well as many others with his position, assert that the circumcision of the heart is regeneration. They leave out the fact that God says he will do this only after they return to Him and obey his commands. God making us spiritually alive allows us to become like Him through the work of sanctification, but is not necessary to have faith. All of God’s work occurs after we respond in faith.
When we put their faith in Christ, God says that He will make us spiritually alive in Christ. If our faith was the result of free will, would that rob God glory? Since faith is not a work, is non-meritorious, is not worthy of boasting, and is not under the law of works but the law of faith, then no! Romans 4 profoundly affirms that the faith credited to Abraham gave the glory to God. God did all of the work to save us and God gets all of the glory. The only time God is robbed of glory is when our salvation is not sought through faith. God monergisticly saves us because He does all of the work. The only thing we do is to have faith to receive God’s work. God commands us to believe, repent, and to live by faith and that is what we must do.
God Chooses What is Wise, Not Who is Saved
1 Corinthians 1 is a passage that is specifically focused on wisdom. It does not state that ‘faith is a gift’ or discuss the origin of faith. It focuses on the pursuit of human wisdom by the Greeks. Paul compares and contrasts human wisdom to God’s wisdom saying that we do “not know God through [human] wisdom”, but that “it pleased God through the [human] folly of what we preach to save those who believe”. Paul is talking about the nature and origin of the wisdom the Corinthian Christians are drawing from to help steel them against their culture who is telling them their behavior is foolish. God’s decision to save those who believe and humble themselves, and calling them to subsequently live out His revealed wisdom, is foolishness to the world, just like it is in modern culture. By doing this, “God made foolish the wisdom of the world”. When he writes “because of [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”, Paul is speaking about being made alive and justified. All of this happens through faith. This passage does not appear to support a deterministic interpretation of the nature of faith.
So far, we’ve shown that Piper’s references outside of Eph 2: 8-9 are not sufficient to establish his case. In the next installment in this series, we’ll dive into the text of Eph 2:8-9 itself and evaluate the grammar and sentence structure as well as Piper’s arguments for why these two verses teach faith as an effectual gift. Stay tuned!
Test
Another reason the corpse analogy is fallacious. They claim a corpse can’t hear, respond, seek, do good etc…
They stop there. While I agree a corpse can’t do any of those things, neither can a corpse sin, ignore something, make a decision, or rebel against anything.
The analogy fails because it cannot be consistently applied to all actions and all characteristics of an actual corpse.
Thanks so much Isaac. Seems like there may be a (dead 😉 duck and rabbit question here. BTW, apologies I have so many things to say and your post deserves a careful response, but I am so busy with other stuff today. Perhaps you make some of the points I am making. Eph 2:8-10 hits close to home for me though, since reading that is what saved me from (Lutheran) determinism. i was always taught works righteousness, which is a different gospel (Galatians 1-3, eg this is “Who has bewitched you?” , drop-dead serious stuff).
Not really sure how Piper can miss the concept that Paul is writing to living people, when he flat out says “And you were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). If “Dead is Dead!” then Paul is writing to those that have literally died??? Naw, at least for the last 20 or so years since I’ve been saved, I have always assumed Paul meant “doomed” more than dead. As in “Dead man walking!” from the movie, The Green Mile.
That makes perfect sense all the way back to Genesis 3, when the devil tells Eve “you will not surely die” in a day (a 24 hour yom), but she did surely die (in a thousand year yom). Paul tells Timothy this is deceit, but God never deceived her (not trying to pump my new site, but there is more background at wordlight.net/adam_not_deceived.html :).
I probly have too much to comment on this, but similarly in 1 Tim 6:4, the rabbit pops up again. Perhaps it could be interpreted differently, but when a Lutheran asks “What do you mean by faith?” (as if even pistis in the Little Kittle wasn’t clear enough) I see the determinists “doting about questions and strifes of words…” For me, how dare they use a different dictionary and the same vocabulary. Total deceit to me. Pit of hell stuff. (sorry, Leighton, I’m trying to be cordial over here:).
Since I can’t edit, my apologies that I did not seem to understand the depth of the weirdness here, re: what Calvinists mean when they say “Dead is dead!” I am understanding now that they acknowledge that the dead can be regenerated, but I am no where near understanding exactly how (and I guess I don’t need to know anyway).
How on earth can they mince words like this and not feel convicted? Seems like they are trying to “bufallo the sheep”? Seems like their conscience has been seared with a hot iron? May God have mercy…
TULIP is claimed by Calvinist as a doctrine that properly divides the Word of God, and explains the Gospel. What it really is is a doctrine that explains divine causal determinism and then fits it to the Bible.
Instead of considering that divine causal determinism may be false, they presuppose that it is true. They then used that presupposition to read the Bible, and when they came upon a verse that affirmed it, they called it a proof text. When they found one that contradicts DCD they changed the meaning of the text.
Then they formed a “cohesive” system (TULIP) to explain why DCD is what the Bible teaches. It all goes back to hanging on to that presupposition.
br.d
It is critical to understand that a great deal of Calvinist statements are designed as red-herrings.
If you are familiar with that term – it is used to describe a fox hunt – and something that is designed to get the hounds off the scent of the fox in order to give the fox time to achieve distance.
The hunters would be totally bored if the hounds surrounded the fox at the onset of the hunt.
They want plenty of time to savor the whole experience.
So the red-herring is designed to get your focus in a direction where it can be controlled.
One of Calvinism’s favorite red-herrings is getting your focus on the state of man’s nature – with their private definitions of things like “Total Depravity” and “Dead”.
The strategy is to control your focus and keep it on something the Calvinist controls – in order to keep you from seeing something he DOESN’T want you to see.
The whole business of Calvinism’s “Total Depravity” and “Dead” are simply a strategies of obfuscation.
What the Calvinist does not want you to see – is that per the underlying doctrine of decrees – the state of creation – (including man’s nature) at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined and FIXED by infallible decree.
Creation cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
Man’s nature cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be
Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by Calvinism’s deceptive strategies of misdirection.
Calvinists soon discover they can trick unsuspecting Christians very easily.
It is all to easy to draw unsuspecting Christians into spider’s webs of Calvinist design.
He needs to control your focus.
He needs to keep you from seeing things about his doctrine – which if you clearly see – you won’t be lured into his corral.
So true, as a recent discussion with a Calvinist demonstrated. He refused to acknowledge that the essential difference between his Calvinist theology and non-Calvinism is whether God desires, and provides the opportunity for ALL or only SOME to be saved from sin and death. After endless deflections, obfuscations, distractions, etc., the best I could pull out of him was ‘We wouldn’t frame it that way.’ Yeah, no kidding.
He wanted to talk about God’s ‘holiness’, God’s ‘justice’ or anything other than the fact that, A2C, God only loves and desires to save a select few, and all others have absolutely no opportunity or ability EVER for anything but sin and destruction.
Great post TS00!
How to watch a Calvinist change himself into a greased pig in 5 micro-seconds! 😀
What he didn’t want to tell anyone is:
1) When it comes to the eternal destiny of all human creatures – Calvin’s god has only 2 decrees
2) His first and foremost decree is “THE DEATH DECREE”
3) This is where he creates/designs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
4) His second decree – is simply his decision to save a FEW creatures from his first decree.
He is not saving souls from sin.
He is not saving souls from themselves
He is saving them from his decree.
So what the Calvinist calls “Grace” is Calvin’s god using a decree to save people from a decree!
Calvinists have their own private definitions for everything! :-]
As we would say in Ireland, “Yer dead right.”
You wrote: “The analogy fails because it cannot be consistently applied to all actions and all characteristics of an actual corpse.”
They are unwilling to make the “necessary inferences” that everybody else makes about corpses. But this is what happens when people not only ignore common sense, but also the bible’s explanation of what it means to be dead even though you are alive. Again, it is so true what you say, they are inconsistent because it suits them to only deal with half truths rather than face the whole.
“Dead means dead” is like a Democrat bumper sticker – catchy, oversimplified, and wrong.
Hey Steve!
Great to see you – and hope all is well with you and yours :-]
I’d sure appreciate that the mocking politics was modded out. And FYI, I’m more conservative than anyone I know.
Also, from what I learned, Greek words are gendered, and if one word signifies another, it has to be the same gender, such as if “gift” was referring to “faith” then the genders must match. But they don’t. Apparently, faith is female, so gift should be female if faith is the gift. But it’s not. It’s neuter. Therefore it’s not referring specifically to faith as the gift. In fact, grace is female too, so gift isn’t referring specifically to that either.
This blows the Calvinist idea that God gives the gift of faith to certain prechosen people out of the water. Because faith isn’t the gift. The gift is the whole thing, the offer of salvation by grace through faith. And it is offered to all and can be accepted by anyone.
Why, one wonders, do Calvinists like Piper strive so to deny that grace has been offered to all men, and can be readily received by all who believe? It’s not like they don’t understand this, for this is the way most believers interpret scripture – including most Calvinists at one time in their lives. And they have surely, at least the teachers, heard the alternative interpretations of scripture that render Calvinism unnecessary.
So, it seems, they desperately want to be a part of an elite club. Like junior high girls striving to be part of the ‘in crowd’. True fact: I found that junior high nonsense both childish and unhealthy. Because I had high grades and was involved in extracurricular activities, a lot of my friends were in the ‘in crowd’ but my best friend, and many others, were not. And I made an effort to be friendly and accepting to all – particularly the unlovely and unloved.
Seems like the Spirit of God within me, since my early childhood, encouraged me to love all men, just as He did. Nothing in the world would convince me that He had an elite ‘in crowd’, reserved for a special few, while all others were rejected and considered less valuable. Nothing.
Well said, TS00. I think it’s both man’s need to feel special, unique, above others, and his desire to feel more intelligent than others, that he found out “secrets” no one else knows, and his need to think he is more honoring/pleasing to God than others. I think it all comes down to pride, disguised as humility. Or maybe it’s insecurity and low self-esteem.
To say God loves all and Jesus died for all and all can be saved puts us all in the same boat. And Calvinism can’t accept that.
But there’s nothing new under the sun: It’s just like the Pharisees and teachers of the Law and Jews back in the day (and so many cults today) who thought they were special and above others, that they alone had God’s favor and spiritual wisdom/truth.
And Calvinism is one-upmanship. If we think sovereign means God is in control over all (watching over all, deciding what to allow or not and how to work things together for good), they one-up us by saying sovereign means God controls all. If we think God plans some things, they go farther, thinking He plans everything. If we say man is depraved, they say we’re so totally depraved we can’t do anything good at all unless God causes it, even wanting/seeking God. If we think God will be glorified in spite of evil, they take it to the next level and say He is glorified by evil.
It’s all about setting themselves apart from others, above others. And their delight in being “chosen” comes at the expense of the souls of millions of others. It’s sad. And so destructive to God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice, and the true gospel.
When the genuine, simple, life-saving truth, which every single living individual needs to hear is: “I love you, have always loved you and always desired that you not perish, but turn from wickedness and live.” That’s why Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, because the heart of God is love, not narcissistic glory seeking.
I said something similar, and it was pointed out I was being too harsh, but I did make the point of pride. Where this is harsh is there are different “levels” of Calvinists. There are the dogmatic experienced Pastors, Elders and members of the congregation who are studied and spread it, and even argue in defense of it. These are the prideful ones.
Then there are those who believe it as it is all they have been taught and don’t really seek or question, and don’t think of the logical implications. They just are trying to honor God the best they know how.
Then there are those who don’t even realize what is being taught because of how indirectly it is taught through double speak and subtle deception.
A2A: You took the words out of my mouth. In fact, as I was just driving home, I was thinking I needed to modify my comment to say exactly what you pointed out.
Some of my favorite friends are (unfortunately) Calvinists (but we don’t talk anymore after we left that church). They were/are some of the nicest, most humble, God-fearing, gentle people I know. I think there is a big difference between the sheeple in the congregation who have been brainwashed, shamed, manipulated into Calvinism and those who teach it and do the manipulating.
Many of the good sheeple are sincerely trying to do their best to be the good Calvinists that the Calvinist leaders teach them to be. But it’s the teachers, the educated higher-ups, the MacArthurs and Sprouls and Whites and even the local domineering Calvinist pastors, that I am talking about. They – many of them – are the ones who I think have a pride-disguised-as-humility or insecurity problem. And that’s why they need to find a bunch of followers who hang onto their every word and who run to THEM for the answers that can easily be found in the Bible (answers that the Calvinist leaders twist until they don’t match the Bible anymore).
When I critique Calvinists in general, it’s usually about the dogmatic, teacher-type ones, not the average person in the pew who I think is a victim of the domineering leaders. I pray that those in the congregation will wake up and pay attention to what’s being taught to them, to stop letting the higher-ups spoon-feed them twisted Scripture full of poison.
It is the arrogance too. I teach this because it is what the Bible teaches. It doesn’t have to make sense, but it is true. There aren’t really any good reasons given by the Calvinist as to WHY their theology is true, just that it is (because of a few verses).
The non-calvinist, from what I have seen, doesn’t claim their interpretation as absolute truth, but rather gives reasons on why what they believe fits together with the Bible and is consistent. We don’t say “It doesn’t make sense, but it is true!”. We say, this set of beliefs and interpretations makes more sense, and DOESN’T have logical inconsistencies while fitting with the Bible.
A2A: “this set of beliefs and interpretations makes more sense, and DOESN’T have logical inconsistencies while fitting with the Bible.”
Amen!
TS00″ “When the genuine, simple, life-saving truth, which every single living individual needs to hear is: “I love you, have always loved you and always desired that you not perish, but turn from wickedness and live.” That’s why Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, because the heart of God is love,”
And amen again! How sad and lacking the Calvinist half-gospel is because this isn’t part of it.
That is in part 2! Coming soon!
Welcome Isaac!
Can Piper define what faith is, before he concludes that it is a gift?
Second, in order to be dead, you must first have been alive. Death only happens to the living.
I believe it’s 1 Cor 15:51 which states that the strength of sin is the law.
If that is true, then sin has no power where there is no law.
Romans 5:13, a verse that is ignored by everyone, on both sides states… well, you look it up.
Ed Chapman
“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” is 1 Cor 15:56, but that’s close (FYI Google is far better at looking up verses than any Bible search I’ve ever found).
I appreciate your first two points too.
Rom 5:13 is part of a big package of deep theology. NASB20 seems to use sin, transgression and offense for Adam’s same act. Anyway, a lot of this problem tracks back to Augustine’s definition of Original Sin, which most people understand is kooky:)
Eric,
Thank you. I was trying to go off memory. John 3:98, For God so loved the world… lol.
Yes. Augustine was completely wrong on original sin, and Pelegian, or whatever his name is, was close… but he was condemned. If I were alive in those days, I’d be a dead man.
Most reformed folks would be declared heretics. It’s funny hearing James White say that Martin Luther would have him ex-communicated or killed over infant baptism.
The problem with church fathers!!
Now, I’m not reformed, nor a Baptist.
I look at this:
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Then I look at:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Now. Paul “died” once he knew the law. Children don’t know sin. They are not taught the law in Judaism until bar/bat mitzvah.
Until then, their parents are responsible for the children’s sins.
But, church fathers… people still listen to them for some odd reasons. They aren’t fans of Jews in any way, shape, or form.
Ed Chapman
The other thing missing, regarding the correct explanation that Adam died a spiritual death, meaning separation from God, is that this separation was only temporary, because it was restored based on killing of an animal, in which skins were used to cover their shame.
So to continue that God/ man relationship, God taught them that a sacrifice was needed.
And that’s also how the Jews maintained that relationship as well.
In other words, even tho they were spiritually dead, sacrifice “covered” their sins… until Jesus could finally take them away.
Calvinists only tell 1/4 of the story.
The other side misses things, too.
Ed Chapman
Before I had even studied this or heard the Calvinist interpretation, just my own reading of the Bible, I didn’t take those verses to mean literally completely dead like a corpse. I took it more to mean doomed, or fate was sealed (save for accepting Christ). So the second we sinned our first sin the wages we earned for it was death.
There was nothing we could do to change that. No amount of good deeds, no amount of work, no amount of saying “I’m sorry”. In the court we were “found guilty” of the crime of sin. Our punishment of death was certain. So while there was nothing WE could do to change it, Christ did. He took our punishment for us with work HE did, not work we did.
We just have to have faith He did that and offered that pardon for us. Since Paul clearly explained faith is not a work, it still falls in line with us not being able to save ourselves.
A couple things.
1. What was the name of the Tree in the garden?
The first time you ever sinned doesn’t impute the sin.
Knowledge of the sin does, however.
That’s why the name of that tree is important.
1 John 3:4
… sin is transgression of the law.
Romans 3:21
… the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7-9
…I had not known sin but by the law.
2. Works is only pertaining to the law of Moses.
The phrase ” Good Works” is not what “Works” means.
Altho there is no about of good Works that one can be saved, that is true, but the whole use of the word Works only pertains to the law of Moses. All the does and don’ts.
Now, as far as death, the article correctly states that death is when your spirit leaves your body.
James 2:26 states that as well.
Now, contrast that with spiritual death.
That’s when God’s spirit departs you.
Eternal life is when God’s spirit returns to your body.
That is a spiritual resurrection.
That is what born again means. Note the word again?
That has nothing to do with flesh at all. Not the first time, and not the again time, either.
1. Your Spirit in your body is life.
2. Your spirit plus God’s spirit in your body is spiritual life.
We all had spiritual life before knowledge of sin.
We died. We weren’t born dead.
They have not interpreted David’s conception correctly.
Ed Chapman
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
Once upon a time – there was a divine robot creator in the sky
He created 100 robots to live and move and have their being on planet earth.
All 100 robots were given the GIFT of an infallibly decreed program.
Since it was a program of infallible decrees – it could not be countervailed.
The program was IRRESISTIBLE
THE FALLEN CONDITION OF THE CREATURE
One of the sub-routines within the divine program was called the DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD sub-routine.
This part of the program made it the case that all 100 robots would be infallibly DEAD and infallibly TOTALLY DEPRAVED and infallibly HATE GOD
Consequently – all 100 robots were born IRRESISTIBLY hating god by infallible decree.
THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION
However – the divine robot creator – intended for one robot to be saved from the DEAD IN TOTALLY DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD program.
So the divine creator gave this robot a GIFT OF FAITH
He removed the DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD sub-routine – and replaced it with the GIFT OF FAITH sub-routine.
And just as it is for all robots – the program is a program of infallible decrees which cannot be countervailed.
Thus the GIFT OF FAITH sub-routine – just as all programs are – is IRRESISTIBLE
Thus 100 robots are divinely and infallibly controlled by programs which are IRRESISTIBLE
But the “Good News” is – DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD robots – can be saved by IRRESISTIBLE GRACE :-]
I am OK with mocking Semi-Gnostics, to a degree. Seems like someone should make an app that displays responses to all their nonsense. I suppose that wouldn’t seem very Christian though…
Calvinists always say “dead people can’t seek God”.
But Amos 5:4 says: “Seek me and live …”
If these people are not yet “alive” then they are currently dead. And yet God is telling them to seek Him. I guess dead people can seek! And more than that, God expects them to.
Excellent verse Heather, I must remember that one.
Thank you, Aiden. 🙂
br.d
There is one more option.
Option 3:
Calvin’s god treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
For example:
Calvin’s god knows that he infallibly decrees person_X will NOT seek him
But he communicates the opposite to person_X.
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Calvin’s god knows he infallibly decreed Adam will eat the fruit and no other options is granted to Adam.
But he communicates the opposite to Adam
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Calvin’s god knows he infallibly decreed Cain would murder Able and no other option is granted to Cain. But he communicates the opposite to Cain.
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
etc etc etc.
The question then becomes – where does this pattern come from?
Two options:
1) Calvin received divine knowledge of the divine pattern by his super-Apostle divine revelation
2) Calvin simply created a god after his own image
Which option would be the most probable? :-]
Calvin sanctioned the 10/27/1553 burning of Michael Servetus, because Servetus taught against Calvin’s understanding of the Trinity.
Luther led an army to persecute and kill Anabaptists, because Anabaptists refused to baptize their infant children.
My questions are these:
1) Would God save and seal men who committed the above atrocities?
2) Could these men have committed these atrocities if they were being led by the Spirit?
Note: Without the indwelling Holy Spirit they could not understand the things of God. 1 Cor. 2:14
I maintain Calvin and Luther were “false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly ravenous wolves”.as forewarned by our Lord. Matthew 7:15
Jesus taught, A bad tree cannot produce good fruit and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit; by their fruit you will know them. Matthew 7:16-18,20.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 7:19
Choose good trees with good fruit for your doctrine, for they are being led and taught by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Reject bad trees and bad fruit for they cannot understand the things of God.
Amen, and Hallelujah! Both those brought forth Catholic baggage, and did not do any favors for the reformation. Those outside of Catholicism, Luther, and Calvin had things more correct than those three sects ever did. And they were condemned.
John 16:2
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
1saved
1) Would God save and seal men who committed the above atrocities?
br.d
Yes – if their consciences were not seared with a hot iron – such that their consciences could no longer be convicted by the Holy Spirit sufficient to repent
2) Could these men have committed these atrocities if they were being led by the Spirit?
br.d
Absolutely not!
They were under the influence and deception of the spirit of the age.
That spirit which rules all principalities and powers within every age.
We must remember – both Luther and Calvin were the product of Catholicism.
I didn’t know how to leave a random comment so whilst this might not totally fit this article I thought I’d dive in here.
I was bought up Welsh Presbyterian though haven’t followed that way myself. However, passages and thoughts on election and predestination have haunted me down the years. The whole issue reared its ugly head for me earlier this year and thankfully I came across Soteriology101. Great content and I learnt a new, clever sounding word! I’ve literally saturated myself with info and to be honest have learnt so much more about calvinism than I already knew. None of what I’ve learnt makes me any less horrified by the idea it might be true but I know that feeling warm and fuzzy is not a good test of doctrinal soundness.
I got the books about the roots of Augustinian calvinism and The Potters Promise and really enjoyed reading both. However, as soon as I got to the end of the latter book and it suggested reading Romans 9 to 11 I got the wind up again. I can really see how someone even with no calvinistic background could see limited salvation in there. If Calvinism is true then I cannot see any hope of joy or peace. I honestly can even see why people with that believe would have kids. I have two and hope they’ll become firm believers. It’s hard enough knowing there’s no guarantees but on calvinism it’s a real Russian Roulette stake!
This whole issue honestly terrifies me… I don’t find being a Christian the easiest thing anyway but truth isn’t about easy. But if Calvinism is true then I can’t even contemplate how to honestly worship. If it’s true I must believe it and submit to it but I can’t see how I can ever have ripening fruit of the Spirit as a result of it. Submission yes, fear yes, grief yes but not the things that Jesus seemed to want to bring… Like life to the full and peace and a light burden.
How do you decide what’s true when Leighton is intelligent but so is Piper et al. And I’m in a totally different intellectual league where I have to read and re read things to get them to even begin to make sense sometimes. And if I go to the bible it just fuels my anxiety. So I sit on a very painful fence like a rabbit caught in headlights.
Sorry this was so long…. I want to embrace truth, not stuff that is philosophically palatable. Thanks for listening.
Hello Sian and welcome
Your post was totally wonderful!!!
Very thoughtful!
What we all have for many years observed with Calvinism -is how it seeks to propagate itself. The Calvinist knows he will face a believer who has a Biblical understanding of God, and the divine nature, which entails a loving desire for his creatures well-being.
The Calvinist knows – in order to indoctrinate such a person – he has to first tear down that person’s Biblical understanding – in order to replace it with Calvinism’s image of a “Good-Evil” deity who creates the vast majority of his creatures specifically for eternal torment – for his good pleasure.
I would ask you to simply continue taking the careful steps you’ve wisely chosen to take so far.
However – I personally do not have some of your burden.
I was 30 years in the Lord before I became aware of the “Good-Evil” deity of Calvinism.
So I have no problem reading any scripture at all
My mind has never been conditioned to read scripture the way Calvinism conditions the mind to do.
If that can be the case for me – then I believe it can be the case for you.
I think perhaps the key for you will be something I found however.
In examining Calvinism – I discovered it is in fact a doctrine of “Good-Evil”
And it is the aspect of the doctrine – that the Calvinist has an extreme urgency to obfuscate.
The Calvinist is a professing Christian.
So he understands – dishonesty is not a fruit of Christ.
But he cannot comply with the requirement for honesty – because if he tells the WHOLE TRUTH about his belief system – he know people will reject it – and so won’t he.
So the practice of withholding the truth is critical for promoting and defending the doctrine.
Not only must the Calvinist withhold the truth from others in order to make Calvinism acceptable – he must withhold the truth from himself.
Consequently – many Calvinist statements function as lies of omission -in order to obfuscate aspects of the doctrine the Calvinist calculates people will reject.
Many Calvinist statements entail ingenuously deceptive language designed to paint false pictures of things which underlying doctrine actually rejects.
And many Calvinist statements entail a form of dishonesty known as “Altruistic Dishonesty”
This is the dishonesty that you observe – for example – with a wife whose husband is abusive. She covers up for him. She is dishonesty – but for “Altruistic” reasons.
As time goes by – I believe you will recognize those as critical tell-tale signs to look for within the Calvinist world-view.
Those tell-tall signs have become a powerful antidote for me – against the poison of Calvinism.
My prayer for you – is that the Lord will graciously give you the same insights he gave me and others – which function as such a powerful antidote to the poison of Calvinism!
Blessings!
Br.d
Hello Sian and welcome, great to hear from you.
I understand the struggle. And that’s a good sign, because so many people just swallow Calvinism whole without questioning it or looking into it deeper.
When Calvinism first took over our church under a new pastor, I freaked out, wondering if what he was saying could be true. Actually, first I raised my eyebrows like “What is he teaching!?!” Then I got alarmed like “THAT’S what he’s teaching!?!” Then I got concerned like “What if he’s right in what’s he’s teaching?” And then when I began to research it and see that so many big-name theologians are Calvinists, I freaked out, wondering if they were all right and I was the only one who thought Calvinism was wrong.
Thankfully, I decided to look into one more pastor I always liked – Tony Evans (the pastor we watch online now that we left our church) – and I decided that if he agreed with Calvinism like everyone else then I would just have to accept it as true. But I was so relieved to see that he didn’t, that his teachings match up with the plain understanding of Scripture, which contradicts Calvinism. It gave me the courage and hope to go on, to continue in my beliefs that Calvinism was wrong and to keep researching why it’s wrong. (And of course, Sot101 is a big help and all the commenters here, as is Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals.)
Keep researching how Calvinism is wrong, how it twists the Bible, and how Calvinist pastors/theologians manipulate people into it. Any theology that relies on taking verses out of context, redefining biblical words/terms, and shaming people from questioning it ought to make us think that something must be wrong with it. (For my research into all this, check out my blog https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/. The more I’ve researched it, the more confident I am that Calvinism is totally wrong and damaging to God’s character and the gospel.)
Remember it doesn’t matter how intelligent any teacher/pastor is. The Pharisees were super intelligent too, but super wrong. All that matters is if they accurately understand and teach Scripture, as it is written, plainly and clearly. And I think it is a huge red flag that Calvinism needs people to read big Calvinist books for months and months, being guided by Calvinist teachers, before they can begin to (supposedly) understand Scripture and the gospel. Is God that unclear in what He says in the Bible that He needs the help of Calvinist theologians to reword everything He said to make it “clearer”? Or is it only unclear because Calvinism messes it all up?
God bless you on your journey to truth. Keep going, you are on the right path!
Thanks so much Br.d…really appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I don’t think I can edit my first post but I made a bit of a typo… typical for me 🙄 What I meant to say re having kids is that I can’t see how anyone with that belief, ie a calvinistic one, would want to have kids. The sheer randomness of election means you’d have to really dissociate your hopes and dreams from what you perceive to be a very real potential reality. If that makes sense.
I want to sit and mull over all you’ve said… but wanted you to know I really appreciate your response and your empathy. I’m glad you’ve never come at scripture wired for condemnation… its not pleasant! It makes it very hard to listen to what God might be saying and adjusting thoughts appropriately. I once managed to feel told off by God just reading the ‘Be still and know that I am God’ verse… 😂 Actually it was cos I read the notes that said the original for BE STILL means STOP IT! A person who doesn’t have a condemnatory slant on the bible may well hear God gently saying ‘stop it… be still… be at peace!’ But I just heard ‘STOP IT!!!!!’ Like a stern, authoritarian grown up would say it. That’s why I believe it’s so important for core beliefs about God and His character and what the Bible really teaches about soteriology etc to be thoroughly worked out and correct. ( Yey… I got to use the new, long, clever sounding word!) If our beliefs are wonky, we’ll either be lulled into a false sense of security or terrified of God for reasons that are erroneous and insulting to Him. I do hope I end up fully believing that I’ve fallen into the latter camp rather than being convinced that calvinism must be true. And to counter the response that says, ” Who are you to question God. He is allowed to act however he wants…” I already know that…that’s what scares the living daylights out of me! 😱
Thank you Sian,
On you statement about having kids – it is highly understandable!
And as a matter of fact – it is an aspect of the doctrine which no NORMAL human can avoid.
But the human mind is extremely flexible.
Take for example a girl who has spent the vast majority of her young life reading romance novels.
Her bed-room is full of romance novels – and she has a particular set of novels that are special to her – which she reads over and over.
She meets a boy at a party who pays a great deal of attention to her.
Could this be the one she asks herself?
He courts her – and eventually asks if he can move into her apartment.
Of course she says yes! Her life-long dreams are coming true!
A little later – her friends and parents start to notice she has bruises on her face and body.
She tells them she is clumsy and has accidents.
But they know what signs to look for – and they eventually recognize what is going on.
When they confront her – they do so with loving kindness and with rational reasoning
She adamantly rejects all of it.
She will manufacture 1001 reasons why there is no problem
She will not allow herself to see the truth.
She has a belief that she is fully committed to – and she is not going to give it up.
If her case turns out like most – the beatings and abuse will simply become worse and she will eventually be forced into reality.
But in the mean time she lives *AS-IF* there is no problem.
She goes about her daily life *AS-IF* she is in a loving normal relationship.
As a second example – consider the man who adopts Solipsism as a belief system.
The doctrine stipulates that all persons outside of himself are figments of his imagination.
But what happens when he is TRUE to his belief system?
He knows – if he treats his wife as a figment of his imagination (especially in the bedroom) she is not going to take kindly to that. There will be consequences!
He knows – if he treats his boss at work as a figment of his imagination – there will be consequences!
So what does he do?
He treats his wife *AS-IF* she is real – in order to avoid consequences his belief system imposes on him. He treats his boss *AS-IF* he is real – also to avoid consequences.
And this is exactly what the Calvinist does also.
Solipsism is a radical belief system.
In order to avoid its consequences – the believer must live *AS-IF* Solipsism is FALSE.
Calvinism is just as much a radical belief system
In order for the Calvinist to retain a sense of human normalcy – and human personhood – he is forced to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is false.
Like the Solipsist – he asserts the doctrine is TRUE.
But he treats the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to avoid its consequences.
As you become more familiar with Calvinism – you will eventually recognized – Calvinism’s language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Like the girl whose boyfriend is abusing her – the Calvinist lives *AS-IF* certain aspects of Calvinism are FALSE.
Like the Solipsist who needs to avoid the consequences of his belief system – the Calvinist treats various aspects of his belief system *AS-IF* they are FALSE.
That should answer your question – about how Calvinists can get married and have children and see no problem with making statements – like John Piper made concerning his children – when he stated he has no way of knowing if his children were created to be a part of the elect.
What Piper is acknowledging – is that he has no way of knowing if his children were created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
But Piper cannot allow himself to be that honest.
So he will try to frame the issue within language designed to obfuscate the “Evil” part of the doctrine
And frame the issue within language designed to maximize an appearance of divine benevolence.
The Calvinist has a “Love-Hate” relationship with the doctrine of decrees.
Just like the young girl with her abusive boyfriend – the Calvinist – in order to evade the dark implications of the doctrine – conditions his mind to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
He is forced to do that – in order to retain a sense of human normalcy and human person-hood
Blessings!
Sian – I believe you are on the right track. I had a similar crises of faith when I started to dig into Determinism. As mentioned above, my family comes from a long line of Lutherans, so even after I left the church I still had a great deal of respect for Luther. You asked above, who do we believe (sorry it’s difficult to chase down exact quotes)? Well for me, I had to basically give up on Luther so I could believe the Bible. It’s not about Luther vs. Leighton vs. Calvin vs. Piper, it’s about the Word that outclasses them all. I recommend you give up on trusting people (as I found I was) and keep studying Romans 9-11 until it looks clear to you.
You also mentioned a light burden, and Jesus does in fact bring that. That promise from Jesus ties in with Hebrews 3-4. Again I am not trying to pump my new site (ick, just found another typo), but I laid out a quick outline of Rest at wordlight.net/find_rest.html . I have not plumbed the depth of predestination, and I don’t think Leighton or Paul has either, but we shouldn’t be expected to understand timelessness. I hope you find peace as you study His Word.
And BRD – Thanks for your post as well. IMHO, I think the Determinist mindset is even darker than you mention. Despite Jesus extoling the virtues of light, here we have Determinists (like the hypocritical Gnostics before them) hiding their deepest teachings from the sheep. I think of Piper in the jail, where he angrily denounces an inmate for a very fair question, simply because Calvinism (as far as I can tell) is completely bankrupt on the issue.
I was given basically the same response for decades. Frankly, even though it may not seem cordial, I would prefer that soteriology101 consider that Determinists are preaching Another Gospel (Galatians 1) and say so plainly. As it is wrong that the abuser keeps the abused in silence, and keeps his crimes in the darkness, so too that soteriology is too important to hide the light. Am I wrong here??? John 1, says Jesus is light. Apologies if I am not being sensitive enough about the internal politics of the SBC, but so be it. And apologies if I am harping on that point.
I think of the blind leading the blind (as they both will fall into the ditch). My 2 cents, but I think the ministry should be geared more toward pulling the Sian’s out of Determinism, and warning the Baby Christians about Determinism, and less toward convincing the Young, Restless and Reformed of the error of their ways. To be honest, I see Mammon and pride that keep promoting the errors of Determinism, and that is why they keep abusing.
Regardless, many, many blessings to this ministry.
br.d
Thank you Eric!
And I thank the Lord that he delivered you out of Calvinism’s ensnarement! :-]
I’m replying to Eric, but it’s generally to all:
And this is hugely important, because Romans 9-11 is so controversial, and it’s all due to BOTH SIDES thinking it has to do with “predestination” or “total depravity”, or some kind of reformation doctrine about everyone.
You can’t read Romans 9-11 like that at all.
My goodness, it was the Jews only who was given the Law of Moses to seek THAT Righteousness. They were TOLD to seek that righteousness.
And this is the answer they gave:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
Remember, God gave them THAT righteousness to follow. That righteousness wasn’t something that they just wanted to do. They were ORDERED to DO, to WORK.
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
And that is in Romans 11:8.
So you can’t interpret Romans 9-11 as a reformation doctrine at all. It’s dealing with a certain people, and those people are not us lowly Gentiles.
Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
They are “ignorant” of God’s righteousness.
Romans 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
The Jews “under the law of Moses” are blinded by that concept, and it is because they were ORDERED to abide by the righteousness of the law.
And what is the purpose of the law of Moses?
Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
The law was given to THEM “so that” sin would INCREASE, not DECREASE. It was so that Grace would have its meaning.
And what will they (Jews under the law get in the END?
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy “they” also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded “them” all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 9-11 is about them, not us.
Now, I previously referenced Deuteronomy 29:4 with ROMANS 11:8.
Let’s now contrast that with the following:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Do you see, that is for the Gentiles?
So again, the Jews:
Romans 11:8/Deu 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Conclusion, blind Jews, vs. Gentiles that can see. The only ones needing their blind to be healed is the Jews.
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Pay very close attention to the last verse.
I used to listen to Hank Hanegraaff on the radio, and I got so angry at him during one episode that I shut him off, and haven’t listened to him since. And I’m glad, because he later went to a different sect of Christianity that goes against the things he used to be the BIBLE ANSWER MAN for.
But what got me angry was his statement that said, “God is not some kind of a ‘cosmic racist’. I thought to myself, this has nothing to do with racism at all.
It’s that God CHOSE Israel to tell the story about himself, THRU Israel…hence Romans 9-11.
All “reformers” from both sides, or all sides, needs to rid themselves that Romans 9-11 is about themselves. It’s not.
Ed Chapman
Also, if one reads Romans 9 properly, Paul is basically telling us that “expository preaching” is not all what it is cracked up to be today.
The Jews were promised an inheritance of the physical land of Israel, thru Isaac. Promised Land and Seed.
But that same promise is ALSO a spiritual promise of Land and Seed, the seed being Jesus (Galatians 3:16).
But the Jews don’t see that spiritual interpretation at all. And that is what Romans 9 is laying out for us.
Romans 9:8
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
We are the children of God thru Jesus.
But as the Bible also insists:
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Romans 9 is contrasting the spiritual from the carnal. This does not negate out that promised real estate in the middle east. All it does is tell the story that Isaac isn’t the spiritual promise, but Jesus is, and the inheritance is not a small piece of real estate in the middle east, but heaven.
But the Jews are too blind to see that, all because they were ORDERED to follow the WORKS (Law of Moses) to obtain THAT righteousness to EARN a wage of eternal life…but the wages of sin is death. Therefore, the law of Moses was a set up for FAIL.
And God knew it, based on Romans 5:20, that the law was given (TO JEWS, NOT GENTILES) to increase sin, not to decrease it.
Good post, Brdmod. I think it’s telling the Piper’s son – Abraham – has totally abandoned the faith and gone the other direction, making nasty videos against Christianity. This is what happens to a lot of people (a lot of Christian musicians lately too) brought up under Calvinism.
Sadly, they have been led to believe that Calvinism is gospel truth, and so they end up rejecting the gospel and God instead of just rejecting Calvinism and finding out the truth of what the Bible really teaches. We’ll never know the whole scope of damage done by Calvinism to the Church and people’s hearts, faiths, and eternities until heaven. But I am sure we can thank Calvinism for many of the atheists and damaged, struggling Christians out there. it’s sad.
That’s unfortunate about Mr Piper’s son.
But totally understandable
At some point as a young man he may have listened to the tape of his father telling people he did not know if his god created his son for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
Listening to my father tell people that would have been a special moment!
Great post, Eric.
And you said: ” Frankly, even though it may not seem cordial, I would prefer that soteriology101 consider that Determinists are preaching Another Gospel (Galatians 1) and say so plainly.”
I totally agree! This is one thing I really like about Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals; he doesn’t pussyfoot around or try to be overly gentle in opposing Calvinism.
(I think it’s good that Leighton is more gentle, though, because different personalities speak to different people, so we need both the bold “call it like it is” ones and the gentler ones.)
I agree with Kevin when he says that Calvinists will just use our politeness against us, and that’s one reason he speaks bluntly and calls it what it is plainly and clearly. If we are overly nice and gentle, concerned too much about hurting feelings or appearing harsh, Calvinists will just use that time and vagueness to continue pushing their theology in whatever ways they can.
I think there needs to be clearer lines drawn, to help those who are in Calvinism understand the significant error of their views and to help those who are struggling with wondering what the truth is and if Calvinists or non-Calvinists are right. There’s too much at stake to be too gentle and wishy-washy.
That’s just my two cents on it, and it’s why I write very forcefully against it and don’t mince words. (I am strong against the theology itself, but I do believe in being loving and gentle and respectful with the people as much as possible, the average Calvinist in the congregation. I think many of them are truly good people with good hearts who are just trying to do their best to honor God and live their faith the way they think they should. But I am much more firm against the Calvinist teachers, theologians, and pastors who are the ones leading people astray, stealthily, deceptively, and manipulatively.)
Brdmod: “At some point as a young man he may have listened to the tape of his father telling people he did not know if his god created his son for eternal torment for his good pleasure.”
And he might have heard “But if God didn’t choose my son, it might make me sad but I will just have to praise Him anyway because everything He decides is for His glory and for our good. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept His sovereign control over all. All that matters is that God is glorified. And if takes predestining people to hell, even my own son, then who am I to talk back to Him?”
Of course, we are just speculating here, but this IS Calvinist theology. That’s gotta mess with the heads of kids of Calvinist parents, to feel like God might not love you as much as your parents do, that there is ultimately no one to turn to, that there might not be any hope for you.
“But, hey, son, let’s keep our fingers crossed; you never know. You might have been chosen. And if you were, you can feel secure in knowing you’re one of the elected, saved ones. But you just won’t know for sure till you’re dead. And there’s nothing you could’ve done about it either way anyway, so let’s just see what happens.”
Yes! Well said Heather!
This reminds me of the story of the Calvinist pastor walking his little daughter home after the church service. She is quietly thinking about things he said in his sermon. She looks up to him and asks
Daddy – did god create me specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure?
Brdmod: “Daddy – did god create me specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure?”
Reminds me of a post my Calvinist pastor wrote on the church blog about God choosing to harden people’s heart, and a terrified believer commented saying “Dear God, please don’t harden me!”
How sad that this is the image of God they have. Lots of security and comfort in Calvinism, huh?.
br.d
“I have absolute assurance of my salvation” is what the Calvinist confidently told everyone – exactly seven days before the night he would go to bed and wake up in the lake of fire.
In the article, under the heading, “Death as Separation”, the following verse is referenced:
Romans 6:11 ESV
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
The following needs to be added:
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now you can add verse 11:
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law
Ed Chapman
Heather wrote: “There’s too much at stake to be too gentle and wishy-washy.” Right on.
As a suggestion for one of Leighton’s posts, there is a lot I can learn from him about how to be cordial. Maybe he did one? Yes I’ve seen him get tense at times, but God bless that man and his patience! I would love to learn more about his thoughts on being “cordial” and respectful and all those Biblical things that are a struggle for most of us. Hey, I’m a biologist, and it’s natural for people to manipulate their environment without any concern for the consequences. But I really stuggle with setting boundaries with people that love to violate them. In this case, the boundary is soteriology, the Good News, and Determinists are running it over with a Mack truck. Leighton has threaded the needle and I think the SBC should be honored to have such a Godly man on faculty.
If I didn’t make it clear above, I definitely think Galatians (ie contra works-righteousness) applies. As I see it, all of Determinism boils down to respecting persons (ie James) and working so hard that God will certainly choose you. The Determinst must think that at least, if God did wind up sending them to hell, the Determinist would have a reason to blame God, because of all those works.
What convoluted baloney. Abraham Piper is right. Don’t blame him a bit. Of course it’s sad tho…
I am very, very convinced that we should not just “Say nothing if you can’t say anything nice.” To me, that’s code for letting your fears dictate your actions, which is sin (Luke 12).
All that to say that I haven’t found the right balance yet, but I know that I should not present myself as angry to people that are leading others astray (or insult me, or are fleecing the flock,…). It is “my business” as a Christian to comment, even rebuke and argue, because I have been shown the light and it should not be kept under a bushel. How I would have loved to see how The Master did it, or at least Paul or James!
I hope those thoughts are germane to the topic, and I am not hijacking. This seems like a llogical conclusion to their twisted logic.
Hi Sian, here’s a thought for these Calvinists!
“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).
If everyone is born “TOTALLY Depraved” how could anyone become worse? Why does this passage say, “evil men” as if there’s any other kind? Because, if everyone is born “Totally Depraved” then EVERYONE is evil.
Calvinism just won’t work.
br.d
Good morning Aidan – and good question!
What we find – is that “Total Depravity” is what is typically called an “Accordion” phrase.
It is “Accordion” in the sense that its meaning can be shrunk down to whatever the Calvinist needs to shrink it down to – and expanded out to whatever the Calvinist needs to expand it to.
When any Calvinist – who has a propensity for honesty is painted into a corner – and forced to give a precise meaning for it – what we find is that it really should be called “One unique inability” rather than “Total Depravity”.
Because the Calvinist will eventually admit that
1) “IQ” has nothing to do with it.
The smarted man in all of human history can be plagued with it.
2) Human goodness and human benevolence has nothing to do with it
The most godly man in all of human history can be plagued with it.
So what it boils down to is simply that Calvin’s god has not endowed humans to be born with the capacity to believe on Jesus as one’s savior.
That is why it should really be called “One unique inability”.
But the Calvinist knows that if he acknowledges that as the TRUTH about Calvinism – then he is going to be faced answering the question – why does Calvin’s god not endow humans to be born with the capacity to believe on Jesus as one’s savior.
The Calvinist knows – the answer is
Calvin’s god creates/designs THE MANY specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. So that is what he endows them with.
Thanks Brd,
I’m curious. Would they not say that man is born depraved (by God’s design of course) and that God only chooses (by His predetermined plan from all eternity) to save a select few and condemn the rest? Their depravity accounting for their unigue inability?
br.d
Hello Aidan
The Calvinist has a significant urgency to make Calvinism appear as benevolent as possible – in order to maximize the potential “buy-in” of NON-Calvinist Christians – hoping to get NON-Calvinist Christians to find Calvinism acceptable.
So on behalf of that urgency Calvinists will equivocate on this particular topic.
They will say – as you’ve pointed out – that out of the population of humanity – Calvin’s god chooses those whom he will save and those whom he will not.
But this is an example of the dishonesty Calvinism seduces Calvinists into.
The TRUE picture follows:
1) According to Calvinism’s interpretation of the “divine potter” in Roman’s 9 – we have a god (divine potter) who at the foundation of the world – first conceives of every human creature (vessel) he is going to create.
2) Certain vessels are conceived in his mind – to be specifically created/designed as “vessels of honor”
3) Certain vessels are conceived in his mind – to be specifically created/designed as “vessels of wrath”.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
John Calvin
-quote
the wicked themselves HAVE BEEN CREATED for this very end—that they may perish. – (Commentaries Romans 9:18)
Now many Calvinists do not like this picture.
So they will try to obfuscate it – by trying to paint a picture of people who are FOUND to be worthy of destruction – rather than MADE to be worthy of destruction.
And by attempting to paint this picture – they are lying to themselves – and to you – about the doctrine – in order to remove the specter of divine evil.
Excellent Brd, you are a fountain of knowledge. Determinism seems to be at the back of every doctrine of theirs!
Aiden: “Calvinism just won’t work.”
I agree, and I think that’s why they discourage people from examining it too closely with manipulative, shaming things like “Who are you to talk back to God? Humble Christians accept God’s sovereignty.”
As if it can effectively shut down all contradictions and errors in logic.
And as if it’s really “talking back to God” anyway, when – in Calvinism – God preplanned/ordained/caused it for His glory.
And why, I wonder, would Calvinists criticize people for “talking back” to Calvi-god anyway, when he “ordained” it for his glory? Are they trying to deny him his glory? Do they think they know better what’s glorifying to him?
Calvinism really doesn’t work – on multiple fronts.
It only “appears” to work if they ignore everything wrong with it or slap on manipulative pat answers that really make no sense.
Agreed on all fronts! Then what gets really funny is they try to discredit the use of logic and reason as ungodly or “as the Greeks did” and then USE logic and reason themselves when defending their position. To me, logic and reason is so necessary, it is part of God’s orderly creation! We wouldn’t even be able to have a conversation about ANYTHING, let alone God, if we didn’t have logical and reasonable constants to work with!
What the Calvinist inadvertently (I hope not intentional) ends up doing is saying YOUR logic and reasoning is invalid, but MINE IS valid. Logic and reason is like math though, it is constant and universal. If properly followed, it leads to truth, just like properly solving a math equation gets a solution.
My experience is that after demonstrating the logical contradictions of his arguments, the Calvinist will inevitably shrug and fall back on ‘God’s logic being above man’s’ or some such nonsensical statement. In other words, since they cannot make a logical case, they will simply renounce logic. Which is, of course, illogical. 😉
A2A
Then what gets really funny is they try to discredit the use of logic and reason as ungodly or “as the Greeks did” and then USE logic and reason themselves when defending their position
br.d
Yes well said!
When it comes to logic – the Calvinist is like the dishonest lawyer trying to figure out a way of getting around the law.
The laws which govern language are extremely loose – such that language is easy to manipulate and use for the process of misleading people. Almost all politicians are all lawyers who are experts in manipulating language in order to mislead.
In stark contrast – the laws which govern logic have evolved over time – and have become FIXED. The law of non-contradiction for example – is a law the Calvinist is constantly trying to figure out a way of getting around.
The general list of logical fallacies are so readily available to anyone today – that if one is willing to learn them – one can readily recognize when a Calvinist is trying to get around a law of logic.
When a Calvinist argues that your logic is “Human” logic which cannot be applied to the divine things of god – he is playing the role of the dishonest lawyer who has a need to find a way to get around the law. In this case – the laws which govern logic.
Brethren,
James 1:18
Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. NKJV
Firstfruits refers to first among converts or believers (Rev. 14:4; 1 Cor. 16:15).
James epistle was the first New Testament document (45 to 50 A.D.). Therefore, it superseded the writings of Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jude.
James says he was brought forth by the word of truth and he was a kind of firstfruit of all God’s creatures (creation).
How can James this – he was not a disciple of Christ? He was a half brother of Jesus and his entire family thought Jesus had lost his mind (Mark 3:21).
I maintain James was a kind of firstfruit because he was chosen before God created the foundation of the world along with the prophets, disciples, writers of scripture and a few others.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved
……..chosen before God created the foundation of the world……
br.d
Hello 1saved – can I ask you a question
Do you hold the Calvinist position that WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS within creation at every instance in time – has been chosen by god – before he created the foundation of the world?
Thanks in advance
Br.d,
You asked, “Do you hold the Calvinist position that WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS within creation at every instance in time – has been chosen by god – before he created the foundation of the world?”
No.
God is all knowing, all powerful; everywhere present, unchanging and cannot lie.
Therefore, I believe God can choose to know anything, but He can also choose to not know something.
He chose to know and elect His prophets, writers of Scripture and a few others before He created the foundation of the world.
God chooses to know how many hairs are upon our head, how many grains of sand are upon the beach, etc.
However, “A sparrow does not fall from the sky unless our heavenly father allows it” should not to be extrapolated to “God directs all things.”
Note: Jesus did not know who had touched Him in a crowd, which should not be considered evidence that He is not omnipotent.
1saved
However, “A sparrow does not fall from the sky unless our heavenly father ALLOWS it” should not to be extrapolated to “God directs all things.”
br.d
When you say “god directs all things” – I think what you mean is “god CAUSES all things”.
As you may know – because Calvinism is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (as enunciated in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees) – the Calvinist has a “Deterministic” definition for terms like “Allow” and “Permit” which deviate from the standard and commonly held definitions for those terms.
The term “Permit” for example – is from the Latin “permettere” :
To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
For Calvin – conceptions of god letting something pass, letting something go, letting something loose, or handing over something, is simply anathema – because it would represent a compromise in divine sovereignty over all creation.
R.C. Sproul
-quote
“There is no such thing as a maverick molecule”
Calvinism thus rejects the STANDARD definitions for the terms “Allow” and “Permit” when it comes to Calvin’s god.
Divine permission in Calvinism works as follows:
1) What is divinely CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT permitted.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Calvin himself – spent a lot of time and ink arguing against this detractors who took the opposite opinion. That god does “ALLOW” things – per the common definition of the term.
Calvin very harshly rejected these notions of god “ALLOWING” anything.
THE STRUGGLE OF TODAY’S CALVINIST:
Many Calvinists today do not find that aspect of Calvinism palatable.
They want an ARMINIAN god – who “ALLOWS” things to happen – because they don’t want to attribute their god as the CAUSE of evil events – as is the case in TRUE Calvinism.
Consequently – many Calvinists today wear their Calvinism as a kind of “wide phylactery”.
They are Calvinist on the outside – and Arminian on the inside.
These Calvinists are lovingly called “Calminians” :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, “When you say “god directs all things” – I think what you mean is “god CAUSES all things””
No, I think “directs” is what I meant and when you take what I wrote out of context you miss the meaning.
My meaning: God allowing something to happen should not be extended to mean God directs everything to happen.
Scripture was written under the direction/supervision of the Holy Spirit – did the writers have free will to write what they wrote? Yes, but God could also influence them through numerous ways. He could speak directly to them, He could have them receive dreams, visions, angels, prophets, etc. until what they wrote was inerrant and infallible.
In a sense “God caused all things” because He created all things.
1) Where there is no law, there is no sin. Sin came into the world through the law – the knowledge of all good and evil – when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
2) God created man in His own image, for His own purposes and reasons.
3) God created all matter, all life, and directs/causes weather.
1saved
Scripture was written under the direction/supervision of the Holy Spirit – did the writers have FREE WILL to write what they wrote?
br.d
Creaturely freedom is another conception defined uniquely in Calvinism – because once again – the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM. So many concepts have to be defined Deterministically.
Once again John Calvin explains:
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Thus in Calvinism:
The creature is “Free” to be/do ONLY that which was knowingly and willingly decreed.
Simply because NOTHING but that which is decreed is permitted to happen.
Therefore in Calvinism – the only impulses and perceptions which can come to pass within the human brain – are those impulses and perceptions which were knowingly and willingly decreed.
Academic Calvinism classifies creaturely freedom as “COMPATIBLISM”
Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp:
-quote
A theological Compatibilist would say, god determines what comes to pass. And that is CONSISTENT (i.e. COMPATIBLE) with me being free…..provided our account of freedom is THIN ENOUGH that it can be made CONSISTENT (i.e. COMPATIBLE) with god determining all that comes to pass.
Thus in Calvinism Adam was
1) Free to eat the fruit
Because eating the fruit was knowingly and willingly decreed to infallibly come to pass – and thus COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
2) NOT Free to NOT eat the fruit
Because NOT eating the fruit was the opposite of what was knowingly and willingly decreed to infallibly come to pass – and thus NOT COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
1saved
In a sense “God caused all things” because He created all things
br.d
This would be a contradiction *IF* your definition of the term “Allow” is the standard definition.
For example – we can acknowledge god created the human brain which has impulses and perceptions.
But for the Non-Calvinist – it does not then follow that god CAUSES every sinful evil impulse and perception which comes to pass within the human brain.
But within Calvinims – Calvin’s god FIRST CONCIEVES – and then CAUSES every sinful evil impulse to infallibly and irresisribly come to pass within the human brain.
And those impulses Calvin’s god decrees come to pass within the human brain at any TIME-T are the only impulses which are granted existence to that human at that time.
1saved:
God created man in His own image
br.d
Yes – but again – in the Calvinist system – there is difference in the image granted.
One part of Calvin’s god’s image – entails the ability to choose between [A] and [NOT A]
In Calvinism – that part of the divine image is not granted to man.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees:
For every human event and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
So man is never granted the function of choosing between [A] and [NOT A]
Br.d,
You have a great understanding of Calvin’s false doctrine. It must have taken you a great amount of time to research everything Calvin wrote. My question is this. “Wouldn’t have been a better use of your time to learn what is true rather than to study what you knew to be false?”
Do you know how we learn what is true? Answer: By persevering trough trials of faith to be perfected and asking God for wisdom in faith (James 1:3-5).
You wrote. “So man is never granted the function of choosing between [A] and [NOT A].”
Suppose In order to resolve a breakfast choice conflict between her children, a mom flips a coin and lets the decision be determined by the result. Heads she’ll make pancakes, tails she’ll make waffles. One child may not like the outcome, but at least can’t claim bias by their mother. Would Calvinists say the mother was not granted choice and the children were not granted choice because God caused everything, i.e. the conflict, the decision to flip the coin and the outcome?
1saved
Wouldn’t have been a better use of your time to learn what is true rather than to study what you knew to be false?”
br.d
Thank you for the compliment!
And at a point in time – I asked myself the same question.
But the Lord has used it to help people who are in various situations.
There are some Non-Calvinists who are unaware that Calvinist’s work very hard a influencing them. They have been indoctrinated with Calvinist concepts and teaches without realizing it. Some of this is done through Calvinist daily bible reading materials – which when marketed do not divulge the fact they are Calvinist indoctrination materials.
Then there are Non-Calvinists who have a pastor who lied his way into the position and the pastoral search committee was not aware Calvinists would do such a thing and not savvy enough to detect it. Those pastors will teach Calvinism deceptively – not letting the congregation know they are being taught Calvinism.
So over the years – I’ve found the emphasis the Lord has put into my heart and mind on Calvinism – has helped people.
And thanks for the kind words! :-]
I had a Calvinist ask me pretty much the same question recently. ‘Why do non-Calvinists waste so much time on sites like Sot 101, instead of just focusing on winning the lost?’ The first irony is in the fact that, under his system, there is no such thing as ‘winning the lost’, because none are lost – only rejected.
The second irony is that he ignores, or is likely unaware of the enormous, coordinated and ceaseless campaign that Calvinism has orchestrated for many years to disseminate their theology and, hopefully, gain many followers. There are various theories about the origins of this campaign, but I view these Calvinist loyalists as, wittingly or unwittingly, dupes of the Evil One to sow confusion, fear and lack of trust in the true, loving, God who has demonstrated his defeat and served him notice that his time is short.
Whereas the true work of those who put their trust in God is to increase in faith, knowledge and wisdom so that they might lead others out of the slavery of sin and death, Calvinism perpetuates a false assurance and a destructive narcissism. And its victims have no idea that they are deceived.
In my opinion, the growing contingent of men and women who are seeking information and assurance from Sot101 and similar sites illustrates the need for a response to this well-orchestrated attempted takeover of Christianity. Many converts to Calvinism eventually find themselves the victims of fear, despair and/or loss of faith. Or they see their children rejecting this caricature of God as if it is the only option to embracing it, like John Piper’s son so tragically has.
Thank you Sot101 for all of the time, study, thought and prayer that goes into offering a scriptural, logical and faith-building alternative to the monstrous, soul-numbing assertions of Calvinism. Many need assistance deconstructing from the faulty system into which they were unknowingly indoctrinated, and regaining the true assurance, hope and joy that comes from knowing and walking with the God who loves them, seeks them and desires to redeem them from sin and death.
Wonderfully said!
Yes – I always get a kick out of how much Calvinism forces Calvinists into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
And they are totally oblivious to it.
TS00,
You replied to Br.d the following:
“I had a Calvinist ask me pretty much the same question recently. ‘Why do non-Calvinists waste so much time on sites like Sot 101, instead of just focusing on winning the lost?’ The first irony is in the fact that, under his system, there is no such thing as ‘winning the lost’, because none are lost – only rejected.
The second irony is that he ignores, or is likely unaware of the enormous, coordinated and ceaseless campaign that Calvinism has orchestrated for many years to disseminate their theology and, hopefully, gain many followers. There are various theories about the origins of this campaign, but I view these Calvinist loyalists as, wittingly or unwittingly, dupes of the Evil One to sow confusion, fear and lack of trust in the true, loving, God who has demonstrated his defeat and served him notice that his time is short.”
I want to assure you I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I say John Calvin is one of the ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing we are told by Christ to beware. Matthew 7:15
That said, I respect the teaching of some Calvinist theologians. Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. has converted many Catholics to Protestantism and written two books I recommend (Why One Way and Reckless Faith). Dr. James M. Boice led the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, preached against divorce and has also written noteworthy books (The Minor Prophets).
My point to Br.d was why did he invest so must time in studying Calvin’s false doctrine without first understanding the true doctine of Soteriology, so he could testify the truth to them and others? Expose the false with the truth.
I think of soteriology as being like a coin having two sides.
U.S. Lincoln penny, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime, Washington quarter and Kennedy half dollar coins:
Heads represents the American presidents – few in number. Elected to have authority to lead the nation.
Tails represents the people of America.
The soteriology coin:
Heads represents the prophets, writers of Scripture and a few others. Elected to have authority to represent Him.
Tails represents everyone throughout history not on the heads side of the coin.
God chose the heads side before the creation of the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4
God calls the tails side for salvation. Ephesians 1:13
Rather simple to understand, once you realize the v4 pronoun “us” is the heads side and the v13 pronoun “you” is the tails side.
1saved
1saved
That said, I respect the teaching of some Calvinist theologians. Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. has converted many Catholics to Protestantism
br.d
More precisely – John MacArthur has converted Catholics to Calvinism.
Protestantism also contains Lutheranism, Arminianism, and general Evangelical Christianity.
MacArthur is going to steer people away from those – and into Calvinism.
If I’m going to buy bottled water – I will avoid any product which has an invisible poison mixed into it.
Anyone who drinks any product marketed by any prominent Calvinist – is going to be unwittingly drinking Calvinism deceptively mixed into the product so as to make it as undetectable as possible.
Additionally – the critical skill in achieving prominence within Calvinism – is the skill of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
To subject oneself to any prominent Calvinist is to oneself to the subtle indoctrination strategies of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Any Christian in his right mind who fully understands the consequences – would avoid subjecting himself or anyone else to such influences.
Br.d
You wrote:
“More precisely – John MacArthur has converted Catholics to Calvinism.
Protestantism also contains Lutheranism, Arminianism, and general Evangelical Christianity.
MacArthur is going to steer people away from those – and into Calvinism.”
Is Lutheranism really any better than Calvinism, since Martin Luther is another ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing we are warned about.
Followers of Luther do not read James and unwilling to do good works. Therefore, their faith is dead. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. No willingness to do work, no faith, no faith no salvation.
The books by Dr’s. J. MacArthur and J. Boice I recommend do not mention Calvinist doctrine on soteriology, so what is the harm in reading them? The poison you reference isn’t there and a discerning individual can separate truth from error thus filtering out the false doctrine.
God can use a talking jackass for prophesy if He chooses; who are you to question His purposes in using these men?
Additionally, Arminian Methodists believe a false doctrine on water baptism.
“Methodists believe that regardless a person’s age, in order to follow Christ, they must be baptized. When an adult has made the decision to publicly profess their faith in Christ, they are also ready to be baptized and should not further delay receiving the gift of God. This is called a believer’s baptism and is considered an ordinance rather than a sacrament.”
Every church teaches false doctrine in one form or another:
Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, general Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, etc. are not without false doctrine..
Here’s a list ten doctrines in which there is controversy among various churches:
1) What do they teach on divorce? Everyone divorcing their spouse and marrying another commits divorce. Yes or no?
Can a man marry a divorced woman if she was not the one seeking divorce? Yes or no?
2) What do they teach on water baptism versus baptism by fire? Only one baptism – which is it?
3) What do they teach on the importance of works to impower their faith? Necessary or suggesting a lack of faith if you do works?
4) What do they teach on eschatology? Does the prophet Elijah come before or after Christ? Is it a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or pre-wrath Rapture? Does the Tribulation last only seven years? What is meant by Elijah comes first and restores all things (Matt 17:11)?
5) What do they teach on the balance of grace, faith and obedience to Christ. Are we saved by grace alone, faith alone or in combination?
6) What do they teach on sanctification? Is sanctification a process by which the Holy Spirit makes us evermore holy or a position – the noun form of the word sanctify (set apart for a holy purpose)?
7) What do they teach on whether we can lose our salvation? Yes we can or no we cannot?
8) Which do they teach – creation or evolution?
9) What do they teach on sin – original or ancestral, sin nature by inheritance or imputation, or sin as an effect of the instinct for self preservation cause?
10) What does Jesus mean when He said we are to be perfect in Matthew 5:48? Perfect once we are in heaven or perfect while here on earth?
10) How do we learn the things of God? Diligently study the writings of previous theologians, study the etymology of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words used in the Bible, or by discernment as taught by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit?
Lastly, what is the importance to humble yourself and fear the Lord? 2 Chron 34:27, Matthew 23:12, Proverbs 1:7, Isaiah 66:2
1saved
1saved
Is Lutheranism really any better than Calvinism, since Martin Luther is another ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing we are warned about.
br.d
So then MacArthur would leading people away from one ravenous wolf – in order to lead then to another one. :-]
1saved
Followers of Luther do not read James and unwilling to do good works.
Therefore, their faith is dead.
br.d
Logic would tell you that is a non-sequitur.
A person may read a scripture verse a certain way – but live the opposite way.
That is a practice which is consistent with Calvinism.
1saved
The books by Dr’s. J. MacArthur and J. Boice I recommend do not mention Calvinist doctrine on soteriology,…
br.d
My point exactly – thank you!
Jesus calls that – coming into the sheep-gate through the back-door.
1saved
The poison you reference isn’t there….
br.d
This tells us how much “discernment’ someone doesn’t have! 😀
1saved
a discerning individual can separate truth from error thus filtering out the false doctrine.
br.d
If you only knew!!!
1saved
God can use a talking jackass for prophesy if He chooses; who are you to question His purposes in using these men?
br.d
Like I said – if I’m going to be bottled water – I avoid the product which has invisible poison in it. That shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.
1saved
Additionally, Arminian Methodists believe a false doctrine on water baptism.
br.d
Arminians take various positions on that subject.
And they don’t have a practice in the use of deceptive language.
1saved
Every church teaches false doctrine in one form or another:
br.d
Hence – my point about buying bottled water.
1saved:
Lastly, what is the importance to humble yourself and fear the Lord? 2 Chron 34:27, Matthew 23:12, Proverbs 1:7, Isaiah 66:2
br.d
Seminary professors are not shy about making their students aware of the weaknesses of those whose use their position of scholarship to indoctrinate the unsuspecting with their own biases which they propagate using subtle means.
Warning their students is an act of concern – not an act of hubris.
Its all a matter of being able to “discern” the difference.
Br.d,
Apparently, we agree on a few things.
1) Both John Calvin and Martin Luther are ravenous wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
2) All established Christian churches teach false doctrine and thus only non-denominational churches should be considered for membership.
3) One baptism by fire when sealed by the Holy Spirit.
4) Jacobus Arminius’ theology on soteriology is far better than Augustine, Calvin and Luther, but other Methodist doctrine has issues.
That’s common ground and a good start.
1saved
1saved
Apparently, we agree on a few things.
1) Both John Calvin and Martin Luther are ravenous wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
br.d
I don’t call them that.
They are both disciples of Augustine – who is noted in academia as a premier conduit of syncretism.
Calvin retained his ardent love affair with all things Augustine – raising Augustine and thus himself up onto a pedestal – essentially canonizing his own doctrines and making them equal to scripture.
In Calvin’s written address to the King introducing his institutes – he in fact argues the reader of his institutes is to consider them from the Holy Spirit and prior to opening scripture – memorize the institutes so as to use them as a basis for understanding scripture.
1saved:
2) All established Christian churches teach false doctrine and thus only non-denominational churches should be considered for membership.
br.d
I consistently observe – your perception that your conclusions are based on sound reasoning. And I’ve consistently found that perception quite interesting!
1saved
4) Jacobus Arminius’ theology on soteriology is far better than Augustine, Calvin and Luther, but other Methodist doctrine has issues.
br.d
Firstly
There was a sister here a while ago in a dialog with us – who had enough discernment to recognize that Calvinism is not a doctrine of soteriology – but rather a doctrine of divine control.
She had enough discernment to know that if she dabbled in Calvinist materials – such as MacArthur’s materials – there was no way she could avoid becoming infected with Calvinist conceptions – because Calvinist conceptions of god and his relationship to creation permeate all Calvinist materials.
She had enough discernment to realize the risk of becoming infected – was simply more than any benefit she might gain from those materials.
Secondly:
If you studied the history of Jacobus Arminius – you would realize that he spent a great deal of energy and ink trying to convince people in his day – that he had not strayed from Calvin.
The primary difference between current day Arminianism and Calvinism – is simply the fact that the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
And Arminianism as it evolved – became settled in a doctrinal rejection of EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
Calvinists like MacArthur and R.C. Sproul for example – will make jabs at Arminianism.
When asked if Arminians are saved – Sproul will smile and say “Just barely” and the Calvinist audience will laugh.
But then when the specter of Calvin’s god as the author of evil appears – suddenly both MacArthur and Sproul will cover the face of Calvinism – with an Arminian mask.
So the truth is – because Calvinists like MacArthur and R.C. Sproul spend so much time and expertise speaking out of two sides of the mouth – their representations are Calvinism one minute and Arminianism the next.
Calvinists are “Shape-Shifters”
And that is one of the reasons why materials from prominent Calvinists are deceptive.
Br.d,
Augustine, Calvin and Luther are called ravenous wolves by Jesus Christ.
You don’t want to call Luther a ravenous wolf, because you don’t want to receive criticism from Lutherans.
You don’t want to take a stand on water baptism vs. baptism by fire because you don’t want criticism from many Christian denominations.
It’s rather hypocritical when you reject any writing of a Calvinist Baptist like Dr. John MacArthur, but monitor a blog by a Texas Baptist like Leighton Flowers.
https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/baptism-in-todays-church
I believe you described false teaching like poison in your water – rather ironic that the poisoned water is the false teaching on water baptism. One baptism. Only one baptism and that by fire – not water.
1saved
1saved
You don’t want to call Luther a ravenous wolf, because you don’t want to receive criticism from Lutherans.
br.d
Where do you come up with these conclusions!!!
1saved:
You don’t want to take a stand on water baptism vs. baptism by fire because you don’t want criticism from many Christian denominations.
br.d
And I supposed I’m also an alien from the planet glip-tall! 😀
1saved:
It’s rather hypocritical when you reject any writing of a Calvinist Baptist like Dr. John MacArthur, but monitor a blog by a Texas Baptist like Leighton Flowers.
https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/baptism-in-todays-church
br.d
I have quite a fondness for Dr. Flower’s ministry concerning Calvinism.
I think you’re emotions are getting the better of you.
1saved:
I believe you described false teaching like poison in your water – rather ironic that the poisoned water is the false teaching on water baptism. One baptism. Only one baptism and that by fire – not water.
br.d
My familiarity with an emphasis on baptism of fire being the only baptism – was many years ago – when I was young in the Lord. There was a fellow who had an obsession with that doctrine. The poor fellow was mentally unstable.
Br.d,
“My familiarity with an emphasis on baptism of fire being the only baptism – was many years ago – when I was young in the Lord. There was a fellow who had an obsession with that doctrine. The poor fellow was mentally unstable.”
Anecdotal testimony about some unnamed individual you new years ago. Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
False doctrine is unacceptable. We are to be of one mind – the mind of Christ (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2:16).
You knowingly associated for years with those teaching false doctrine on water baptism on this website.
When did you ever try to teach them the truth regarding one baptism by fire?
Did you lose your salty flavor? Did you put your light under a basket?
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:13-16 NKJV
You judge Calvinists and not Baptists?
7 “Judge[a] not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what [b]judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5 NKJV
Our Lord’s words on hypocrites – judge for yourself whether they apply to you.
1saved
1saved
Anecdotal testimony about some unnamed individual you new years ago. Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
br.d
That’s my familiarity with that doctrine.
1saved
False doctrine is unacceptable. We are to be of one mind – the mind of Christ (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2:16).
br.d
And you’ve made it clear – for you that means everyone should be of “Your” mind.
1saved:
You knowingly associated for years with those teaching false doctrine on water baptism on this website.
br.d
This is all about you going about recommending certain Calvinist teachings to people.
In your mind – someone functioning as a blog monitor for a web-site dedicated to the issue of Calvinism – is the equivalent of going around recommending Texas Baptist teachings to people.
I think you would benefit greatly by taking an elementary course in rational thinking.
1saved
When did you ever try to teach them the truth regarding one baptism by fire?
br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
1saved:
You judge Calvinists and not Baptists?
br.d
Show me examples of NON-Calvinists – who as part of the propagation of their theology – practice the use of deceptive language. That would fall within the category!
And as I mentioned to you earlier – I think your emotions are getting the better of you.
At this point – I think you’ve lowered yourself to simply having a temper tantrum.
Br.d,
br.d
“Show me examples of NON-Calvinists – who as part of the propagation of their theology – practice the use of deceptive language. That would fall within the category!”
Roman Catholic apologists come to mind. They are big on water baptism too.
“br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
You’re not supposed to teach doctrine at all, because you are not qualified to teach and you haven’t heeded the warning in James 3:1.
One baptism. Choices are water baptism and baptism by fire. A 50% chance for anyone to be right. Not too tough to discern the truth, but lo – nearly every Christian denomination has it wrong, because of the influence of Augustine.
Better to have been influenced by eastern orthodox doctrine. https://orthochristian.com/139979.html
This is all about you going about recommending certain Calvinist teachings to people.
In your mind – someone functioning as a blog monitor for a web-site dedicated to the issue of Calvinism – is the equivalent of going around recommending Texas Baptist teachings to people. I think you would benefit greatly by taking an elementary course in rational thinking.
This all about YOU saying everything any Calvinist says is poisonous. You are the one being irrational.
br.d
And you’ve made it clear – for you that means everyone should be of “Your” mind.
Paul wrote, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1 NKJV
Paul is the one saying we are to all have one mind – the mind of Christ. I’m only repeating his words and helping others understand their meaning. Ask God in faith without doubting to confirm this – or admit you lack enough faith to even ask.
1saved
1saved
Roman Catholic apologists come to mind. They are big on water baptism too.
br.d
The category was the use of deceptive language – not a particular doctrine.
Cmon 1saved – let you brain work a little bit here!
“br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
1saved
You’re not supposed to teach doctrine at all, because you are not qualified to teach and you haven’t heeded the warning in James 3:1.
br.d
This after you just got done telling me I was supposed to be teaching baptism according your doctrinal specifications!
You really do have a desperate need for some kind of course in rational thinking!
I’m actually finding this pretty entertaining! :-]
1saved:
This all about YOU saying everything any Calvinist says is poisonous. You are the one being irrational.
br.d
I’m taking note of the fact that you haven’t yet claimed I’m an alien from the planet glip-tal yet!
Its certainly taking you a long time to get around to that! ;-]
Sorry about that, Brd, he is taking his frustrations about water baptism out on you.
Aidan,
I hear water will put out the fire! At least, that’s what we learned in Fire Fighting School at Treasure Island, California when I was in the US Navy.
This Water/Fire Baptism argument has been going on for centuries. But here is the thing…all that matters is the fire baptism.
As has been noted, Jesus didn’t baptize anyone in water. But you make note that Jesus did baptize the apostles.
And how did he do that?
He simple BREATHED on them and said, receive ye the Holy Spirit (Ghost). The Greek work for “spirit” is pnuema, as in pnuematic tools!
Now, I’m just guessing, but I think when Jesus gushed WATER from him, that had a significant meaning. I don’t know what it means…and that’s saying something, because I know everything! LOL.
However, we have this:
You baptize in water just out of OBEDIENCE, not really knowing WHY.
Some of us want to know WHY.
It’s like Abraham, when he went to sacrifice his son. Many just settle it as Abraham being OBEDIENT to God, but dig no further as to WHY. But when we discover that Abraham had faith that God HAS NO CHOICE but to raise Isaac from the dead to fulfill his PREVIOUS PROMISE, then it is an act of faith, NOT OBEDIENCE.
So, other than OBEDIENCE, can you tell us WHY we must be baptized in water? I think that would clear things up a lot, since you are the only one in the whole bunch here that MANDATES it…out of OBEDIENCE, without questioning WHY.
Has anyone in YOUR hierarchy of Church Fathers ever figured out the why? Or do they even care, saying, “Just do as I say!”
We have seen from scripture that Baptizing in water sure doesn’t get you the holy spirit. IF that were the case, why did Cornelius get the holy spirit, and THEN got baptized in water?
So, then, what is the significance of the water? What magic did it do?
I’m not defending 1saved, but it’s a discussion that you haven’t been CLEAR about, regarding the WHY. Just because God said so, doesn’t exactly explain the why part. Or would it be, “Who are you to question God?”
I’m just curious. No bad blood between us.
Ed Chapman
Thanks Aidan,
I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t related to the poor fellow I met years ago who was mentally unstable! I’t never occurred to me – they could be the same person????
Brd, I think he got frustrated because you weren’t giving him the answers he was looking for. I think he would be happier if you were to just keep telling him he’s right😉.
br.d
I often see the Lord in these dialogs.
Men will sometimes posture and make bold claims about themselves.
But under examination – the posturing and bold claims reveal themselves as a facade.
I once read a book – where the author called this “gorilla dust”.
When one gorilla comes in contact with another – he will throw dust up into the air.
Gorilla dust is simply – manufacturing a facade of strength.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NKJV
1saved,
We’ve tested all things and have determined that…
You think you have what you don’t really have…discernment.
You recommend that we read books from a wolf.
When Jesus was being tempted of the devil…the devil quoted scripture, and was very good at his premises. But Jesus knew how to counter his false usage of the scripture.
You made a claim that John was alive when Jesus came back, concluding that Jesus came back already, 2000 years ago, and that is a preterist belief. Then you say that you are not a preterist. You can’t have it both ways.
Regarding baptism, I agree with you…but not so far as John being alive when Jesus came back. Your discernment is a bit off there.
Ed Chapman
Ed
You think you have what you don’t really have…discernment
br.d
In the language of scripture its called a “vain imagination”
In the language of the world its called “compensation”
A fellow will “compensate” his socially perceived shortcomings – by getting himself a fancy sports car as a strategy to attract a woman.
In the religious world – a fellow will “compensate” his socially perceived shortcomings – by posturing as having some kind of spiritual endowment.
Eventually – everyone sees it for what it is! :-]
br.d,
LOL!!!! In either case, the big head is the problem!
Ed,
I won’t reply to your foolishness.
However, do you have a relative named Arnold Chapman?
1 saved
It’s funny that you don’t see yourself as the fool, who thinks Jesus came back already, but denies being a preterist, when that is exactly what a preterist is. You need to work on your comedy act a little more.
But no, I don’t know of any Arnold Chapman
Ed,
…the fool, who thinks Jesus came back already…
Biblical account for Christ’s 2nd coming.
John’s Vision of Christ
9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels[e] of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Revelation 1:9-20 NIV
Biblical account for Christ’s 3rd coming
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Matthew 24:30-31 NIV
Biblical account for Christ’s 4th coming
The Heavenly Warrior Defeats the Beast
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
king of kings and lord of lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. Revelation 19:17-21 NIV
1saved
1saved,
Second coming: Acts 1:11=Zechariah 14:1-4
Acts 1:11
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Zechariah 14:1-5
1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Looks to me that WE COME BACK WITH HIM, and that, is his 2nd coming, just like Acts 1 states. Until then, I do not consider “in the clouds” as a 2nd coming, because it does not match Acts 11:1
I know Revelation pretty well. In the clouds is in reference to:
Revelation 7:9-14
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
I already gave you Matthew, Mark, Luke references to both the 6th seal and the rapture. Side by side events. I also gave you Peter, who when he spoke of the 6th seal, mentions the first part of Revelation 7, speaking in tongues, etc., all because they got the holy spirit…the 144000 Jews.
And Jesus never mentions the 7th seal at all. And that is proof he hasn’t been back, nor will he come back until Zechariah 14, which is in the latter part of Revelation.
Lastly, Revelation 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day…
John was NOT HERE…he was in the spirit. His body was here, but he was in the SPIRIT.
So that was not a Jesus return at all.
Example:
Ezekiel 37:1
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
Bottom line, you have a lot of studying to do before you speak.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
I think that you are the first in Christian history to proclaim that Jesus comes back 4 times. That’s a new one.
Discernment, huh? You just came up with NEW doctrine. You could have a #1 Best Seller on Amazon, and give a free copy to John Mac.
Ed
Ed,
“I think that you are the first in Christian history to proclaim that Jesus comes back 4 times.”
Technically, Ed, Christ comes back only three times.
I can count. What’s your excuse for saying Christ only comes twice? Could it be you are following “traditional” church doctrine rather than what Scripture says – much like water baptism and the imminent return of Christ?
Or, perhaps you are hung up on the definition of “coming” – an act or instance of arriving according to Merriam – Webster
Anyone not agreeing with “traditional” church doctrine is declared to be a heretic (a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma). Many “heretics” have been tortured, persecuted or intimidated until they recant their testimony.
Instead, you choose to ridicule me. That tactic won’t work either.
I don’t respond well to bullies – as I told Br.d earlier.
1saved
1saved,
Listen to Peter about what God said to Christ when He ascended into heaven:
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
Simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Paul gets a little more precise and tells us that “death” will be the last enemy to be destroyed (made a footstool for His feet) when the general resurrection occurs. Notice the order of events in these next few verses:
1 Cor 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (i.e. at the resurrection).
1 Cor 15:23 “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, (notice the order of events, Christ is the firstfruits, he has already been raised, but then those who are His shall be raised at His coming). The Greek word here for “coming” is [parousia] – which we know is speaking of His literal return.
1 Cor 15:24 “Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”( Again, notice the order of events:– Christ comes, all the dead are raised, — “then comes the end” Greek (eita to telos). Eita marks the next event after the second coming. The order is not: (1) Second coming, (2) Resurrection of the righteous, (3) Establishment of the kingdom, (4) Thousand year reign, (5) Resurrection of the wicked, (6) End. But rather, the parousia is followed by the end.
The absence of any reference to the many different events which form the essential parts of dispensationalist doctrine is important. They are not mentioned because they are not a part of the events to transpire at the end of this age. When Jesus comes again, all things will come to an end. The greek word “telos” means “last part, close, conclusion.” The entire sequence of events planned by God at the creation of this world will come to a conclusion at the second coming. For that reason Peter said that the earth and the works therein will be destroyed at the second coming (2 Pet. 3:9).
The precise definition of how things will end and when the “end” occurs is given clearly by the two “when” clauses which immediately follow: “…WHEN He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, WHEN He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”
1 Cor 15:25-26 “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
If the apostles kept it simple, we need to keep it simple too!
Aidan,
Very good!
Ed
Thanks Ed.
Aidan,
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
Meaning: David has not ascended to heaven. He must wait until the Rapture. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, a position of authority, until He vanquishes the armies of the antichrist and remains on earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.
“Simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Jesus must physically remain seated at the Father’s right hand until then?
If you believe that, how could He come to Rapture His Church and attend His wedding to His bride the Church?
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:20 ESV
“…the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” refers to those elected first (before the creation of the world) from all those who have died and will be raised in glory.
51 Behold, I tell you a [m]mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 NKJV
Trumpets will sound at the resurrection of the dead.
The first trumpet will signal raising the firstfuits. The next will signal raising those elected later and the last will signal changing those who are alive at the Rapture. All will be given an incorruptible, immortal body.
1saved
1saved,
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
You wrote: “Meaning: David has not ascended to heaven. He must wait until the Rapture. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, a position of authority, until He vanquishes the armies of the antichrist and remains on earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.”
Response: That’s right, Jesus is the one who has ascended into heaven and remains there seated, ruling from heaven at God’s right hand until all His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
I asked a simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?
You wrote: “I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Jesus must physically remain seated at the Father’s right hand until then?”
Response: I’m not suggesting anything except that you adhere to what the verse says without adding to it. How long will Jesus remain in heaven seated/ruling at the right hand of the Father? What does the verse say?
You wrote: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:20 ESV …the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” refers to those elected first (before the creation of the world) from all those who have died and will be raised in glory.”
Response: That’s not what the verse says. If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead. There were others who rose from the dead before Christ (Lazarus, the widow of Nains son, Jairus’ daughter, etc.) but all of these arose to die again. Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again. The description of Jesus as the aparche (firstfruits) of those who have fallen asleep is significant. The word “aparche” was used to describe the offerings of the first ripened fruits of the crop to the Lord. Whenever the firstfruits were offered, they guaranteed that the rest of the crop would follow.
The significance of the designation of Christ as the aparche is that: just as the firstfruits are the guarantee of a later harvesting, the resurrection of Jesus is the guarantee that His people shall be bodily raised from the dead. He is the Christian’s surety for a general resurrection at the end of this age.
In 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 I see no mention of three trumpets being sounded. Nor is there any mention of different groups within the church being raised there! As I said before, keep it simple.
Aidan,
Christ is singular and firstfruits is plural. The ESV translation I provided is better than the one you provided for understanding this verse.
Here, Jesus is not “firstfruits” the firstfruits referenced are those first chosen before He created the foundations of the world.
1saved
1saved,
You are wrong about the English word “firstfruits” here.
This is what Vine says:
“Though the English word is plural in each of its occurrences save Rom 11:16, the Greek word is always singular.”
Aidan
Aidan,
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firstfruit
firstfruit is singular, firstfruits plural according to this source.
Perhaps Hebrews 12:22-24 clarifies.
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the [j]general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Firstborn are firstfruits according to https://www.bibleref.com/Hebrews/12/Hebrews-12-23.html
“The reference to “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” is somewhat obscure. The term translated “assembly” here is ekklēsia, which is also frequently translated as “church.” Given that these are persons residing in heaven, the indication that they are “firstborn” seems to follow the pattern of verses such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and James 1:18, where saved Christians are referred to as the “firstfruits” of God.”
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firstfruit
firstfruit is singular, firstfruits plural according to this source.
Response: Wiktionary or wikipedia are not the kind of sources you should rely on to find out information about the meaning of N.T. Greek words! Firstfruits is singular in the Greek.
Aidan,
As I’ve said previously, Jesus is a type of firstfruits with regard to resurrection from the dead to glory
Israel is a type of firstfruits with regard to nations working for God (Ref: Parable Of The Workers Matthew 20:1-16).
The prophets and writers of scripture are a type of firstfruits with regard to being chosen for salvation.
Firstfruits are: Those saved by grace through faith are:
Prophets, writers of scripture and a few others Those having heard the Word and believed
Chosen/elected Called
Called Chosen/elected
Justified Justified
To be glorified at the resurrection To be glorified at the resurrection
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:30
1saved
1saved.
You wrote: “The prophets and writers of scripture are a type of firstfruits with regard to being chosen for salvation.”
“Firstfruits are: Those saved by grace through faith are:
Prophets, writers of scripture and a few others Those having heard the Word and believed
Chosen/elected Called
Called Chosen/elected
Justified Justified
To be glorified at the resurrection To be glorified at the resurrection”
Response: Who can argue with someone who creates their own definitions and categories with no book, chapter, and verse to base it on???
Aidan
Aidan,
Response: Who can argue with someone who creates their own definitions and categories with no book, chapter, and verse to base it on???
I gave you Romans 8:30 to base it on. This verse applies to firstfruits and the basis for Calvinism
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. NKJV
Those that are elected/saved by grace through faith in Christ have a different order.
They are called, then elected, then justified and will be glorified, which is Arminianism.
Perhaps you should go to gotquestions.org and do research on Calvinism vs. Arminianism and the differences between them. I’m just saying both are true but apply to two different groups of believers.
Here’s a link to get you started: https://www.gotquestions.org/Reformed-Arminianism.html
1saved
br.d
Predestination – as defined in Calvinism – is not the “basis” for Calvinism.
All Reformed Scholarship acknowledges that Calvinism relies upon a presupposition – and from that presupposition derives its definition of what “Predestination” means.
The underlying foundational core (i.e. the presupposition) of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM is “basis” for Calvinism’s interpretation of “Predestination”
Reformed scholar Dr. James N. Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC:
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism.”
Reformed scholar Guillaume Bignon
-quote
Theological Determinism will be referred to as “the Calvinist view”, or simply “Calvinism”.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, 16, 3)
Calvinism starts with EDD and uses EDD as the “basis” of its reading of scripture.
So the difference between the Calvinist reading of scripture and the NON-Calvinist reading of scripture – is the fact that the NON-Calvinist does not assume EDD.
Aidan,
You wrote, “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead. There were others who rose from the dead before Christ (Lazarus, the widow of Nains son, Jairus’ daughter, etc.) but all of these arose to die again. Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
An illogical stretch of what it says, which doesn’t explain singular Christ and plural firstfruits. Also, both saved and unsaved are ultimately risen from the dead. I assume you mean firstfruit are those who are risen from the dead and going to heaven.
Before Jesus raised Lazarus, the widow of Zarephath’s son was brought back to life by Elijah. 1 Kings 17:17-24
He lived, died, was brought back to like and died again. Was the widow’s son firstfruit by your understanding? Keep in mind there is nothing in scripture saying the widow’s son was saved from his sins.
Enoch went to heaven without dying and so did Elijah. The beggar Lazarus is shown with Abraham in heaven (Luke 16:19-31). Are they all not firstfruits by your understanding of this passage? In other words, did God know them and choose them with foreknowledge before He created the foundation of the world or not?
Furthermore, did God only hope Job would remain faithful to Him or did He know Job would remain faithful to Him?
1saved
1saved
Paul wrote: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:20).
I wrote: “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead…Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
You wrote: “An illogical stretch of what it says, which doesn’t explain singular Christ and plural firstfruits.”
Response: I’d be happy for you to explain how it is an illogical step! Also, I’ve already explained that “firstfruits” (aparchē) is singular in the Greek for a singular Christ.
You wrote: “Also, both saved and unsaved are ultimately risen from the dead.”
Response: Yes! As I said, Christ’s resurrection is the “surety for a general resurrection at the end of this age.” But of course Paul is only concerned here with primarily encouraging the Christians regarding the resurrection.
You wrote: “Was the widow’s son firstfruit by your understanding?… Enoch went to heaven without dying and so did Elijah. The beggar Lazarus is shown with Abraham in heaven (Luke 16:19-31). Are they all not firstfruits by your understanding of this passage?”
Response: My understanding of this verse is that CHRIST is the firstfruits (singular in greek) of those who have fallen asleep. That’s it!
Aidan,
You wrote: “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead…Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.
v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
“He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.”
Response: 1 Cor 15:17-18 “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” To describe death as a “sleep” is not uniquely Christian, but here Paul is talking about those who have died as faithful Christians. Therefore, “He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep),” is – in context – referring to those who have died as faithful Christians. So, Yes, it DOES mean He is the firstfruits of those who died and will be raised, for Paul says: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming” (1 Cor. 15: 22-23).
You wrote: “v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].”
Response: You like the NIV on this verse, but you are reading it wrong. In verse 20 the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV).
Aidan
Aidan,
I thought we were looking at verse 20 and Christ being a type of firstfruits for those who have died.
I do not disagree with your understanding – Christ is the firstfruit for those who have died and been raised from the dead in glory. I pointed out others were raised from the dead before Lazarus and others have gone to heaven without dying like Enoch and Elijah. I said it’s a stretch to determine all you said from v20 only, that’s all I meant by what I wrote.
You wrote: “v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].”
Response: You like the NIV on this verse, but you are reading it wrong. In verse 20 the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV).
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his [a]coming. ASV
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ESV
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. KJV
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. NKJV
How are any really different from the NIV? Does the comma make an error in translation? No, it helps to clarify.
Note that the KJV says every “man” in his own order. Jesus is both God and man.
What you seem to miss is that there is an order to the resurrection.
1) Christ – a type of firstfruits.
2) Firstfruits – those chosen before the creation of the world – raised at the first trumpet.
3) Those saved by grace through faith in Christ who have died – raised at the next trumpet.
4) Those saved by grace through faith in Christ who are alive – changed at the last trumpet.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “I thought we were looking at verse 20 and Christ being a type of firstfruits for those who have died.”
Response: We are! But you had said: “… of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.” So I brought in verses 17 and 18 to show that verse 20 “He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep),” IS – in context – referring to those who have died as faithful Christians. So, Yes, it DOES mean He is the firstfruits of those who died and will be raised.” Yes, others died and were raised before Christ, but they died again. Christ was the first to be raised never to die again. And, if Enoch and Elijah never died, then this passage doesn’t apply to them.
You don’t seem to get what I’m saying? Verse 20 of the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV). Therefore that is how you should be reading verse 23, namely, that Christ is the firstfruits. All the other translations you quoted back up what I’m saying. If you can’t see it, then I’m sorry you don’t know how to read properly!
Note, Christ is called the firstfruits all the way down:
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming. ASV
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ESV
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. KJV
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. NKJV
Aidan
Aidan,
Therefore that is how you should be reading verse 23, namely, that Christ is the firstfruits. All the other translations you quoted back up what I’m saying. If you can’t see it, then I’m sorry you don’t know how to read properly!
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
Wouldn’t it say, “…after Him those who are Christ’s at His coming” if firstfruits refers to Christ here?
Is firstfruits an adjective modifying Christ or a noun here? If a noun then the NIV translation is correct.
1saved
1saved,
Jesus is the ONLY ONE who has risen from the dead, the only one in a new body that does not die anymore, therefore, he is the ONLY FIRSTFRUITSSSSSSS. SINGULAR.
All those others that you mentioned, DIED AGAIN.
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Ed
Aidan,
You wrote, “In 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 I see no mention of three trumpets being sounded. Nor is there any mention of different groups within the church being raised there! As I said before, keep it simple.
There is a last trumpet mentioned. “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”
There cannot be a last trumpet without a first trumpet. A common misunderstanding is that the last trumpet is the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11L15-19.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “There is a last trumpet mentioned. “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”
Response: So why mention three trumpets when only the last trumpet is mentioned? It is only at the last trumpet that the dead will be raised: “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Cor 15:52).
You wrote: “There cannot be a last trumpet without a first trumpet.”
Response: So what! No other trumpets are mentioned except the last when the dead will be raised. As Paul indicated earlier, Christ will remain ruling at the right hand of God until that day. Therefore, there will be no other comings other than this one at the end of the age — Christ’s second coming!
Aidan,
So what! No other trumpets are mentioned except the last when the dead will be raised. As Paul indicated earlier, Christ will remain ruling at the right hand of God until that day. Therefore, there will be no other comings other than this one at the end of the age — Christ’s second coming!
I already explained the trumpets and what it means to be seated at the right hand of God, which is a position of authority – not a physical location.
Your understanding can’t be right, because Christ comes to conquer the armies of the antichrist and rules for 1000 years with a rod of iron.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “I already explained the trumpets and what it means to be seated at the right hand of God, which is a position of authority – not a physical location.
Your understanding can’t be right, because Christ comes to conquer the armies of the antichrist and rules for 1000 years with a rod of iron.”
Response: Don’t talk about trumpets, just stick to the text. Yes, I understand it’s a position of authority ruling as king, the location heaven, at the right hand of the Father. And it is your understanding that’s not right! At the parousia (His coming) which is immediately followed by the telos (the end) there is no room for a thousand year reign between these two events. At His coming “then comes the end,” when Jesus gives dominion of His kingdom back to God. He will not “set up” the kingdom; He will “deliver up” the kingdom!
The kingdom over which Jesus is presently reigning will become an eternal heavenly kingdom at the second coming (cf, 2 Pet. 1:11; Heb. 12:28). There is no place for a thousand-year reign of an earthly kingdom in the scheme of God.
Aidan
Aidan,
Sorry to say you are misguided, because you do not allow scripture in one area to interpret scripture in another area.
Jesus taught by saying, “Have you not read…” Therefore, what you teach on X, Y, or Z must be wrong. He then gave them the correct understanding of the doctrine.
FYI
At His coming “then comes the end,” – The end of all iniquity.
1saved
1saved’
You wrote: “Sorry to say you are misguided, because you do not allow scripture in one area to interpret scripture in another area.
Jesus taught by saying, “Have you not read…” Therefore, what you teach on X, Y, or Z must be wrong. He then gave them the correct understanding of the doctrine.”
Response: That’s precisely what I’m doing, allowing the clearer passages of scripture clarify things whenever the scriptures are being misused. And when the devil tried to misuse scripture Jesus quoted a very simple passage to correct him!
You wrote: “FYI At His coming “then comes the end,” – The end of all iniquity.”
Response: The end is the end of all things as we know it. And, I’m sure as Paul says, when finally:
“This corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory”
“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
“The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:54-56 NKJV).
Aidan
1saved
You wrote: “You are to be perfect – even as perfect as God in heaven. Matthew 5:48”
Response: That’s funny, Jesus had just been talking about loving your enemies!
Aidan
Aidan,
Response: That’s funny, Jesus had just been talking about loving your enemies!
I suggest you go to biblegateway.com and search your favorite translation with the word “perfect” to determine for yourself what “perfect” means in scripture.
Look at all the context where the word “perfect” is used and let scripture interpret scripture on the meaning.
1saved
Aidan,
2 Timothy 3:5 may be helpful to you.
…having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! NKJV
I think you know which people you should avoid.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “2 Timothy 3:5 may be helpful to you.
…having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! NKJV
I think you know which people you should avoid.”
Response: They know where I stand on baptism, and I know where they stand, including you. So, am I to avoid you as well on that basis or engage you with the truth? You judge! But I hope you are not accusing them of being guilty of what is in the rest of those verses 2Timothy 3:1-9?? Especially since you don’t know them!
Aidan,
They know where I stand on baptism, and I know where they stand, including you.
You are to be perfect – even as perfect as God in heaven. Matthew 5:48
That means your goal is to perfectly understand the meaning of every doctrine in Scripture, which includes water baptism, marriage and divorce, soteriology, eschatology, sanctification, etc.
Ever take a math test? What does it mean to have a perfect score? Same concept here.
1saved
You and most Pastors and interpretations of divorce is very mislead with the whole of scripture.
Here are the relevant verses/passages
Deuteronomy 24:1-5. Jeremiah 3:8. Malachi 12:16 Matthew 5:32 and 19:3-9. 1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9, 11-15, 27-28
There are correlative verses to the Matthew ones, but the account from Matthew has the most detail.
The question is HOW does all of it fit together without contradiction or damaging God’s character by making Him a hypocrite? Jeremiah 3:8 shows that God Himself divorced Israel and we know He remarried the Church and took them as His bride.
I can go REALLY deep into all of this, but the KEY that most everyone misses is this. A conflation of the words “putting away” and divorce.
Putting away in Hebrew is shalach and in Greek it is apuolo. Divorce in Hebrew is keriythuth and in Greek is apostation.
Separating and divorce are different concepts. It is the separating while remaining married that God hates, as Malachi 12:16 says The Lord Hateth “putting away” which is shalach. It doesn’t use the word for divorce.
To make this clear the distinction is made in Jerimiah 3:8. Both Shalach and keriythuth is used in this verse with the word AND between them which denotes that they are 2 different words and concepts.
What the Jews were doing is “putting away” their wives WITHOUT divorcing them, and going and marrying another while still married to the wife who was put away. This was cruel and an act of hardness because the first wife could not go back to her husband as he didn’t want her, but also could not marry another because it would be adultery. She was left with nearly no way to care for herself.
Further, Deuteronomy 24:5 says what a man is to do when he remarries. If this was adultery, under Levitical law he would have been stoned to death. Same with the women who remarried in 2-3. But they were not stoned to death.
If it WAS adultery to divorce and remarry, then God Himself is an adulterer for divorcing Israel and remarrying the Church. This, of course, is absurd as God cannot sin.
This isn’t an exhaustive explanation, I have much more in answering objections that arise to this, but cross reference the Hebrew and Greek words I provided with the verses and you will see how that aspect all lines up.
Atheist2Apologist,
I’m not in agreement with you. Here’s why.
Moses’ wife Zipporah would not stay with him in the wilderness and he sent her back to live with her father, Jethro. Exodus 18:2
Moses married an Ethiopian woman. Numbers 12
Moses was separated from his first wife and married another, which Aaron and his wife disapproved, yet God sided with Moses..
Yours in Christ,
1saved
You don’t actually disagree with me, you just missed the conditional exceptions. Except in the case of sexual immorality, or if an unbelieving spouse wishes to depart. The Midianites were idol worshippers and Zipporah was a midianite. While she may have also believed in Israel’s God, the Midianites were polytheistic. Finally, just because the Bible doesn’t specifically mention if Moses divorced Zipporah doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexual, but He was definitely against it.
Even if Moses did NOT divorce Zipporah there are many cases of bigamy in the OT. This is also PRIOR TO God giving Moses the instruction outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1. God forgives and is long-suffering regarding sin. While it may not have pleased God that Moses sinned (he also murdered a man and hid his body) that doesn’t mean God automatically withdraws His favor.
Your example does not disprove the translations and reasoning I provided.
God’s truth manifests itself in the world. I can’t tell you how many testimonies there are of believing Christians who had a failed marriage and remarried, only to be blessed with children, abundance, joy, and a Christ-centered, happy, loving relationship. Even serving in ministry together.
I also noticed you completely failed to address any of the points I made. Why is a distinction between putting away and divorce present in scripture? Why did God divorce and remarry Himself? You’ll have to do better than using an example of someone sinning, God showing mercy, and concluding that He must be ok with it. Lot had incest with his daughters, was God ok with that? Why call Lot righteous? God told Abraham to impregnate Hagar while married to Sarah. Are we to use that and say “see, God is ok with me impregnating a woman other than my wife!”
Atheist2Apologist,
Still not smelling what you’re cooking, because when married we are no longer two, but one flesh.
Amen
Moses had multiple wives and so did King David. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
God was more than just okay with all these men.
God is immutable and does not change.
Therefore, polygamy is not a sin.
1saved
Yeah, try that one with your spouse! It’s ok, honey, the Bible says I can have as many marriages as I want! God wrote the moral law on our hearts and we all know that one is wrong!
But even if your point was correct, it does not do anything to refute any of the claims I made. Your stance is it is NEVER permissible to divorce, and not permissible to remarry (but apparently TOTALLY FINE to take as many wives as you want). Polygamy is a straw-man in this discussion.
You are STILL dodging the questions I asked. Why does the Bible distinguish putting away and divorce in the same verses, and why did God divorce and remarry if that is adultery? Here is the verse to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR:
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And just to add to remarriage not being a sin
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Yeah, try that one with your spouse! It’s ok, honey, the Bible says I can have as many marriages as I want! God wrote the moral law on our hearts and we all know that one is wrong! ”
God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8) – who are you to question Him (Romans 9:20)?
Latter Day Saints (Mormons) would disagree with your last statement.
1saved
I’m not questioning God, I’m questioning YOUR INTERPRETATION of what God’s ways are. Are you not a man as well? Even the God’s ways are higher than our ways. Yes, look at secular man’s world, they are saying men can get pregnant and anyone can be whatever gender they want! That isn’t God’s way, it is man’s way!
What you are doing is claiming YOUR WAY (a man) is God’s way, this equating YOURSELF, with God.
Funny enough, Calvinists use THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to defend THEIR Calvinistic election.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “What you are doing is claiming YOUR WAY (a man) is God’s way, this equating YOURSELF, with God.
Funny enough, Calvinists use THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to defend THEIR Calvinistic election.”
You called God a hypocrite and said He commanded Abraham to impregnate Hagar.
Although you later retracted it – you showed your true colors. You will say anything without thinking or checking the facts first.
And, calling me like a Calvinist, because I believe we are not to question God won’t work with me, but may get you some favor from other Calvinist haters on this site.
I have a question for you. Which is worse an atheist or a Calvinist?
1saved
If there was a face palm I would do it here. I have repeatedly stated God IS NOT a hypocrite. The definition of being a hypocrisy is condemning something you do yourself.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense
YOU are the one calling God a hypocrite (indirectly) by saying divorce and remarriage is adultery. I am saying IT IS NOT ADULTERY. One belief makes God a hypocrite (yours) and the other does not (mine). Notice I am critiquing THE BELIEF here and NOT the PERSON. (Ad-hominem)
Yes, my memory of the scripture regarding Hagar was in error. I admitted that. Go ahead and crucify me for not perfectly recalling every verse of scripture.
1saved
I have a question for you. Which is worse an atheist or a Calvinist?
br.d
Depends on what aspect or identifier we put on the term “worse”
I know of a few Atheists (Determinists) who do no use deceptive language like Calvinists (who are Theological Determinists) do.
So if we are to use deceptive language as our identifier of “worse” then my money would be on Calvinist :-]
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “God told Abraham to impregnate Hagar while married to Sarah. Are we to use that and say “see, God is ok with me impregnating a woman other than my wife!””
God did not tell Abraham to impregnate Hagar, Abraham’s wife Sarah suggested Abraham impregnate her maid servant Hagar.
You just lost your credibility with me, since you are suggesting God is some sort of pervert!.
1saved
Still dodging I see, just to make it clear to everyone here, and now you have made both a straw-man and an ad-hominem.
Yes, God did not tell Abram to do so, my mistake. You are clearly trying to avoid directly addressing my claims, but as far as polygamy, tragedy was the result of all of the examples you gave. Solomon’s many wives turned away his heart from the Lord and he went on to worshipping false idols (1 Kings 11). Deuteronomy 17:17 commanded not to multiply wives.
But Polygamy was NOT the topic here, and you keep slipping away from the topic of divorce and remarriage. Let’s stay on topic here.
Atheist2 Apologist,
I’m not dodging.
Of course separation and divorce are two different things.
However, I don’t agree with your assumption that God hates separation and remarrying, but does not hate divorce and remarrying based upon God divorcing Israel and marrying His Church.
Furthermore, I’m offended by your calling God a hypocrite, because He divorced Israel and will marry the Church.
I accept God’s prerogative to do as He pleases – again, who are you to question Him?
1saved
I’m not the one making God a hypocrite. I am interpreting scripture knowing that God IS NOT a hypocrite. Telling someone it is wrong to do something you yourself did makes you a hypocrite. My argument is since I know God is NOT a hypocrite then He will not BE HYPOCRITICAL! Therefore YOUR interpretation of what God is saying makes Him a hypocrite, but MY interpretation does not. If divorcing and remarrying is NOT adultery, then God doing it does NOT make Him an adulterer. God is consistent in His character and nature.
Your claim that if God does it it isn’t a sin does not hold water. Jesus never sinned once, which includes actually following all of God’s commandments. The fact you cannot see this flaw in your logic is rather baffling.
His word says but and if you marry after being loosed (divorced) from a wife you have not sinned. Who are YOU to question God?
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “His word says but and if you marry after being loosed (divorced) from a wife you have not sinned. Who are YOU to question God?”
If your wife divorces you, she has sinned because wives are bound by the law to their husband as long as he lives.
The innocent man can remarry (except not to a divorced woman) and he will have two wives in God’s eyes, since the divorce is illegal by God’s Word. She can’t remarry and no one can marry her, because they would be committing adultery.
Get your facts straight BEFORE you jump to wrong conclusions.
How many wrong conclusions should you be allowed?
1saved
1saved,
What Jesus said supersedes everything else! The rule in marriage is this; what God has joined together let not man separate. He only gave one exception for divorce, namely, fornication — which means your spouse has been sexually unfaithful. In that case, as the innocent party, you have the right to divorce her and remarry, according to what Jesus said. On the other hand, He gave no such right for the guilty party to remarry. But regarding polygamy you are way off. Polygamy is a sin! Note again what Jesus did concerning marriage, He brought it back to God’s intention for marriage in the beginning at creation — one man, one woman. As far as I can see that’s it.
“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate”(Mt. 19:4-6).
“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 5:31-32).
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9).
Aidan
Aidan, and 1saved,
Actually, you are falling in the same trap as 1saved in your explanation.
Jesus was under the law talking to lawyers (Pharisees) about the law.
And the law distinguishes “Put Away” from “Divorce”. And that is what both I and Atheist2Apologist are trying to get across.
1saved had said:
“He only gave one exception for divorce, namely, fornication — which means your spouse has been sexually unfaithful. ”
But that’s not what the Bible actually states.
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Note: The word “divorced” in the above should be “put away”. Note the Greek word used twice in this verse. You will see this in the following verse, both should be “put away”. The word “divorced” should not even be there at all.
and [The following is the same as Matthew 5:32, only stated correctly, whereas Matthew 5:32 is incorrectly stated].
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Notice “Put away” and “Put away”, rather than “put away” and “divorced”. Both of these verses, by the Greek, states the same exact thing. But in Matthew, the wrong English word is used.
In these references, a man married an already still married woman. She never got a divorce yet. She was only KICKED OUT of the house (Uh, that is, PUT AWAY, aka Send Away) by her husband…without the divorce.
Your references uses the word “divorced”, whether it be “put away” or “divorce”. Two different Greek Words.
There is a difference.
So, yes, Jesus wants people to stay together, HOWEVER, in the law, he allowed divorce. God is the one who made it law to begin with. So when you see the words WHY DID MOSES ALLOW IT…it’s not Moses, the person, but the law of Moses. The law of Moses is known as the law of God. So God is the one who made the law, regarding divorce…not Moses, the person.
But what was the reason that Jesus gave regarding why it was allowed?
Hardness of hearts.
When did that change?
Divorce, it’s allowed. Humans are designed to have “hardness of hearts”.
1 Cor 7 states, DON’T LET HER LEAVE, but if she leaves…
Whah what? IF she leaves? Yes, if she leaves. But what about “DON’T LET HER LEAVE? And that’s where the ABUSE begins in a loveless marriage, because the husband refuses to let her go. All because they think that Jesus sanctions loveless abusive marriages.
In other words, it’s on you to try to reconcile the differences, but sometimes it’s not that easy. She’s gonna leave anyway. You can’t force someone to love you…can you?
And do you think that God wants a loveless marriage?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
If your wife leaves you, you can remarry, since you are allowed to have multiple wives. You should first attempt to reconcile, however you are not to attempt to force her return.
Your wife cannot divorce you, because she is bound by the law to you for as long as you live. If abused, she is to have the law deal with you by incarceration if necessary.
If she files for divorce and a court divides the assets, the divorce is illegal in God’s sight, because marriage and divorce are things of God – give unto God the things of God. The judge does not have jurisdiction in divorce matters.
If you divorce your wife without grounds of sexual immorality and give her a certificate of divorce you are guilty of making her an adulterer when she has relations with another. You cannot remarry her after she is with another because she has been defiled.
If you divorce your wife, because she was sexually immoral and give her a certificate of divorce, you still cannot remarry.
No man can marry any divorced woman, if he did he would be committing adultery.
Marriage is “until death do us part” – Amen.
1saved
You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?
br.d
You asked a good question – based on sound reasoning.
It made me start to think of a young couple considering marriage.
One of them – put a very high emphasis on sound reasoning.
The other had an intense need to be in control.
Being in control superseded everything – including being rational.
After a time – one of them came to the sad conclusion that the two of them were unevenly yoked – and they eventually went their separate ways.
Sometimes that happens!
Atheist2Apologist,
“You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?”
I never suggested Ed was Muslim, so your last sentence is ridiculous.
I provided links to Jewish teaching on polygamy, which you failed to mention here. Are you trying to deceive by omission?
1saved
You said he sounded like a Muslim and not a follower of Christ. He recently responded saying, No, I am not a Muslim. Why would he do that if you did not in some way suggest it.
As far as Jewish teachings, big grain of salt. First of all, Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. The 4 gospels show Jesus CONSISTENTLY telling the Jews that they were misunderstanding the scriptures. I’m going to side with Jesus on this one and not give much credit to Jewish interpretations of scripture.
1saved,
You said TODAY:
1saved
August 26, 2022 at 12:19 pm
Atheist2Apologist,
“You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?”
I never suggested Ed was Muslim, so your last sentence is ridiculous.
But yesterday you said:
1saved
August 25, 2022 at 9:27 pm
Ed,
If she broke the contract by committing adultery, the law states to STONE HER TO DEATH, and I’m not exactly sure you know this or not, but I can’t divorce a dead woman.
You sound like a Muslim following sharia law not a Christian following Christ..
—————————————————————————————————–
That’s OK, dementia patients meet new people everyday.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You sound like something does not suggest you are something.
For example, if I say you sound like my cousin Vinny, does that suggest I think you are my cousin Vinny?
1saved
1saved,
Vinny is my stage name. I’m Jerry Gallo!
At least I’m not Bernie. He’s kinda dead right now.
Good movie.
Ed
Well, according to Calvinists, we are all just as dead as Bernie until we get regenerated!
LOL. I got a chuckle out of that! Since they took a lot of Catholic baggage with them, I’m surprised that they didn’t keep PAY THE PRIEST for some grace. Who needs faith when money will get ya anything you heart desires!
Ed
A2A
Well, according to Calvinists, we are all just as dead as Bernie until we get regenerated!
br.d
They use that as an excuse to try to make the square-peg of Determinism fit into the round-hole of scripture.
The underlying truth in Calvinism is – Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
Calvin’s god decrees “Anti-God” impulses to come to pass within the brains of “THE MANY”
For “THE FEW” he changes the impulses he decrees come to pass within their brains – in order to make them “Pro-God” instead of “Anti-God”.
The infallible decree determines the state of man’s brain – at every nano-second in time.
The Calvinist has to find a way to make that APPEAR Biblical.
So he invented “Total Depravity” as a means of accomplishing that.
I actually understand the reasoning. When I was an atheist it was what I thought about God (which was why I rejected THAT God) and I thought that about God from a logical understanding. It went like this:
God is all knowing. He knows everything that ever has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. He also created everything. So when He created each human, He knew before creating them that they would go to hell. Therefore, He caused them to go to Hell.
I thought this was FOOL PROOF logic. But, being unskilled in deeper knowledge of logic, I did not realize I was conflating knowledge and causation. One can know something without being the cause. If you drop an egg on the cement, I KNOW it will break. That doesn’t mean I was the CAUSE of it breaking.
God created the best possible creation. The best possible creation included free creatures. Only free creatures could truly Love. A world without real love, is not the best world. In order for real love to exist, creatures have to be free to do good or bad. A consequence of that is some creatures will do bad. Justice/Judgement is the counter balance to that, but so is mercy, which is an act of Love.
That’s not what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states. That’s the law. IF she leaves, I have to give her a divorce decree so that she is free to marry another. And I would do that, because it’s NOT ABOUT ME, but her. Her freedom.
But me, personally, I am divorced. But if I were married, I would only have one wife…who could handle more than one?
OK, well, maybe two. One to fan the huge feather at my face for cool air, and the other to feed me grapes.
And as Robin Williams once said in a movie, I’m against same sex marriage, because when you are married, it’s always the same sex.
That’s humor in case ya missed it!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote: “Jesus was under the law talking to lawyers (Pharisees) about the law.”
Response: Jesus was not so much talking to them about the law, but rather, in contrast to the Pharisees and the law of Moses. Much of what Jesus taught during His personal ministry was in anticipation of the gospel dispensation under a new order of things! And so, the exception of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 can apply only under the reign of Christ and, hence, in the gospel dispensation. Therefore I’m not concerned about what the law taught, only what Jesus teaches for us.
If you notice Matthew 19, when Jesus is speaking about “putting away” He is speaking about the whole thing, namely, “giving her a certificate of Divorcement and sending her away.” That’s the context of their question and His answer.
Matthew 19:7-9 ASV
7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Again, notice verse 7 that the context has to do with divorce. The term “put away” just represents the whole. But maybe also He said it that way to cover all eventualities.
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “The term “put away” just represents the whole. But maybe also He said it that way to cover all eventualities.”
Well said, Aidan.
1saved
Aidan,
But you have to take it back to the original question that the Pharisees had to Jesus…and it was a TRICK question. It was to try to trip Jesus up about the law, and that is why I stand by what I said regarding that Jesus was discussing the law to lawyers.
And the original question had nothing to do with divorce at all. It only had to do with “put away”. Then later, they asked about why THE LAW OF MOSES, as opposed to Moses, the PERSON, allowed put away and divorcement.
Jesus mentions hardened hearts.
So I ask…when did that change? Do we not have hardened hearts today, even as a married Christian? Sure we do.
Jesus is just clarifying “Hey, guys, stay together and work out your marriage”.
He wasn’t mandating anything, except to not disobey the law of Moses. IF he was, then the Pharisees would have an excuse to legitimately stone Jesus, because that was their goal, and the reason they asked the question that they did.
They know the law, and was trying to TRICK Jesus into saying something that they could trap him with. Their question was not a legit inquiry for clarification.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Jesus’ disciples knew what He said about divorce, sending away, putting away your wives and asked Him why would any man get married if what You say is the law of God.
If what Atheist2Apologst has the correct understanding on this doctrine, why would they ask Christ this unless His teaching was indeed very strict.
If all a man has to do is give a piece of paper to divorce and he’s free – why not get married?
1saved
Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.
Atheist2Apologist,
Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.
Not the point presented to Aidan – and I’m paraphrasing:
Why would the disciples ask Jesus, “If it is so difficult to get out of marriage, why would any man get married?”
There must be consequences to get out by sending away and/or divorce. If getting out through divorce by giving a certificate is without consequences, then every man would not hesitate to marry.
Therefore, you cannot be right in your exegesis of the matter.
1saved,
Again, get back to the ORIGINAL question by the Pharisees. Their question had nothing to do with divorce at all.
It only had to do with PUT AWAY.
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Jesus said, “NO, you may only PUT AWAY in the cause of adultery. For any other “PUT AWAY”, YOU HAD BETTER COUPLE THAT WITH A DIVORCE DECREE AS PER THE LAW IN DEU 24:1-4.
Now, note verse 3 of Deu 29:4
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
So, if the hubby HATES his wife is cause for divorce, in which you would PUT HER AWAY coupled with a divorce decree.
Hates his wife. Sufficient enough. That covers a myriad of causes.
It’s not always TIL DEATH DO US PART…that’s the 2nd half of the verse.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
Again, get back to the ORIGINAL question by the Pharisees. Their question had nothing to do with divorce at all.
It only had to do with PUT AWAY.
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Jesus said, “NO, you may only PUT AWAY in the cause of adultery. For any other “PUT AWAY”, YOU HAD BETTER COUPLE THAT WITH A DIVORCE DECREE AS PER THE LAW IN DEU 24:1-4.
Now, note verse 3 of Deu 29:4
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
So, if the hubby HATES his wife is cause for divorce, in which you would PUT HER AWAY coupled with a divorce decree.
Hates his wife. Sufficient enough. That covers a myriad of causes.
It’s not always TIL DEATH DO US PART…that’s the 2nd half of the verse.
Ed Chapman
Reply:
It’s always TIL DEATH DO US PART, which is why His disciples asked Him why would any man get married?
1saved
1saved,
Wrong. They never asked Jesus what you proclaim that they asked. They asked about PUT AWAY, not divorce. But you are too stubborn to acknowledge that.
Ed Chapman
Ed
But you are too stubborn to acknowledge that.
br.d
Please be careful Ed
We don’t want to push things into the wrong direction.
Which verse says til death do us part? Was that in the 67th book of the Bible?
You have to look at the context of the Disciples. Until Jesus became their Rabbi, they were also under the teachings of the Pharisees and Jewish Rabbi’s who were teaching a misunderstood version of the scriptures, and practicing things based on their incorrect interpretations. They were “putting away” their wives for any reason, and this was also what they taught, which is what the disciples also would have thought.
Jesus was CORRECTING the Pharisees on their practice of just sending their wives away. Since the disciples had also held to this belief their whole lives, hearing Jesus explain it differently confused them, hence they asked the question. This was coming from their belief that they could just put away their wives for any reason whenever they wanted to.
You miss this context and reasoning because you have presupposed God hates DIVORCE, and that DIVORCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, which you are using as the lens to interpret the text.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.”
How ironic.
Aren’t you, Ed Chapman and Br.d trying to trick me with your questions to get me to slip up?
In contrast, Aidan is usually asking sincere questions.
1saved
1saved
Ed Chapman and Br.d trying to trick me with your questions to get me to slip up?
br.d
Sorry!
That ain’t happening here! ;-D
Aidan,
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9).
This Matthew 19:9 text was corrupted. The scholars who translated the KJV used manuscripts missing key words.
Reading the footnotes in the NASB and RSV verifies there are other ancient authorities/manuscripts which restore what Christ actually said.
Jesus said the same thing to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:9 that He said for His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:32).
1saved
KJV is translated from textus receptus, arguably the purest original documents. NASB has egregious errors in it.
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
That is KJV, but in NASB it says Elhanan slew GOLIATH, not the brother of Goliath. We know David slew Goliath.
NASB also uses the word Hades, which is the pagan hell.
Footnotes are NOT CANONICAL! They are human interpretations of the texts ADDED IN to the texts.
1saved,
You wrote:
“This Matthew 19:9 text was corrupted. The scholars who translated the KJV used manuscripts missing key words.”
“Reading the footnotes in the NASB and RSV verifies there are other ancient authorities/manuscripts which restore what Christ actually said.”
Response: The so-called corrupted text seems to be covered when you put together what He said in (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; with Matt. 19:9, and Matt 5:32.) And when you do put them together you will see that the exception clause gives only the innocent party a right to remarry!
Aidan
Aidan,
I’m not interested in repeatedly going over this topic.
Read the Bible in the Autographs/Original text, which you find in the NASB and RSV for Matthew 19:9.
Husbands who divorce their wives except for sexual immorality make their wife an adulterer.
There is no exception allowing them to remarry if she was sexually immoral.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
Read the Bible in the Autographs/Original text, which you find in the NASB and RSV for Matthew 19:9.
Response:
I did for the NASB. It reads: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman [fn]commits adultery[fn]” (Mt. 19:9 NASB). The footnotes read (One early ms makes her commit adultery) and then (One early ms adds and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery). Therefore, that’s what the most all of the manuscripts say!
You wrote:
“There is no exception allowing them to remarry if she was sexually immoral.”
Response:
Luke 16:18 NASB “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,…”
The exception allows the innocent party to remarry without committing adultery
Mat. 19:9 NASB “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The NASB incorrectly translated apuolo to mean divorce. Apuolo is “sending away, departing, separating”. It is a general term.
Matthew 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
Here send away also translates from apuolo. It does NOT mean Divorce. Hence most English translations did not translate the word correctly. The KJV is closest, but makes the same mistake in Matthew 5:32.
Atheist2apologist,
I believe the context of Jesus’ conflict with the pharisees has to do with divorce.
In Mt. 19:3 they ask the question ” is it lawful to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus gives them an answer they didn’t like. So in verse 7 they ask, ‘why then did Moses command to give her a bill of divorce, and put her away?’ Therefore, we know that they were talking about divorce in verse 3 when they asked the question about “putting away.”
That’s the context of their discussion with Jesus. Therefore, I believe you are greatly mistaken.
Aidan
Nuance. Original question was put away for any reason. This was a “trap”. They were using the command of giving a writ of divorcement as justification to send their wife away. They were also quoting Deuteronomy 24. Again, look at the WHOLE of scripture, not just Matthew. Deut. 24:1-5, Malachi 12:16, Jeremiah 3:8, and 1 Corinthians 7. They all fit together.
Yes, indeed, they were certainly trying to trap Him. But again, v.7 reveals that divorce for any cause was the context of their original question in v.3. In other words, give her a bill of divorce and send her away. That’s the question Jesus answers in v.9.
Jesus teaching here is not on the law of Moses, but rather, is in contrast to the law of Moses. He was teaching what would be in the gospel dispensation. Therefore, when it comes to God’s will on this issue for today, we need to focus on what Jesus commanded, not Moses.
It conflicts too with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Very clear. Loosed does translate to divorce. So Paul continues the thought in verse 28 with But and if, following up the thought of seek not a wife. So if a divorced man marries, he has not sinned. It is very clear, but this would make a contradiction in scripture, if the Matt 5:32 and 19:9 meant how most interpret it.
Atheist2Apologist,
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that [m]state in which he was called. 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 NASB
Footnote [m] Lit calling
Two points.
(1) You claim divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is still applicable today. You argue that no-fault divorce with a divorce decree is completely acceptable. You state, what is unacceptable is to put away your wife without a divorce decree.
Aidan countered that claim with, “Then, why did the Pharisees test (trying to trap) Christ on this issue, if Jesus was teaching Mosaic law?” [I’m paraphrasing his meaning as I understand it]
I don’t think you ever replied to Aidan’s excellent point.
(2) Circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. They may not keep kosher food law or may work on the Sabbath, but circumcision is required for every male Jew dating back to Abraham, who circumcised himself at the age of 99 – NOTHING is more sacred to Jews than male circumcision.
My point is this; if circumcision is nothing with the New Covenant (v19), why couldn’t Mosaic law on divorce be made moot by Jesus (Matthew 19:8-9)?
Additionally, I’m curious if you will share your thoughts on how the circumcised could become uncircumcised?
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“Aidan countered that claim with, “Then, why did the Pharisees test (trying to trap) Christ on this issue, if Jesus was teaching Mosaic law?” [I’m paraphrasing his meaning as I understand it]”
My response:
Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
***********Please note the question, “IS IT LAWFUL…”.************
That would indicate THE LAW OF MOSES…not a transition to NT stuff at all.***
Please note the last 2 words, “TEMPTING HIM”.
Also, please note the words “PUT AWAY”.
Also please note that the word DIVORCE is nowhere to be found in the question.
Aidan was indicating that it was NOT a trick question.
————————————————————————————————————-
Regarding circumcision:
You had said:
“(2) Circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. They may not keep kosher food law or may work on the Sabbath, but circumcision is required for every male Jew dating back to Abraham, who circumcised himself at the age of 99 – NOTHING is more sacred to Jews than male circumcision.”
You also say that circumcision is NOTHING in the NT.
My response:
Of course it is NOTHING in the NEW COVENANT, because that covenant was NOT FOR CHRISTIANS, but for the Jews only. But why?
Do you even know what circumcision is all about since it dates back to Abraham?
In other words, do you even know why Jews get circumcised to begin with?
In other words, what’s the reason that Jews get circumcised?
The answer is that it’s all about the PROMISED LAND of Israel, with specific borders, THRU ISAAC, as opposed to Ismael.
In other words, that small piece of real estate in the middle east. So it doesn’t matter if the Jews are disobedient or not. Circumcision is a EVERLASTING covenant Between Abraham and God, for the Jews, THRU ISAAC, to inherit THE PROMISED LAND, the small piece of real estate in the middle east.
And that is why circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. That land belongs to the Jews, and is not Palestine, as Aidan mentioned the other day.
Genesis 17:7-14
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
——————————-
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said, “…full of sound and fury – signifying nothing” – WOW I must had hit a nerve with you about circumcision. All those “in other words” coming from you. Have you ever tried saying plainly and CONCISELY what you mean?
My point was, “If circumcision, which is held in highest sacredness by Jews, can be made nothing then surely the Mosaic teaching on putting away/divorce can be made stricter.” Jesus said it was stricter from the beginning and only because Jews had hard hearts was it permitted for them to put away or divorce. He was only returning marriage & divorce to their original state in creation.
Personally, I think it’s better that Aidan explain his position. I believe he said perhaps “put/send away” covers both with and without an official divorce decree, while divorce is only with a certificate of divorce.
One might ask about property and child custody that are not explained in Deuteronomy 24. Does the wife get nothing if sent away (no property or children), but gets her children and a property settlement if she receives a certificate of divorce from her husband?
In that case, I’d assume God hates sending away more than divorce, but does not change the fact that Jesus’ teaching doesn’t allow either sending away or divorce.. No longer two, but one flesh; not to be divided by anyone.
1saved
1saved,
Dude, Jews get circumcised FOR A REASON, in which has NOTHING to do with us. We don’t inherit the physical land of Israel. They do.
And, I might add, that circumcision was BROUGHT INTO THE LAW, therefore, if you take away the law, circumcision STILL STANDS for the Jews, because it did not originate from THE LAW, but by an everlasting covenant before the law.
Next:
You had said:
“Personally, I think it’s better that Aidan explain his position. I believe he said perhaps “put/send away” covers both with and without an official divorce decree, while divorce is only with a certificate of divorce.
My response:
Then WHY does the scripture have a CONJUNCTION in it, the word “AND”?
Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, AND to put her away.
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, AND send her out of his house.
Deuteronomy 24:3
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, AND sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Malachi 2:16
For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away…
Regarding the property settlement…they had judges, priests aka Sanhedrin to consult for that. When Jesus was accused of a RELIGIOUS crime, where did he go first? To the Romans? No.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Jesus reinstated the original law – no putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
Mosaic law was changed back to the original doctrine at creation.
Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, AND to put her away.
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, AND send her out of his house.
You wrote:
Then WHY does the scripture have a CONJUNCTION in it, the word “AND”?
My reply:
FIRST you write a bill of divorcement AND THEN you put away your wife.
Would you prefer, “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to put her away WITH a writing of divorcement?”
Six of one, half dozen the other, dude.
1saved
You still don’t distinguish the two concepts. You think both divorce and putting away are forbidden, yet conflate the concepts everywhere where distinctions are made in the word. You are also mistaking the context and intent of the Pharisees asking the question to begin with. They were both seeking to justify themselves while tempting Jesus to slip up with the knowledge of the Law.
Note they were PUTTING AWAY their wife for any reason, but not divorcing them. They were using that scripture to justify that action, but not always including the divorce part. That was cruel, because the woman could not get married to have someone care for her. She was actually a widow. Widow was any woman who was previously married, as they would explain HOW they became widowed. If there was only one way to be a widow (husband died) then there would be no need to say how they became a widow. It is redundant.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “You still don’t distinguish the two concepts.”
Not true. I have provided this earlier, but I’ll be more concise here.
Putting away – forced parting without a certificate of divorce.
Divorce – forced parting with a certificate of divorce
No certificate of divorce means no agreement on division of assets, property and children.
A certificate of divorce means a judge makes a ruling, which is hopefully fair regarding division of assets, property, children, visitation, child support, etc.
God hates putting away (Malachi 2:16).
You say God only hates putting away and doesn’t disapprove of divorce. Do not assume God is indifferent to divorce.
Why? Because He desires godly seed (children). Malachi 2:15
Whether by putting away or divorce the children of the separated parents suffer by lacking godliness and godliness accords with acknowledgement of the truth. Titus 1:1
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“Would you prefer, “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to put her away WITH a writing of divorcement?””
My response:
No, I prefer it just the way it is written. The word “and” is a conjunction.
Strong’s G2532
καί kaí, kahee; apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:—and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
The KJV translates Strong’s G2532 in the following manner: and (8,173x), also (514x), even (108x), both (43x), then (20x), so (18x), likewise (13x), not tr. (350x), miscellaneous (31x), variations of ‘and’ (1x).
The word “WITH” is a preposition, not a conjunction.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
You had said:
“Jesus reinstated the original law – no putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
Mosaic law was changed back to the original doctrine at creation.”
My response:
There was not “ORIGINAL LAW”. If there was, then Abraham would not have married his SISTER (step sister), because that was against the law of Moses. So there was no ORIGINAL LAW.
What there was, was that husband and wife WORKED on their marriage, and did not divorce in haste. And that is what Jesus and Paul is telling us.
See 1 Cor 7 in more detail in how Paul states, LET HER NO DEPART.
Is that a commandment that she can’t leave your sorry butt? NO, because then Paul states, “BUT IF SHE DEPARTS”.
That shows that LET HER NOT DEPART isn’t a commandment.
The moral of the story is to TRY TO RECONCILE, but if you can’t, then DIVORCE.
And guess what, you can remarry after a divorce. Yes, you can.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
There was not “ORIGINAL LAW”. If there was, then Abraham would not have married his SISTER (step sister), because that was against the law of Moses. So there was no ORIGINAL LAW.
When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they received the knowledge of all good and evil (Original Law).
Adam and Eve were responsible to teach this knowledge to their children, which was verbally passed from one generation to another.
You wrote:
The moral of the story is to TRY TO RECONCILE, but if you can’t, then DIVORCE.
My reply:
You can divorce, but you can’t remarry if you instituted the divorce.
You wrote, “And guess what, you can remarry after a divorce. Yes, you can.”
My reply:
You can remarry IF your wife divorced you. You will have two wives.
Otherwise, you cannot.
1saved
Atheist2Apologist,
Are there different Greek and Hebrew words for, “leave”, “separate”, “put or send away” and “divorce”?
Does “leave” signify 1-sided parting, but with potential reconciliation, “separate” signify mutual agreement to part but remain married, “put or send away” signify forced parting without a divorce decree and “divorce” signify forced parting with a decree?
10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband is not to [f]divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, he must not [g]divorce her. 13 And [h]if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [i]divorce her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [j]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, [k]let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [l]us in peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 NASB
[f] Or leave his wife
[g] Or leave her
[h] One early ms any woman who has
[i] Or leave her husband
[k] Or then he must leave
[l] One early ms you
Notice the following if the different Greek words for leave, separate, put/send away and divorce apply:
The Lord said as reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke::
v10 &11a says a wife is not to part from her husband to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving, but if she does she must remain permanently unmarried or be reconciled to her husband
v11b says …a husband is not to leave his wife…saying a man cannot part from his wife to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving.
1) Did the Lord say a man cannot LEAVE his wife or cannot DIVORCE her?
2) Or, does “leave” here mean “put/send away” in this verse. If leave means put away without a decree, then a wife could put away her husband under Mosaic law, which we know isn’t true.
Paul (not coming directly from the Lord) says:
v12 says …if the believing husband has an unbelieving wife and she wants to live with him, he cannot part from her to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving
v13 says …if he (unbelieving husband) consents to live with her (believing wife) she cannot part from him to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving
The idea that any individual cannot part to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving is absurd.
v15 says …if the unbelieving one is parting with potential reconciliation, let them go, since you are not under bondage (yoked together) in such cases.
v15 supports my earlier statement that anyone can part to contemplate reconciliation and to say otherwise is absurd.
1saved
The word used there for unmarried is apagmos, which means without nuptials (sex) during this separation. Also of mote is if they were divorced she would not have a husband to reconcile with, as divorced people are not married. The verse makes sense only if they are put away and not divorced.
You keep ignoring how the original language is used and you keep using versions of the Bible that translate to divorce, which isn’t what the original words were. For some reason, you won’t admit this and go to the Greek/Hebrew.
God doesn’t hate divorce (keriythuth) but hates putting away (shalach). The word shalach is used in Malachi 12:16 and not keriythuth.
You mentioned let no man separate what God has brought together. First off, why do you assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together? Did God bring 2 satanists together? Did he want Jews to marry pagans? Did he bring together an abusive alcoholic and a decent Christian woman? If you think so, why do you think so? Is it possible 2 people got married against God’s will?
Atheist2Apologit,
“God doesn’t hate divorce (keriythuth) but hates putting away (shalach). The word shalach is used in Malachi 12:16 and not keriythuth.”
Truth is, “God does not SAY He hates divorce (keriythuth), He only says He hates putting away (shalach).”
Because of the hardness of their hearts, God permitted divorce (with a certificate of divorce) under Mosaic law, but from creation that was not His original position. Matthew 19:8
“You mentioned let no man separate what God has brought together. First off, why do you assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together? Did God bring 2 satanists together? Did he want Jews to marry pagans? Did he bring together an abusive alcoholic and a decent Christian woman? If you think so, why do you think so? Is it possible 2 people got married against God’s will?”
First, I don’t assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together. Why do you assume I did?
Second, Let no man separate what God has JOINED together.
Joined together – not brought together. Brought together by civil ceremony isn’t marriage by God. Ministers that “marry” homosexuals are not administering “being joined together” either.
Two types joined together; believers and/or unbelievers. I covered this previously in my 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 exegesis.
Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.
1saved
1saved,
You contradicted yourself when you said:
“Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.”
IF that is true, then Paul is a liar when he said:
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Regarding Ezra, God did not want Jews marrying GENTILES, due to they might be tempted to follow other gods.
And they did just that, and God was angry, and made them separate from them, or he was going to kill them. It was a violation of the LAW OF MOSES.
Ezra 10:3
3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
In this case, NO DIVORCE…JUST PUT AWAY.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You contradicted yourself when you said:
“Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.”
IF that is true, then Paul is a liar when he said:
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy
The quotation marks around “married” applies to those who think they are married but were never joined together by God.
Homosexuals are not married, though they think they were – even by a clergyman.
Since Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, divorce is no longer legal.
So, men marrying a divorced women are not legally married and men divorcing their wife to “marry” a woman is illegal.
A man who was “divorced” by his wife can marry; he will have two wives.
Judges, State Legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court do not have jurisdiction in deciding marriage and divorce law. Marriage is a thing of God – He joins a man and a woman together in marriage and whatsoever He joins together let no one put asunder. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but give unto God the things of God.
So, NO! I did not contradict myself!
1saved
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“It conflicts too with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28”
“1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”
“Very clear. Loosed does translate to divorce. So Paul continues the thought in verse 28 with But and if, following up the thought of seek not a wife. So if a divorced man marries, he has not sinned. It is very clear, but this would make a contradiction in scripture, if the Matt 5:32 and 19:9 meant how most interpret it.”
Response:
So you are saying, if a divorced man marries he has not sinned and therefore this would contradict how I interpret Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?? Not necessarily so! My interpretation of those passages is that he can remarry only if he divorced her for fornication. Otherwise he commits adultery! I don’t believe Paul would have taught anything that would contradict Jesus. And I’m not sure that’s what Paul had in mind here.
Aidan
That was how I used to interpret it too. But this was before I had learned the Greek and Hebrew words and the distinctions made between them. Paul is specifically talking about divorce and remarriage here, Jesus was addressing putting away, but not divorce. Therefore there is no contradiction, or even a hint of one.
Jesus said to the Pharisees:
(Mat. 19:6) “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, LET NO MAN SEPARATE.”
They understand Him to be talking about divorce:
(Mat. 19:7) They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”
That’s what the conversation was about! It’s as simple as that! But I will add this; if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.
Aidan
So again, this isn’t the whole of scripture. Looking at EVERY relevant scripture and how these words are used and differentiated. Even God hates Divorce is not translated as God hates divorce.
What God joined together…is EVERY MARRIAGE between a man and woman one God joined together. A marriage where he rapes and beats her every day and abuses the children, doesn’t let her leave the house? But hey, he didn’t cheat on her, she can’t ever divorce and marry a man who will treat her right. She is doomed to be alone or stuck in that marriage.
The God of the Bible is not so cold and ruthless as this, nor would He join 2 people like this.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“A marriage where he rapes and beats her every day and abuses the children, doesn’t let her leave the house?” But hey, he didn’t cheat on her, she can’t ever divorce and marry a man who will treat her right. She is doomed to be alone or stuck in that marriage.
My reply:
Put the husband in jail and he’ll stop beating his wife, abusing the children and frees the wife to leave the house..
Divorce doesn’t stop him and also doesn’t deter other abusive men.
Plenty of women, like Amber Heard, claim spousal abuse falsely. Other women, like Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford, even have charged potential Supreme Court justices of sexual abuse. Lots of innocent men have had their lives ruined by lying women.
Fatherless children is a national problem: https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic
Reconciliation happens when both husband and wife understand there are serious consequences to divorce. Wars stop when both sides realize mutual assured destruction is insane. The only winners in divorce are the lawyers.
1saved
There are COUNTLESS testimonies that show the exact opposite. Divorced Christians from terrible marriages who found new love and were treated great, are showered with blessings and children in their new marriage and serve the Lord together. Happens every day. If this was truly sinful behavior it wouldn’t be complimented with abundant blessings.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“There are COUNTLESS testimonies that show the exact opposite. Divorced Christians from terrible marriages who found new love and were treated great, are showered with blessings and children in their new marriage and serve the Lord together. Happens every day. If this was truly sinful behavior it wouldn’t be complimented with abundant blessings.”
Reply:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the [a]earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3-10 NKJV
Abundant blessings are for those who have the attitude above.
Want to truly understand divorce? Here are a few suggestions:
1) Read Stephen Baskerville’s book entitled Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers. https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943
2) Join Promise Keepers https://promisekeepers.org/promise-keepers/about-us-2/
3) Do research on the effects of divorce on children
https://www.verywellfamily.com/psychological-effects-of-divorce-on-kids-4140170
https://www.familymeans.org/effects-of-divorce-on-children.html
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-and-Divorce-001.aspx
God hates putting away/divorce because He desires godly children and that statement applies to everyone, everywhere, throughout all of mankind’s history, but especially to the USA where 50% of marriages end in divorce.
38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38 NKJV
This verse tells WHY Christ comes to Rapture His Bride the Church. Notice the word “adulterous” and compare with Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12.
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except [a]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NKJV
11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 NKJV
1 saved
You act like I am not completely aware of the verses you keep bringing up. It is simple…I do not think it means what you think it means. I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind.
I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…
You keep making straw man arguments. Reconciling is preferable to divorce when possible. Putting away for ANY REASON is not a good practice. Circumstances matter. You take such a legalistic approach to it and can’t see where you are applying presuppositions to come to your ultimate conclusion. In the end, the way you present God is exactly the God that I didn’t believe in as an Atheist, because that is a cruel, dictator like God who is legalistic and lacks empathy, compassion, love and forgiveness.
Praise the Lord He revealed His true nature and character to me, as I now know Him and accepted His gift of salvation!
A2A,
Jesus ended the Mosaic law on both putting away and divorce. He reinstated marriage back to its original state.
Having been joined together by God, the two are one and no longer two; inseparable by any man.
1saved
A2A, You wrote:
“I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind. I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…”
Response: I’m sure that’s what Calvinists say too! But in ignoring the context of scripture you have made a fatal error which has led you to a faulty premise. It seems like you want to use this site to fine tune your arguments as an apologist. If so, I would advise you not to ignore the context so much.
Aidan,
A2A, You wrote:
“I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind. I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…”
Response: I’m sure that’s what Calvinists say too! But in ignoring the context of scripture you have made a fatal error which has led you to a faulty premise. It seems like you want to use this site to fine tune your arguments as an apologist. If so, I would advise you not to ignore the context so much
Wow! Aidan, well said again.
Impressive!
1saved
Well, so far that’s what he has done in his interactions with me — including emotive arguments as part of his strategy. Ed is doing the same along with ad-hominem attacks. This reminded me of the tactics of the pro-choice side in the abortion debate. The worst thing about it is that it works — that’s why they do it!
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “Well, so far that’s what he has done in his interactions with me — including emotive arguments as part of his strategy. Ed is doing the same along with ad-hominem attacks. This reminded me of the tactics of the pro-choice side in the abortion debate. The worst thing about it is that it works — that’s why they do it!”
Reply:
Yes, you are right about so many who think “the end justifies the means.”
Their agenda is set in stone, so whatever they have to say or do is perfectly okay with them.
They’ll omit facts, pick data which supports and ignore data which conflicts, change the definition of words, use shame, intimidation, ridicule and are even willingly to threaten dissenters – all unchristian behavior.
Cancel Culture is a tool of theirs. They’ll ignore the law and when caught, they’ll refuse to prosecute law breakers.
They gang together on Internet sites – even faith-based sites.
If you point out their errors, they will never correct themselves. They simply ignore their error and move on. Thus, they NEVER learn – like a dog returning to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly (Provers 26:11).
Deceptions of False Teachers
18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who [i]have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of [j]corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into [k]bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:18-22 NKJV
1saved
1saved
Thus, they NEVER learn – like a dog returning to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly (Provers 26:11).
br.d
1saved – comments like this are what push people into more reactive and eventually belligerent responses.
The truth is – the same thing could be observed by the silent reader – who reads your posts here.
We are not going to allow SOT101 to become a platform for self-righteous belligerence.
Please be advised
I have not used ad-hominem or emotive arguments, nor am I taking scripture out of context. Stating that people who have legalistic views of God were what kept me from being Christian is true. Just because you are taking a legalistic stance does not mean I am attacking you, I am pointing out the consequences of such beliefs. Strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
The argument about people facing spiritual abuse is not emotive, it is a moral argument. To disregard the NEEDLESS pain and suffering of others in favor of strict legalism is wrong, it is exactly what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for repeatedly.
I believe the Bible is true, and since it is true, it manifests itself in reality. This isn’t emotional, it is observational and logical.
Finally, you are really agreeing with 1saved? He disagrees with you. He says you can’t remarry for any reason, or divorce for any reason, including adultery. He says you CAN marry as many wives as you want, and that polygamy is not a sin.
I’ve explained the Greek and Hebrew words, historical context, the distinction made and used the whole of scripture. You have decided Jesus is talking about divorce. I simply disagree, and this was after holding that view for a long time, until I did a deeper dive.
You don’t have to agree with me, you can say I am ignoring context, but I can say the same thing about you. It doesn’t really get us anywhere. Your interpretation at least fits better with Jeremiah 3:8 and doesn’t make God a hypocrite like 1saved does. I agree with you WAY more than I agree with 1saved, which is funny, as you are patting each other’s backs, uniting against a common “enemy” in me, when you disagree with each other more than I disagree with you.
Blessings to the both of you. I pray you will be able to consider Hod’s compassion, mercy, and forgiveness in His character and that His laws are always just and upright!
A2A,
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. Jeremiah 3:8 KJV
According to Ed Chapman, committing adultery MUST be punished until death. God didn’t put Israel to death for committing adultery, so is God contradicting Himself? No, of course not!
That’s because those stoning may decide not to stone to death and could even not begin stoning as recorded in John 8:1-11. If stoning to death is mandatory, those casting stones could not have walked away after reflecting upon their own sin. Note: Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill the law, so He did not change the law here.
Driving through an Hasidic Jewish neighborhood on the Sabbath, may get your car stoned. Does anyone think the driver should be stoned to death? A son how disrespects his father is to be stoned. Can the father commute the sentence? Here’s a link to Jewish death by stoning. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192021000300007 Who among us is without sin and worthy to cast the first stone?
1saved
The option under the law is there. God showed mercy, but would have been just had He chosen to pass judgement. I don’t see what point you make here. If a man wanted out of a marriage with his wife if she was an adulterer, all he had to do was get her stoned to death. Then he could remarry even by your interpretation.
Besides, that isn’t a contradiction…what IS a contradiction is IF your interpretation that God says divorcing and remarrying is ALWAYS adultery, and He did it Himself, that makes Him a hypocrite, and He committed a sin. My interpretation, and Aidan’s, avoids this pitfall.
Somehow you ignore that and say “my ways are higher than your ways” and “who are you to question God” as if those verses are a show stopper.
By that logic, Jesus could have been engaged in all manner of sinful behavior but it wouldn’t have actually been a sin because He is God, His ways are higher than yours and who are you to question Him!
We know He didn’t though, not even a sinful THOUGHT!
A2A,
You wrote,
“…IF your interpretation that God says divorcing and remarrying is ALWAYS adultery, and He did it Himself, that makes Him a hypocrite…”
Reply:
I already explained this. Yes, it’s adultery and yes, God divorced Israel and yes, He will marry His bride the Church.- but He will eventually purify Israel and remarry her. Israel hasn’t remarried, so remarrying her isn’t forbidden.
Then God will have two wives, which isn’t forbidden either.
No, God isn’t a hypocrite as explained here: https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-divorce-Israel.html
If you bothered to do even a small amount of research BEFORE you admonish me, it would be appreciated.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~ Matthew 5:28
So, should this person be stoned to death for adultery?
Regarding why a man would not want to stone his adulterous wife to death.
1) He might anger her friends and family who may take revenge upon him.
2) He may not want to raise their children himself.
3) He may not have sufficient evidence to convict her in court
4) He may want to keep an option open for reconciliation of the marriage.
5) He may have read Hosea and realized if Hosea couldn’t divorce Gomer, he shouldn’t divorce his wife.
Sexual immorality by a wife would include adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality.
Some would say masturbation and sex simply for the sake of pleasure is lustful, and therefore a sin.
Are all above to be ignored by your legalistic position?
1saved
A2A,
Anticipating your next inquiry.
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. Mark 10:11
God divorced Israel and will marry His bride the Church. You might ask then, “Is God committing adultery against Israel when He remarries?”
Is Israel a woman? Is His Bride the Church a woman? No.
1saved
1saved,
Mark 10:11 doesn’t use the word divorce in the GREEK. Why do you insist on using the word divorce?
Who told you do use the English word divorce? The Catholics? That’s where this word mix-up originated from. And, as usual, the reformation folks carried on Catholic tradition, and hence, we have protestants with Catholic baggage.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’m not Catholic nor any denomination. It’s interesting that you call me Catholic and Br.d claims I’m a Calvinist.
I point out both Augustine and John Calvin are ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15), so Catholics and Calvinist’s don’t like me at all. Go figure.
My source is the Bible. I often choose the NASB because it provides footnotes. Usually I prefer the NKJV. The ASV is considered to be he most literal, so I sometimes consult it.
11 And He *said to them, “Whoever [a]divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mark 10:11 NASB
Footnotes
Mark 10:11 Or sends away
18 “Everyone who [a]divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is [b]divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18 NASB
Footnotes
Luke 16:18 Or sends away, the Heb term for divorce
Luke 16:18 Or sent away
Why do I have to constantly repeat myself with you? Are you trying to wear me down?
1saved,
The point I’m trying to make is, the ENGLISH WORD (DIVORCE) is WRONGLY USED in the NASB and others.
Put away is GREEK WORD XXXXXXXX
Divorce is GREEK WORD YYYYYYYY
Two different Greek words, two different meanings.
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Note: The word “divorced” in the above should be “put away”. Note the Greek word used twice in this verse. You will see this in the following verse.
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Do you see the word “divorce” in Matthew 5:32?
It should not be there at all.
The Greek word for PUT AWAY is what it should read, because the Greek word for PUT AWAY is what was used, not divorced.
There is a completely different Greek word for DIVORCED.
The NASB is wrong, and so is a whole bunch of others.
From the Strong’s Concordance:
But G1161 I G1473 say G3004 unto you, G5213 That G3754 whosoever G3739 G302 shall put away G630 his G846 wife, G1135 saving G3924 for the cause G3056 of fornication, G4202 causeth G4160 her G846 to commit adultery: G3429 and G2532 whosoever G3739 G1437 shall marry G1060 her that is divorced G630 committeth adultery. G3429
Put away is: G630
But wait!!!!!!!! What is this? Divorce here is ALSO G630????????? No, that is WRONG.
So here is the CORRECT verse repeated in the same book, different chapter:
Mat 19:9
And G1161 I say G3004 unto you, G5213 G3754 Whosoever G3739 G302 shall put away G630 his G846 wife, G1135 except G1508 it be for G1909 fornication, G4202 and G2532 shall marry G1060 another, G243 committeth adultery: G3429 and G2532 whoso marrieth G1060 her which G3588 is put away G630 doth commit adultery. G3429
G630 is mentioned TWICE here, where there is NO DIVORCE mentioned, but PUT AWAY.
Now…DIVORCEMENT:
Matthew 19:7
They say G3004 unto him, G846 Why G5101 did Moses G3475 then G3767 command G1781 to give G1325 a writing G975 of divorcement, G647 and G2532 to put G630 ➔ her G846 away? G630
Divorcement: G647
Put away: G630
Two different Greek words, two different meanings:
G630 Put Away:
ἀπολύω apolýō, ap-ol-oo’-o; from G575 and G3089; to free fully
The KJV translates Strong’s G630 in the following manner: release (17x), put away (14x), send away (13x), let go (13x), set at liberty (2x), let depart (2x), dismiss (2x), miscellaneous (6x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
G647 Divorcement
ἀποστάσιον apostásion, ap-os-tas’-ee-on; neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly, something separative
The KJV translates Strong’s G647 in the following manner: divorcement (2x), writing of divorcement (1x).
These are the kinds of things you discover when you DEEP DIVE study. And I know you are not a Catholic. But the Catholics are RESPONSIBLE for this mess. Not you!
Ed Chapman
This is way off the topic of soteriology, but just wanted to agree with you on this one. There has been so much abuse and heartache perpetuated due to the inaccurate rendering of the original language concerning ‘putting away’ and ‘divorce’, which are two entirely different things. Jesus was condemning the hypocrites for ignoring the Law of Moses concerning the proper way to deal with a broken marriage, and instead merely sending their wives away without a proper bill of divorcement, causing them to be, according to the written Law, adulteresses when they remarried or entered into another relationship. This was because these men did not want the stigma of being ‘divorced’. And, surprise, surprise, even though, technically, men were just as guilty of adultery as women by not properly ending a marriage, they were rarely held accountable for it.
God, who is merciful and compassionate, would never bind people hopelessly into lifelong bondage with spouses who are abusive or, just as bad, have no real affection toward them. Yes, there is a lot of Roman Catholic power-seeking and corruption behind this ‘error’, and scholarship over the last few decades has begun to reveal the issues; but this has not reached many of the average lay people within Christianity.
Of course God desires that every marriage be permanent. And that every spouse be loving, patient, kind, gentle, supportive, etc. And that no person sin against another person. But we do not meet God’s standards, do we? Which is why He, knowing our hard hearts, gave direction as to how to protect women, in particular, in an era in which they had little means of providing for themselves or their children on their own; marriage was the typical means of doing so. Thus, Jesus reproved the Pharisees for not following the Law of Moses’ instructions for properly giving a wife a written bill of divorcement so that she could lawfully marry again, without being considered an adulteress. This has been terribly, tragically misinterpreted to the great harm of countless women, children and men as well, by conflating and improperly interchanging the different words/concepts for divorce and putting away.
TS00,
I couldn’t have said it better than you did. That’s exactly right. Great explanation! If it wasn’t for the spiritual abuse blogs, I never would have even been interested in investigating this issue. We have divorced/remarried people in our own church, so to me, it was never an issue. Then I learned of the Catholics hard stance against remarriage, and then I saw how that trickled down to Calvinism, as well. The spiritual abuse victims came from Calvinism church’s.
I kinda forgot how we even got on to this subject of divorce.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The Catholic Church in Rome was corrupted by Augustine starting in 387 A.D.
Hundreds of years prior there were “fathers” of the church. Perhaps researching their teaching on divorce and remarriage will help.
The first three, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Clement of Rome died 97 A.D.
Ignatius of Antioch died 110 A.D.
Polycarp of Smyrna died 155 A.D.
Justine Martyr died 165 A.D.
Irenaeus died 202 A.D.
Here’s a link to early church teaching on divorce and remarriage.
https://tamedivorce.com/early-christian-writings
Tertullian of Carthage was not in Rome. Here’s his testimony on divorce and remarriage.
“For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof. Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. . . Even Christ, however, when He here commands “the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband,” both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 443” http://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/early-christian-dictionary/divorce-and-remarriage/
It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox Church allows marriage after divorce, but only twice. https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage
How many times do you say a man can divorce and remarry, if he provides his wife a certificate of divorce?
1saved
1saved,
I’m not into “church fathers”, however thank you for that citation, which brings me to say the following:
One thing I learned from studying this issue about divorce is the words, “MOSES ALLOWED DIVORCE”, or “MOSES TOLERATED DIVORCE”.
But further study indicates that when that is stated in the gospels, the Pharisees were not discussing MOSES, THE PERSON, but they were talking THE LAW OF MOSES.
Many seem to think that Jesus changed the rules of the law in regards to divorce, and that Moses, the person, allowed, or as some state, “tolerated” divorce, against God’s will or plan, so, Jesus comes on the scene to correct that error. But the only error is in identifying what the word, “Moses” signifies in Matthew 19:7. Many incorrectly identify “Moses” as the person of Moses, but that is far from the truth.
The Pharisees were not discussing Moses, THE PERSON, but the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is not an invention of Moses. The law of Moses is the Law of God, to wit:
Joshua 24:26
And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.
Nehemiah 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
Nehemiah 10:28
And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;
The Law of Moses is known by many names, one of which is the Law of God. Another name for the Law of Moses is, “The Law”, for which some confuse with the word “Torah”, which it isn’t. Torah begins in Genesis 1:1, whereas the Law of Moses begins in Exodus 20.
Still, other names include the words, “Book of Moses”, or, just “Moses” alone. So, we should be able to see that Matthew 19:7 is not discussing the person of Moses, but rather, the Law of Moses, or more specifically, the Law of God. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the Law of God, not a toleration of Moses.
Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Moses’ law? Or God’s Law?
So let’s start off with a question.
Is divorce, based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the law of God, or a toleration of Moses?
I say that God is the one who allowed for divorce, not Moses, the person.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
God directed what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24.
Because of the hardness of the Jews’ hearts, God allowed them to divorce provided they first provided a certificate of divorce.
This was not God’s intent at creation and Jesus reinstated the original doctrine. Marriage joins two together and they become one flesh. They are no longer two but one. Whatever God joins together, let no man separate.
This is a very strict doctrine, so the disciples said, “It’s best that no man marry.” Jesus agreed, suggesting men get married to have children. Paul wasn’t married and advised men to no get married like him.
Jesus didn’t reprimand the Church in Rome for it’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage when he went to John on the Isle of Patmos in ~95 A.D. Therefore I argue the Roman Church like the one in Philadelphia was teaching correct doctrine at that time.
You are ducking two questions I asked you.
1) How many times can a man divorce his wife and marry another if he always provides a certificate of divorce?
2) Why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
1saved
1saved,
At the end of this, I will answer your two questions, one of which, I already answered.
But before I begin this, I’m going to ask you a question:
Can you FORCE your wife to love you? If we didn’t love Jesus, would Jesus let us go? If Jesus didn’t love us, are we compelled to remain with him? How does Jesus treat his bride, being the HEAD? Does he DEMAND that the wife BRING HIM HIS SLIPPERS, or GET HIM ANOTHER BEER?
Are you indicating that no one has hardened hearts anymore, just because Jesus said “in the beginning it was not so”?
You had quoted Jesus as saying:
” let no man separate”
And this is where your legalistic mindset comes into play…BUT…
Have you seen Paul’s words regarding the word “LET”?
1 Corinthians 7:10
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1 Corinthians 7:13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
Sounds like she is FORBIDDEN TO LEAVE, huh?
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Forbidden to leave, but she left ANYWAY. Hmmmm.
Which means, LET HER REMAIN UNMARRIED, but she remarries ANYWAY.
Well, if she remains unmarried, then she is SEXLESS:
So we are right back to this:
1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Do you really think that Jesus wants to deprive someone of sex? It’s not adultery if she is divorced.
The law allowed DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE in Deuteronomy 24:1-4…AND insofaras adultery, she is to be killed as a capital punishment, not divorced. And that is TILL DEATH DO US PART.
However, to END THIS ENDLESS conversation about what Jesus meant by “IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO…”
According to Ephesians 5, THIS IS WHAT JESUS WANTS:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
NOTICE IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4, IF THE HUSBAND HATES HIS WIFE, HE CAN DIVORCE HER.
NOTICE IN VERSE 31 THAT THIS IS WHAT JESUS SAID, AND ALSO SAID IN GENESIS 2:24
BUT SHORTLY AFTER THAT…THE FALL HAPPENED.
So, can you FORCE your wife to do all those things listed in Ephesians 5…or does something like this COME FROM THE HEART, to where she WANTS to please you, and you WANT to please her? Forcing someone to love you when they don’t is NOT what Jesus wants in a “FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO”.
Love comes from the heart.
Now, to answer your two questions:
Question #1, you had asked:
1) How many times can a man divorce his wife and marry another if he always provides a certificate of divorce?
My response:
As many as it takes to get it right.
Question #2, you had asked:
2) Why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
My response:
I already answered that with 1 Cor 15:42-46, and with a question to you that you still sin, so why do you still sin if you know it is wrong?
However, your point was that Adam knew nothing about SPIRITUAL DEATH, and that a day could mean 24 hours or a thousand years.
Further study of the bible knows that SIN SEPARATES oneself from God, and THAT is what spiritual death is.
But this should answer your question SPECIFICALLY:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
What was the NAME OF THAT TREE?
The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
The Law of Moses is the KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
Before Paul knew the law, he was ALIVE…VERSE 9
When he was taught the law about coveting…VERSE 9…HE DIED.
As you can see, he wasn’t talking about the NATURAL DEATH OF THE BODY.
—————————
Side note:
You had said:
“Jesus didn’t reprimand the Church in Rome for it’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage when he went to John on the Isle of Patmos in ~95 A.D. Therefore I argue the Roman Church like the one in Philadelphia was teaching correct doctrine at that time.”
My response:
Jesus didn’t go to Rome, nor did he go to Patmos. John was IN THE SPIRIT. But you can defend the Catholics all you want. They are not my cup of tea, and I don’t trust anything Catholics teach or say.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wouldn’t make a good detective.
I already told you Adam wouldn’t have understood the concept of “spiritual death.” I also provided a blog on the subject we are discussing.
You chose to cite all kinds of Scripture attempting to claim Adam did understand spiritual death means separation from God. Adam had just been created and was completely uneducated. Do you know any preschoolers that understand the spiritual death concept? No? So what makes you think Adam understood?
I also told you that God told Adam and Adam must have told Eve. Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived by the serpent. If Adam understood it was a “spiritual death” he would have told that to Eve and therefore Eve wouldn’t have been deceived by the serpent.
Thus, it was not Adam’s understanding it was a spiritual death in which he would die in the same day he ate the forbidden fruit.
To have been deceived, Eve must have believed it was a literal death in a 24 hour day.
Care to try again to explain why Adam would eat the forbidden fruit knowing he would die in the same day he ate? Or do you admit you can’t explain why?
Br.d says I leap frog to false conclusions. Am I leap frogging or using deductive reasoning like a good detective?
1saved
I stand by what I said. I don’t change my mind.
Paul DIED in Romans 7:9. PAST TENSE. And he wasn’t talking about a natural death of the body.
Do you know what “BORN AGAIN” is all about? It is a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION FROM SPIRITUAL DEATH.
Romans 6:13
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Luke 15:24
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
And to further MY INVESTIGATION…did God tell Adam ANYTHING about the TREE OF LIFE?
God never told Adam anything about the tree of life. Nothing. Therefore, he never told Adam that if he ate of that tree of life, he would NEVER DIE.
So Adam didn’t know a lot of things.
However, God had to block that tree after the fall, so that Adam would NOT obtain eternal life in a fallen state, because that would mean that Adam would FOREVER BE SEPARATED FROM GOD, yet live eternally.
There is a lot of things that Adam didn’t know.
Show me where God told him about the Tree of Life! IF he would have known about that tree, maybe he would have went there FIRST, and saved himself a lot of trouble. But he didn’t know about that.
What else did Adam not know?
He had NO CLUE he was naked.
Genesis 3:10 (ADAM SPEAKING)
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Genesis 3:11 (GOD SPEAKING)
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Note the words, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”
God didn’t. Satan didn’t either. Information that a TREE gave him did.
Yep, Adam was an UNEDUCATED dude. He didn’t know much. But Satan told Eve, STOP BEING SO IGNORANT, AND GET EDUCATED…so she ate.
Adam may not have been deceived, but he ate and got educated, and his eyes were opened to things that God didn’t want him to know.
I stand by what I originally said. If you reject it…that’s on you.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “I stand by what I said. I don’t change my mind.”
“Adam may not have been deceived, but he ate and got educated, and his eyes were opened to things that God didn’t want him to know.
I stand by what I originally said. If you reject it…that’s on you.”
What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?”
My response:
I don’t care.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You are going off on tangents.
All I know is that the tree was aptly named, therefore, if God wanted Adam to know something, he would have told him. If God withheld information, then he didn’t want him to know.
In the US Navy, we call that, “You are on a NEED TO KNOW basis”.
So why didn’t God tell him about THAT OTHER TREE?
Ed Chapman
1saved,
Again, you had said:
“What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?”
If you are going to CONTINUE declaring that God told him that he would DIE within a thousand years, IF HE ATE OF THAT TREE…
Then I will AGAIN present you with 1 Corinthians 15:42-46, FOR THE THIRD TIME, showing you that Adam was going to die a NATURAL DEATH ANYWAY, whether he ate of that tree or not. He was going to die a natural death ANYWAY, and that tree had nothing to do with it at all. The only tree that mattered was THAT OTHER TREE, and God did not disclose that info to Adam.
Therefore, THEREFORE, T H E R E F O R E, natural death was NOT THE CONVERSATION that God was talking to Adam about.
That other tree is what God didn’t want Adam to know about.
I again, reiterate, that I stand by what I said.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “If you are going to CONTINUE declaring that God told him that he would DIE within a thousand years, IF HE ATE OF THAT TREE.”
Reply:
I’m not saying that, Ed. You are leap-frogging to a false conclusion.
I gave you a blog site to begin with. I’m given you hints. You say you don’t care.
God told Adam and Adam told Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived. Eve was deceived.
How is that possible?
You say it’s not a physical death, it’s a spiritual death.
Adam didn’t even know he was naked, yet you say he understood the concept of “spiritual death.”
If Adam indeed understood the concept of “spiritual death” wouldn’t he have explained this to Eve?
If he explained “spiritual death” to Eve, then she wasn’t deceived by the serpent.
Maybe you should “phone a friend” or “ask the audience” for a clue.
1saved
You are being speculative. I stand by what I said, I gave you evidence of scripture. If you don’t like it, so be it. Conversation over.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “You are being speculative. I stand by what I said, I gave you evidence of scripture. If you don’t like it, so be it. Conversation over.”
Wasn’t my issue – Heather brought this topic up for discussion.
Ask her if she’s satisfied with your exegesis.
1saved
I think it’s funny that you ask everyone but Santa Claus if they agree with me. If it wasn’t your issue, were you speaking for, and on behalf of Heather?
br.d
Asking everyone but Santa Claus!
You have a good sense of humor Ed
And keeping things lighthearted is good wisdom. :-]
Ed,
You wrote, “I think it’s funny that you ask everyone but Santa Claus if they agree with me. If it wasn’t your issue, were you speaking for, and on behalf of Heather?”
I answered Heather’s question and you said my answer was incorrect.
We began a series of conversation seeking the best answer for Heather.
You ended the conversation saying you stand by what you said.
I said perhaps you should ask Heather whether she accepts your explanation.
If she doesn’t accept your exegesis, doesn’t her question still remain?
1saved
1saved
and Br.d claims I’m a Calvinist.
br.d
You won’t find a quote from br.d to that affect.
But you will find statements from br.d where he points out INDICATORS of Calvinist influence within the behavior patterns of various individuals including yourself.
BTW:
One does not do himself any favors – leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions.
When people see that pattern – they soon conclude – this is someone who is best not to take seriously.
Br.d,
You wrote, “You won’t find a quote from br.d to that affect.”
Ed
What you really mean is, LEAN ON 1saved’s understanding!
br.d
That in fact is typical of anyone who has been influenced by Calvinism.
Calvinism practices a form of “Self-Canonization”.
When the Calvinist says “you are leaning on your own understanding” or “you are operating in human logic” – what he is HIDING – is he AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes he stands in a position of divinity.
Hence “Self-Canonizing”
Reply:
I’m quoting Proverbs 3:5.
From your statement to Ed, it seems you think it’s typical of those influenced by Calvinism, forming self-canonization and a person professing Proverbs 3:5 assumes himself to stand in a position of divinity.
Did I find a quote from you claiming me to be a Calvinist? Perhaps not directly, but seemingly by implication.
You have issues with me when I cite 1 Corinthians 2:14 and say I have received the spiritual gift of discernment (1 Corinthians 12L10). Scripture says you are to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-6). Is that what you are doing?
1saved
1saved
I’m quoting Proverbs 3:5.
br.d
And Ed was discerning enough to discern what comes along for the ride – with you making that quote – and to point it out.
It became all to obvious – that for 1saved – “leaning on one’s own understanding” simply means leaning on any understanding other than 1saved understanding.
Thus – Ed manifested discernment which someone else did not! :-]
1saved:
Did I find a quote from you claiming me to be a Calvinist? Perhaps not directly, but seemingly by implication.
br.d
Already addressed that in my responses to each of the various applicable statements you made – and in which I provided the Calvinist influence behind those statements.
So I was careful to point out the Calvinist influence – and also to provide the evidence.
1saved:
You have issues with me when I cite 1 Corinthians 2:14 and say I have received the spiritual gift of discernment ….
br.d
Firstly:
I addressed that in my responses to you where I pointed out – church history is full of “Strange doctrines” 99% of which are claimed to be derived from a “spiritual gift” – and in many cases the gift of discernment.
Secondly:
The consistent pattern of a person leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions – is in fact a manifestation of a lack of discernment.
So when people hear someone claim to have -quote “the spiritual gift of discernment” – and they consistently observe that someone leap-frogging into poorly thought out conclusions – those people are going to say “YEA RIGHT! WINK WINK!” :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, “The consistent pattern of a person leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions – is in fact a manifestation of a lack of discernment.
So when people hear someone claim to have -quote “the spiritual gift of discernment” – and they consistently observe that someone leap-frogging into poorly thought out conclusions – those people are going to say “YEA RIGHT! WINK WINK!” :-]”
Reply:
Aren’t you the guy comparing me to a gorilla throwing dust in the air?
Weren’t there emojis also?
Didn’t you compare me with Jerry Jones and David Koresh?
Are these acts and implications the actions of an unbiased Christian charged with “testing the spirits?”
Perhaps you like to join the discussion I’m having with Ed Chapman regarding why Adam ate the forbidden fruit?
Or, at least consider becoming an unbiased observer.
1 saved
1saved
Aren’t you the guy comparing me to a gorilla throwing dust in the air?
br.d
It would be wisdom for you to read exactly what I stated before leap-frogging to yet another poorly thought-out conclusion.
That post was a representation of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
Why wouldn’t a person with normal discernment recognize that?
1saved:
Didn’t you compare me with Jerry Jones and David Koresh?
br.d
Same answer as above.
1saved:
Are these acts and implications the actions of an unbiased Christian charged with “testing the spirits?”
br.d
In this case – the test was simple!
Not every human manifestation is a manifestation of a spirit.
Many manifestations are simply “of the flesh”
1saved:
Perhaps you like to join the discussion I’m having with Ed Chapman regarding why Adam ate the forbidden fruit?
br.d
Thanks for the invitation.
1saved
Or, at least consider becoming an unbiased observer.
br.d
That statement assumes the opposite – which I can discard as yet one more poorly thought-out conclusion.
I’m curious to see if people will eventually not bother to respond to you.
And if so – how long it will take for people to get to that point.
However – I am thankful that you are keeping your posts civil – as you indicated you would to Ed.
Br.d,
That post was a representation of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
Definition of Behavior Pattern
a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group toward a given object or in a given situation.
I understand.
1saved
1saved:
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
br.d
Lets imagine I am looking at an object.
My “Representation” of that object is as follows:
1) it is a closed 2-dimensional shape
2) it has 3 sides
3) it has 3 angles
4) it has 3 vertices
5) it is a polygon
Can anyone guess what the object is from that “Representation”? 😀
You might want to look up two different fallacies
– The fallacy of “persuasive definition”
– The fallacy of “Exclusion and Suppressed Evidence”
Your definition of “Representation” is “Representative” of a combination of those two errors.
1saved
Definition of Behavior Pattern
a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group toward a given object or in a given situation.
br.d
That one is correct!
Good job!
Br.d,
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
I am not an object, I am a person. Your example of a polygon doesn’t apply.
Therefore, the description or portrayal of someone in a particular way or as being of a certain nature applies.
I understand.
1saved
1saved
I am not an object, I am a person. Your example of a polygon doesn’t apply.
br.d
Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.
And a “Representation” can easily be of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
DUH!!!!
Beam me up Scotty!
Br.d,
You wrote, “Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.”
Not my definition – I’d not qualified to define the meaning of words – so I Google the word in question and provide the result.
Is there a dictionary you insist I use?
Some on SOT101 have objected to my using the NASB. Some may only consult the KJV. When I used the NIV, I heard about it.
If I used gotquestions.org as a tool, there were those here who objected. Why?
“GotQuestions.org is a volunteer ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation, and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.”
Last, do you agree with Ed Chapman regarding a man can divorce his wife ANY number of times so long as he gives each ex-wife a certificate of divorce?
Some celebrities are infamous for their many divorces:
https://www.cnbc.com/2011/03/28/The-13-Most-Divorced-Celebrities.html#:~:text=Zsa%20Zsa%20Gabor&text=She%20first%20married%20Turkish%20political,1937%2C%20divorcing%20him%20in%201941.
I understand.
1saved
1saved
You wrote, “Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.”
1saved:
Not my definition
br.d
The Lord is sure giving me brownie points for patience on this one!
Its the definition you posted.
That is what is meant by “your” definition.
Whew!!!
BTW:
Please refrain from posting links to other web-sights.
SOT101 could possibly construed as promoting those sites.
If you have text etc from another source – please just provide that text.
1saved
Last, do you agree with Ed Chapman regarding a man can divorce his wife ANY number of times so long as he gives each ex-wife a certificate of divorce?
br.d
As I mentioned before – I’m waiting to see if people here will eventually come to the point where they won’t bother to answer your posts.
I’m curious to see if that will happen – and if so – how long it will take people to get to that point.
Again – please refrain from posting links to other web-sites
Thanks!
I went to a Calvinist church that claimed to be non-denominational too. You keep acting like people aren’t aware of this website as one part of a research tool. I use it myself occasionally, they do have a Calvinistic/Reformed bias.
I said Ed was employing ad-hominem attacks, not you. That’s his style which is why people try to avoid him at times. And I didn’t see you accusing me of being legalistic up until now. It was 1saved you classed as legalistic. Did you know that the opposite of legalistic is “illegalism” which is defined as illegal activity? Which is basically lawlessness! Jesus didn’t condemn the Pharisees for strict adherence to the law, but rather, for their hypocrisy in neglecting the weightier matters of the law like justice, mercy and faith. What He actually said is that: “These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone” (Mat. 23:23). That is a far more strict adherence to the law than they were practicing.
The NT actually commends those who strive to keep God’s commandments and defines it as love (Jn. 14:15,21; 1 Jn. 2:3; 1 Jn. 5:2,3; 2 Jn. 1:6). If I am just repeating what Jesus actually said (which I believe I am), then your accusations of “disregarding the NEEDLESS pain and suffering of others in favor of strict legalism” is not really against me, but against Jesus! If that’s the case, then you are about as wrong as Paul was in his zeal before he became a Christian.
And no, I don’t agree with 1saved in his stance on marriage, divorce, and remarriage! I think he knows that already. Perhaps you did explain the Greek and Hebrew words, historical context, the distinction made and used the whole of scripture to 1saved concerning the etymology of words; but I’m always suspicious when someone disagrees with the consensus of scholarship and translators. And when I look at the context of the passages in question that he is required to write her a certificate of divorce before sending her away, it confirms that they are right about the subject matter. In that case “putting her away” amounts to divorce. But we’ve both made up our minds on this, which means at the very least one of us is wrong!
One last point: You are not my “enemy.” I know who my enemy is and it’s not flesh and blood. These are matters of salvation and are too serious to get caught up in petty games simply because someone disagrees with me. And I too hope and pray that though it might not seem like it to you, Christ’s restriction on divorce/putting away is in fact the more compassionate one over all.
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “One last point: You are not my “enemy.” I know who my enemy is and it’s not flesh and blood. These are matters of salvation and are too serious to get caught up in petty games simply because someone disagrees with me. And I too hope and pray that though it might not seem like it to you, Christ’s restriction on divorce/putting away is in fact the more compassionate one over all.”
Kudos to you.
1saved
Aidan,
You wrote, “I don’t agree with 1saved in his stance on marriage, divorce, and remarriage! ”
8 “Everyone who [s]divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is [t]divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18 NASB
(s) Or sends away, the Heb term for divorce
(t) Or sent away
11 And He *said to them, “Whoever [a]divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself [b]divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 NASB
(a) Or sends away
(b) Or sends away
32 but I say to you that everyone who [a]divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [b]divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NASB
(a) Lit sends away, the Heb term for divorce
(b) Lit woman sent away
I’m disregarding Matthew 19:9, since it is exactly the same as Matthew 5:32 in the autograph (original text).
I am only quoting Scripture verbatim..
1saved
Aidan,
ad hominem attacks? Sarcasm is my charming personality. But call it as you will.
However, I know enough about your beliefs that I would never step one foot in your church. We disagree on just about everything. About the only thing we agree on is Calvin, bad man.
But we disagree on this marriage/divorce/remarriage issue, baptism issue, musical instruments in church, gifts, etc.
And yes, I’ve made that known to all here. I can’t remember if you believe in Original Sin or not, but I don’t. I know the Arminian side does, and I can’t remember if you are on the Arminian’s PREVENIANT Grace side, or the Palagian side, where Original Sin is non-existent.
As you have seen from this blog, I am a die hard Zionist, and I find it hard to imagine that people don’t believe in dispensation, and that the Jews are under a completely different soteriology than the rest of us lowly gentiles.
Yes, I have a way of presenting the debate that people don’t like. I’m non-denomination, and therefore, I am not beholden to ANY church father.
When I was a young lad of about 19 years old, on my first ship in the US Navy, my job was that of a payroll clerk. Any time that I had a technical question about pay, LAW OR PROCEDURE, my supervisor would never answer my question. He always said, “WHAT DOES THE BOOK SAY”.
Now, I don’t know if you know how to read LAW, but it gets pretty technical, as our pay laws on entitlements and allowances, and fiscal accounting were laws passed by congress. I would stay up late hours to find the answers to my own questions, and it paid off years later when I was awarded two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals.
In any case, Aidan, I did the same thing with the Bible. I spent 8 years studying everything anyone ever wanted to know about Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Herbert W and Garner Ted Armstrong, and others, too.
I wanted to know why the JW’s don’t believe that Jesus is God, I wanted to know why the 7th Day Adventists insist on going to Church on Saturday, I wanted to know why Garner Ted Armstrong believed that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday instead of Friday.
Well, I had to study the Bible to find out why. All of them are WRONG about a lot of things in their doctrines. But why?
The Why is what I wanted to find out. So when I say something on any blog, it is due to “I’ve already studied this topic out”. This is why A2A and myself agree on this subject of marriage/divorce/remarriage, and I am just as flabbergasted at your conclusions as he is on the subject.
But I thought I needed to inform you as to where I come from on subjects, so as not to be accused of ad hominem attacks.
Calvinists accuse us of that all the time. But I always thought that hominem was some kind of breakfast thing in Alabama! Before Calvinism, I never heard of that word. Seriously!!
I have no beef with you personally.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“ad hominem attacks? Sarcasm is my charming personality. But call it as you will.”
Response:
Sometimes there’s a fine line between sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks. You said some really emotive things about me that I never said, nor did I imply.
Here’s what you said in one post to A2A:
“BEGGING to get out of their abusive marriages, but Aidan won’t allow them to, telling them that Jesus demands that they get abused, so stick it out til death do they part, when the husband murders them. Aidan wants “til death do you part”? Well, there it is! Aidan, Compassion much?”
And in another post you wrote:
“So, Aidan’s answer to the abused wife is…SUCK IT UP! ENDURE TIL THE END, UNTIL YOU ARE BEATEN TO A PULP AND DIE! Because that’s what Jesus commands of you!”
What’s funny is that I never talked about these things. You and I certainly never talked about these things. In fact, if memory serves, most of my interactions about divorce was either with A2A and 1saved. I looked over many of the posts where you mention me, and often what you say is either a complete misrepresentation or something I actually didn’t say! But, at the end of the day, the only thing that will matter is what JESUS said, which came into effect AFTER His death and resurrection. If repeating what Jesus said is actually true (and I believe it is), then the sad truth is that your emotive, ad-hominem attacks, are not against me, but against Him. But this is just your charming personality at work…. Right?!!
You also wrote:
“But we disagree on this marriage/divorce/remarriage issue, baptism issue, musical instruments in church, gifts, etc.”
Response:
Wow! I didn’t realize you had such a gift for getting so much wrong😉!
And, yes, I don’t believe in original sin, so at least you got one right 👍.
And the only “ian” I subscribe to is Christ – ian. I’m on a roll here!
Maybe some of that “charming personality” is starting to rub off on me. Ooops! What’s happening, was that sarcasm😏?
So, you’re a die hard Zionist? Listen, don’t let anyone put you down for that — you can be wrong if you want to😉!
You wrote:
“But I thought I needed to inform you as to where I come from on subjects, so as not to be accused of ad hominem attacks.”
Response:
Listen, ad-hominem attacks are when you use emotive language that attacks the man instead of the argument in a way that unfairly undermines his credibility in the debate. We could all resort to those tactics – but in the end nobody would really benefit, we would all lose.
As long as it’s kept civil I have no beef either – – – except perhaps on a Sunday for dinner!
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“You said some really emotive things about me that I never said, nor did I imply.”
You did indeed imply that divorce/remarriage is NOT PERMISSIBLE under any circumstances, which is why I said, “…suck it up!…”
In any case, here in America, Chicken is a traditional Sunday Dinner! I’m not sure when or where that began, but maybe Kentucky Fried Chicken was the only place open after church, besides Denny’s!!
Have a great and better day, Aidan!
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“You did indeed imply that divorce/remarriage is NOT PERMISSIBLE under any circumstances, which is why I said, “…suck it up!…”
Response:
There you go again with the misrepresentations! And you said a lot more than that! But here’s what I actually said a number of times. And I’m speaking about what should occur under the new covenant not the old:
I think I sent this one to A2A:
“if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.”
I definitely said this to A2A:
“So you are saying, if a divorced man marries he has not sinned and therefore this would contradict how I interpret Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?? Not necessarily so! My interpretation of those passages is that he can remarry only if he divorced her for fornication.”
To 1saved I wrote:
“The exception allows the innocent party to remarry without committing adultery.”
Either way you had no right to say what you did because I never spoke about those things!
Anyways, thanks for the apology! Ooops! more sarcasm.
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“I think I sent this one to A2A:
“if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.” ”
My response:
This is where we keep attempting to correct you. Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.
Under the law of Moses, you do indeed put her away, then KILL HER! They were all under the law of Moses.
But you indicate that Jesus is TRANSITIONING to the NEW TEST.
No…he wasn’t.
Both you and 1saved keep quoting the ENGLISH words of the Bible regarding DIVORCE, but fail to see the GREEK WORK that was used.
When you do that, you will see that the word DIVORCE is in ERROR, and should never have been used.
There is different Greek word for divorce.
It’s like going to Pizza Hut and ordering a Big Mac, because they have both Pizza and BIG MAC on the menu, but don’t serve a Big Mac. They only serve Pizza.
But you keep ordering a Big Mac at Pizza Hut.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“This is where we keep attempting to correct you. Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication. Under the law of Moses, you do indeed put her away, then KILL HER! They were all under the law of Moses.”
Also: “that the word DIVORCE is in ERROR.” And that Jesus wasn’t “TRANSITIONING to the NEW TESTAMENT.”
Response:
Okay, I know what you are saying, that the word should be “put away” instead of “divorce.”
Okay, so you say:– “Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.”
But, you also say:– “Under the law of Christ, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.”
Instead, you say:– Under the law of Moses, you put her away for fornication and then kill her!
And you also say:– Christ wasn’t talking about the NT period!
So lets see how this works under the law of Moses:
Matthew 5:32
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery.”
(1) So if she is [put away] for fornication AND is put to death, how can Jesus say whoever marries her commits adultery? For if she is dead who can marry her and commit adultery?
(2) So tell me again how this could possibly apply to the old testament period?
Okay, so those who commit adultery are guilty of the death penalty under the law of Moses? Lets see how the law of Moses works in these verses:
Matthew 5:32
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery [death penalty]; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery [death penalty].”
(3) Okay, so if she is “put away” for fornication she is put to death. And if she is put away for “any other reason” she commits adultery and should also be put to death. Again, if she is put to death how can anyone marry her and commit adultery and also be guilty of death?
(4) Can you explain again how these verses apply to the OT period?
Mark 10:12
“And if a woman [puts away] her husband and marries another, she commits adultery [death penalty].”
(5) Were women allowed to [put away] their husbands in the OT times? If not, then please explain how Jesus could only be talking about the old testament here?
Aidan
Your last point actually proves our point more. Women did not have the authority to give a writ of divorce, they had to get one from their husbands. All they could do was leave, depart or tell their husband to leave. The Greek word in Mark 10:12 again is apuolo, not apostation. And, yes, marrying a woman who is currently married to someone else without a divorce absolutely is adultery!
A2A,
I think Aidan’s point was this.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10:11-12 ASV
Mark 10:12 cannot apply to Mosaic law, since Jewish wives were not permitted to put away their husbands.
Therefore, this verse must be a commandment for Gentiles.
According to Mosaic law, by remarrying and therefore committing adultery, she would be stoned to death, which again cannot be the intent here.
Therefore, two laws on putting away/divorce, a temporary Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24) and the one at creation, which Christ reinstated.
Ed Chapman has said a man may divorce and remarry ANY number of times as long as he gives his ex-wife a certificate of divorce each time. Do you agree with Ed?
1saved
Pay attention to the previous verses. This is Mark’s account (which makes it Peter’s) of the same conversation in Matthew 19. It is IN RESPONSE to Pharisees asking a question about Mosaic Law! It IS about Mosaic Law and NOT addressed to Gentiles.
The whole premise you are positing is inaccurate because women COULD NOT issue a writ of divorce in those times, only a man could. This by default HAS to be talking about putting away and not divorce because a woman could leave, separate or even ask her husband to leave, but she couldn’t make a divorce happen. This works to the interpretation I have been saying and not against it!
A2A,
I’m sure there were many cases where the husband was quite happy to grant her wishes and give a writ of divorce because of irreconcilable differences. But did you notice that the exception clause “for fornication” is not given here in Mark 10:12? Therefore Jesus is only talking about putting away “for any cause” in these verses, and not for fornication. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that she commits adultery when she marries another.
What you and Ed don’t seem to understand is that Jesus is not answering the question from their perspective, but from the perspective of God’s law from the beginning of creation. Jesus by-passes the law of Moses and their perversion of it and brings it right back to the beginning, to God’s original plan for marriage. This is very clear when you read Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 12:1-12. The only exception He gives is “fornication.”
What you and Ed are failing to see is that if this doesn’t apply to the Gentiles, then none of it applies to the Gentiles — we can do as we like!
Aidan,
You wrote, “What you and Ed don’t seem to understand is that Jesus is not answering the question from their perspective, but from the perspective of God’s law from the beginning of creation.”
Very well said again.
1saved
This isn’t how the correlative gospels work. The Gospels are testimonies of Jesus life. If you have 4 witnesses to a crime, for example, they will all pick up details the other didn’t. Altogether it creates a more complete story. The account in Mark is THE SAME conversation Jesus had, Matthew is simply providing more details from his perspective.
For example, Luke’s account of the soldier who got his ear cut of just says it was one of Christ’s disciples. John clarifies it was Peter. This isn’t a different account. Forensically, this actually adds credibility to the Gospels as an accurate account. I encourage you to read J. Warner Wallace’s book Cold Case Christianity, as he breaks down every such example and he himself was a cold case homicide detective.
Hi, A2A,
I know how the gospels work and I have watched some of J. Warner Wallace’s stuff overtime. I like his approach!
Aidan,
You are CONFUSING two different scenarios. That’s the issue.
Scenario #1
Husband and Wife are married to each other. Wife gets a little tail on the side. Husband finds out, kicks her out, and by the law, she gets stoned (by rocks, not by canibus).
Are we clear so far?
Scenario #2, having nothing to do with scenario #1
Husband and Wife are married to each other. Husband HATES his wife. She did not commit adultery on him at all. But he hates her. She refuses to cook for him, and keeps a messy house. So…he kicks her out. But he forgot to give her a divorce decree.
So, she goes an marries another man. And due to the fact that she never got a divorce decree, she is committing adultery, all because she is still married to a man that hates her, and he didn’t give her a divorce decree.
Conclusion:
Scenario #1 DUE TO FORNICATION.
Scenario #2 CAUSES fornication.
Do you see the difference?
So, in scenario #2, when you kick her out, you are to give her a divorce decree to avoid adultery.
In Scenario #1, the adultery already occurred before you kicked her out.
It’s hard to fathom that people can’t see the two scenario’s being discussed.
So to avoid adultery in scenario #2, you had better give her a divorce decree on her way out the door.
Ed Chapman
Ed, the people thank you for the education!
Now answer the questions you are avoiding since you believe what Christ taught here applies only to the Mosaic law:
Matthew 5:32 with insertions in brackets:
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery [death penalty]; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery [death penalty].”
(1) So if she is put away “FOR FORNICATION” and is put to death, how can Jesus say whoever marries her commits adultery? For if she is dead who can marry her and commit adultery?
(2) If that’s the case, how can this possibly apply to the old testament period?
(3) And if she is put away “FOR ANY OTHER CAUSE” she commits adultery and should also be put to death. Again, if she is put to death how can anyone marry her and commit adultery and also be guilty of death?
(4) Again, if death is the penalty, explain how what Jesus said applies to the OT period?
Aidan
Answer is easy. EXCEPT FOR, is what you miss here. One can put away (apuolo, separate) their wife if there is adultery because by the law he would already be just to have her stoned to death (under the law)!
The other part you miss is Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are CORRELATIVE teachings. It is the same concept, but provides us more clarity. 19 is more detailed and goes more into depth and detail of what Jesus is teaching. This is why 19:9 clarifies “puts away his wife AND marries another”. The act of just being separated is NOT adultery. Adultery has to include sexual activity, incest or bestiality. The word marriage is gamos in the Greek which also refers to nuptial relations.
This is why Paul taught if you engage in sex with a prostitute you “become one flesh”
1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Marriage and sex were very closely tied. Isaacs marriage to Rebekah was created by sex. He simply took her into a tent and they were “married”. The terms are slightly interchangeable in the way which they are used. It is entirely possible Jesus is referring to sexual relations.
A2A,
Please let me try again to explain Matt 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:16 and how they all are congruent.
31 It was said also, [l]Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. Matthew 5:31-32 ASV
3 And there came unto him [a]Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Matthew 19:3 ASV
Here is what you miss in this verse. Pharisees weren’t asking if it was lawful to put their wife away (without a certificate of divorce) for every cause. They knew they must give her a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24).
They were asking if they could put away their wife with a certificate of divorce for every cause.
4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, [b]that he who [c]made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, [d]For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4-6 ASV
Obviously the Pharisees would question Him by citing Deuteronomy 24.
7 They say unto him, [e]Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? ASV
8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. ASV
NOTE: …suffered you to PUT AWAY your wives… This is the Deuteronomy 24 way of putting away your wives with a certificate of divorce, because Mosaic law required a certificate of divorce. “Put away your wives” here CANNOT mean without giving her a certificate of divorce. Therefore, “putting away” doesn’t ALWAYS mean sending away without a certificate of divorce.
Jesus acknowledged their point – but AGAIN said it wasn’t that way at creation (verses 4-6).
Therefore, the Mosaic law in Deuteronomy 24 is null and void.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, [f]except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: [g]and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery. ASV
(f) Matthew 19:9 Some ancient authorities read saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: as in 5:32.
(g) Matthew 19:9 The following words, to the end of the verse, are omitted by some ancient authorities.
The confusion in the church is over verse 9. Some ancient authorities read the same as Matthew 5:32 and some ancient authorities have omitted words. Scripture interprets scripture, so clarification comes from Scripture.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10:11-12 ASV
NOTE: “Whosoever” leaves no exception for if she was sexually immoral. Therefore, the ancient manuscripts reading the same in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are true and the ancient authorities used by the scholars writing the KJV were corrupted.
Not convinced yet?
18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18 ASV
NOTE: :Every one” again means “whosoever” and is all inclusive – no exception for divorcing a sexually immoral wife and remarrying.
Aidan makes good points.
If a man marries a woman who is put away without a certificate of divorce (Mark 10:12), then under Mosaic law he (her husband) would have to stone her (his new wife) to death, since she becomes an adulteress upon remarriage. Absurd right?
A woman who is put away without a certificate of divorce only because she found no favor in her husband’s eyes becomes an adulteress (Matthew 5:32). She should be put to death by stoning. Also absurd right?
1saved
The EXCEPT FOR is something I have been pointing out all along. I understand that Matthew 5 assumes her remarriage. But as you say the “put away” person can commit adultery in all sorts of ways! Either way, even with just remarriage been assumed, if she is “put away” for fornication she has committed the sin already and should be put to death, as per the law of Moses! That doesn’t remove your problem. YOU STILL CAN’T marry one PUT TO DEATH for fornication.
Jesus said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: AND whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Mt. 19:9).
This is why Jesus cannot be talking about the law of Moses!
Have you considered WHY the Pharisees asked the questions in Matthew 19? Chronologically, the sermon on the Mount (where Matthew 5:32 comes from) happens BEFORE the account in 19. Jesus openly taught what He did on divorce. Seeing as how word gets around and His teachings were announced publicly to a HUGE crowd, the Pharisees knew what He was teaching, they were asking Him to challenge Him. Jesus then offered MORE information about said teaching in 19 to provide EVEN MORE clarity.
Yes, I have considered that Matthew 5:32 was one of the reasons they tried to catch Him out in Matthew 19.
We know what adultery means. Adultery only happens if someone who is married has nuptials with someone other than their spouse (or other sexual acts). A divorce, by definition, ends the bond of marriage. A divorced person is not married. Deuteronomy 24:2 makes this clear.
If someone has not been given a divorce, but has been put away, and someone else marries them OR has nuptials with them, because they are still married that IS adultery and by definition of the word.
This goes back to the original question, putting away wives for any reason.
Jesus very easily and more accurately (if He WAS talking about divorce) used the same word that is used for divorce.
Even in English, BY TODAY’S language, there is a distinction.
Are you married? Right now we are separated. This is something people not divorced yet say.
Compared to
Are you married? No, we are divorced.
It is very easy to make it very clear what the position is just by using the right word. People MIGHT get confused about someone saying they are separated, but there is NO CONFUSION in saying “ I am divorced.”!
Jesus very clearly could have used the equivalent words for His time, yet He used the word for separated. Not once does He even use the equivalent word that would remove any doubt. Is Jesus not a purposed speaker? Is God the author of confusion?
Does God hate divorce? Why didn’t He use the word for divorce in Malachi 2:16, but rather the word for separated? Yet another instance He could have made it crystal CLEAR that was what He intended…but He didn’t. Did God make a mistake?
A2A and Aidan,
A2A wrote, “The other part you miss is Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are CORRELATIVE teachings.”
In fact, Matthew 5:32 and Matthew are EXACTLY the same teaching.
A2A wrote, “It is the same concept, but provides us more clarity. 19 is more detailed and goes more into depth and detail of what Jesus is teaching. This is why 19:9 clarifies “puts away his wife AND marries another”. The act of just being separated is NOT adultery. Adultery has to include sexual activity, incest or bestiality.”
Thinking the two verses are different has led to grievous error for men who think they are being righteous when in fact they are being deceived.
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ASV
1saved
The error of supposed Piety
A certain Bible teacher once said:
“Piety should never be used as criteria for scriptural exegesis”
Here is a parable that shows why:
—————————————————–
Once upon a time – there was a village in which two scholars lived.
Scholar_A had a certain interpretation of a particular Bible verse based on current evidence within Biblical archaeology.
Scholar_B had a different interpretation which he considered the best possible explanation.
Scholar_A’s interpretation was considered to be an interpretation of renowned Piety.
Thus Scholar_A’s interpretation was deemed correct – and Scholar_B’s interpretation rejected.
A few years later however – new evidence from Biblical archaeology came to light which showed Scholar_A’s interpretation was in fact false – and Scholar_B’s interpretation was in fact the “Best Possible Explanation”.
The moral of the story:
Piety is a criteria corrupted by human subjectivity – and laden with human prejudice.
When I make human subjectivity and human prejudice my criteria – that is what I end up getting.
Br.d,
Gotquestions: “The term piety usually refers to godliness or reverence for God. A person who shows great devotion to God through religious observance is said to be “pious.””
Christianity.com: “As generally defined today, Piety means “the quality of being religious or reverent.” Piety means faithfulness to something to which one is bound by pledge or duty. For Christians, this means trust and love for God, by following His commandments and faithfully praying to Him for mercy and strength.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following definition for piety:
1: the quality or state of being pious: such as
a: fidelity to natural obligations (as to parents)
b: dutifulness in religion; Devoutness
Pious, as also defined by Merriam-Webster means “marked by or showing reverence for God and devotion to divine worship.”
Bible Meaning of Piety
In the Bible, piety is used to mean proper honour and respect toward parents (1 Timothy 5:4). In Acts 17:23, the Greek verb is rendered “ye worship,” as applicable to God.
According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “This word occurs but once in the Authorized Version: “Let them learn first to show piety at home,” better “toward their own household” or family. (1 Timothy 5:4) The choice of this word here instead of the more usual equivalents -of “godliness,” “reverence,” and the like, was probably determined by the special sense of pietas, as “erga parentes,” i.e. toward parents.”
Jesus’ greatest commandment was a call for piety to His followers, saying “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)”
1saved
1saved
The term piety usually refers to godliness or reverence for God. A person who shows great devotion to God through religious observance is said to be “pious.””
br.d
Correct
The Pharisees considered themselves pious and their understanding of the God to be the pious understanding.
That is why they considered the man born blind – to be utterly born in sin – and he should never assume to teach them.
That is why the moral of the story is:
Piety is a criteria corrupted by human subjectivity – and laden with human prejudice.
When I make human subjectivity and human prejudice my criteria – that is what I end up getting.
And as we can see – that is what the Pharisee ended up getting.
Piety is good, pride, arrogance and stubbornness is not. Part of piety is also humility…claiming to be pious isn’t humble, so it refutes the claim of piety. Do not take this as an attack, but a claim of “having the gift of discernment” really comes off as not very humble. Anyone can claim God gave them discernment and showed them things. It isn’t an argument that holds water.
Just in case you are wondering, I could absolutely be wrong about my interpretation of divorce and remarriage. I do think it lines up with scripture, original language, logic, history and the character of God, and other interpretations do not do that for me, hence I find it to be the best explanation until someone can give me good reasons for a different one that also lines up with those things.
A2A
claiming to be pious isn’t humble
br.d
Yes – claims are messy business!
Br.d,
A2A
claiming to be pious isn’t humble
br.d
Yes – claims are messy business!
Leaping-frogging.
All I provided was the definition of pious.
Here’s several definitions of pettiness.
1. undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature.
“the sheer pettiness of the officials was quite startling”
2. lack of importance or worth; triviality.
“these awesome moments lift us above the pettiness of the world”
1. the quality or condition of being of little, lesser, or no importance, consequence, or merit; insignificance:
The economic cost of these wildfires pales into pettiness when compared to the real victims—the wildlife and the natural landscape.
The film is a comedy about the boredom, pettiness, and general strangeness of working in an office, as the protagonists spend their days plotting a way out of their dull and meaningless jobs.
2. the quality or condition of having or expressing limited ideas, interests, etc.; narrow-mindedness:
The novel is set against a background of small-town deceit and pettiness.
3. the quality or condition of being unkind, stingy, or ungenerous, especially in small or trifling things; meanspiritedness:
Their pettiness is perhaps best demonstrated by the threatened removal of an assortment of services provided to residents—things like fresh fruit, free coffee, and a monthly outing.
Pettiness — whether it’s in a term paper or an argument between politicians — is a focus on issues so small and trivial that it’s almost silly. Another way to use the noun pettiness is to describe the quality of a person that’s also called “small-mindedness.” A friend’s pettiness can be hard to live with, since she focuses on trivial matters and has a tendency to seek revenge for the slightest offenses. Petty comes from the French word for “small,” petit.
Definitions of pettiness
1. noun the quality of being unimportant and petty or frivolous
synonyms:puniness, slightness, triviality
see more
2. noun lack of generosity in trifling matters
synonyms:littleness, smallness
see more
3. noun narrowness of mind or ideas or views
1saved
1saved
Leaping-frogging.
All I provided was the definition of pious.
br.d
The leap-frogging is once again on your part 1saved
My comment did not state that a definition of a word is messy business.
But rather that making claims is messy business.
Claims are messy business because they are often unfounded or unrealistic or imagined.
Br.d,
IMO merely providing a definition of a word isn’t making a claim about oneself.
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
1saved
1saved
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
br.d
Correct.
And since that was simply imagined on your part – it was another leap-frogged conclusion.
Sorry!
You don’t seem to be aware – that leap-frogging conclusions is a pattern with you.
And you don’t seem to be aware when you do it.
Its good for you – that someone is kind enough to point it out to you.
br.d
Many years ago I worked with a pastoral ministry – part of which involved counseling for Christians – and sometimes counselling Christian married couples.
I remember a certain young couple who came in for help.
The counselling ministry addressed the wife and asked her if there was anything she would like ask the husband to change. She was very happy to answer that question.
Yes she said: “He consistently does A-B-C and it would be wonderful if instead he did X-Y-Z.
The ministry turned to the husband and asked how he felt about making that change.
He appeared to be an easy going fellow – said he was ok with it – and committed to do it.
The next week followed the same pattern – where they asked the wife how this had worked for them – and if she had another request for a change on her husbands part.
She indicated she was happy with his latest change and yes she had another request – which again the husband was pliable, and ok with – and committed to do.
This went on for several sessions. And finally the ministry felt it was time to give the husband a turn.
So they asked the husband if there was anything his wife was doing that he would like to change.
And he mentioned something to that affect.
This is where it gets interesting
The ministry turned to the wife to ask her how she felt about that and would she be willing to commit to it.
I watched in surprise – as her demeanor changed – and she sat back and folded her arms in defiance and said “I’m not going to participate in this any more because you people are biased against me!”
That was this couples last counselling session.
The wife adamantly refused to come back for any further sessions – insisting the counselors were biased and had it in for her.
My assumption was that this young girl had issues that she needed to overcome in her life.
And those issues were manifesting in her marriage.
She apparently could not accept any feedback from anyone – in which that feedback was not in the form of a compliment.
I suspect she was stuck in that mode – and unable to grow and mature out of it.
Unless she could somehow let the Lord touch whatever was keeping her stuck – she was going to remain stuck.
When you mentioned you see observations people make here of you as biased – I was reminded of her.
Br.d,
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious. Here’s several definitions of pettiness. 1. undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature. “the sheer pettiness of the officials was quite startling” 2. lack of importance […]
You wrote:
1saved
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
br.d
Correct.
And since that was simply imagined on your part – it was another leap-frogged conclusion.
Sorry!
You don’t seem to be aware – that leap-frogging conclusions is a pattern with you.
And you don’t seem to be aware when you do it.
Its good for you – that someone is kind enough to point it out to you.
Reply:
A2A wrote “claiming to be pious isn’t humble” and you agreed with him with the word “Yes” .and added claims are messy business. To which I pointed out I only provided the definition of a word and didn’t claim anything. To which you replied I only imagined it and leap-frogged. I see all this as exhibiting pettiness and I’ve already provided you with the definition, since I anticipated how this was going to end.
Furthermore, you wrote after a long anecdotal story ending with:
“When you mentioned you see observations people make here of you as biased – I was reminded of her.”.
What I read on this site is bias toward Calvinists and Roman Catholics. Some here judge them not for who they are, but by the doctrine of who deceived them. Are you claiming to be “perfect” even as “perfect” as our Father in heaven is “perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Do you even understand what Jesus means by “perfect?”
What I have experienced on this site and elsewhere is an unwillingness to test the spirits as directed by John (1 John 4:1-6).
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43, John 19:7}. He was tested by the Pharisees and Sadducees
Paul claimed to be an apostle of Christ (Galatians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1). He was tested by His other apostles.
I claim to have received the spiritual gift of discernment.
“One of the spiritual gifts God gives the Church is discernment (1 Corinthians 12:10). The Church needs people who are able to discern error since we’re called upon to “test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).” source on Google
It is the obligation of the Church to test the spirits to see if they are from God NOT the obligation of the gift recipient to prove whether he or she indeed has received a spiritual gift.
Do you test those claiming to have the spiritual gift of service or mercy? No, you accept them without challenge.
Then can it be said you are biased against those claiming to have the gift of prophecy, wisdom, discernment or exhortation? I would say yes, because you challenge one and not the other. Who told you to do that?
List of spiritual gifts in Scripture.
Romans 12:6–8
6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads,[a] with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. ESV
1 Corinthians 12:8–10
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ESV
1 Peter 4:11
1 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. ESV
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, Ephesians 5:6-14 ESV
Is announcing you have been given a spiritual gift exposing your light to brethren or is it boastful and demonstrating a lack of humility? I am only being obedient to His Word.
Lastly:
5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 2 Corinthians 13:5 ESV
1saved
1saved
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious
br.d
Already corrected that misconception on your part.
For some reason – you seem to have a need to manufacture events which don’t exist.
I don’t think that is a good sign.
Br.d,
1saved
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious
br.d
Already corrected that misconception on your part.
For some reason – you seem to have a need to manufacture events which don’t exist.
I don’t think that is a good sign.
Reply:
To which I’ve already replied.
By saying “Yes” you agreed with A2A.
I haven’t any misconception – those were your words.
All of this falls under the category of “pettiness” – the definition of which I provided in advance – anticipating where this was going.
I invite you to test me further to determine whether or not I have received the spiritual gift of discernment from God.
Or, you could simply ask God in faith concerning this and He will answer you, provided you do not doubt (James 1:5-6).
Do you have faith to ask Him or not?
1saved
1saved:
By saying “Yes” you agreed with A2A.
I haven’t any misconception – those were your words.
br.d
Of course they were my words!
I made that post!!!
They certainly weren’t the words of Thomas Jefferson! 😀
The leap-frogging to a poorly thought-out conclusion – was your misconstrual of them.
You posted a definition.
The point I made concerned a claim
Anyone with normal discernment would know there is a difference
I think I’m seeing a pattern here – of what I might be called a “Youthful Imagination” :-]
Br.d,
Obfuscate means to make obscure or unclear. It is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and difficult to interpret. It can be deliberate confusing in order to conceal the truth. For example: Repetitive and overlapping arguments cannot obfuscate the fact that a timely termination petition was not filed; Before leaving the scene, the murderer set a fire to obfuscate any evidence of his or her identity.
Definition of obfuscate
transitive verb
1a: to throw into shadow : DARKEN
b: to make obscure
obfuscate the issue
officials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened
— Mary Carroll
2: CONFUSE
obfuscate the reader
Definition of obfuscate
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
to make obscure or unclear:
to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
to darken.
verb (used without object) ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
to make something unclear, obscure, or difficult to understand:
Notice how she obfuscates when asked directly about her conversations with the defendant.
1saved
br.d
I do have compassion for you!
You have a need – and that need is manifesting itself.
The Lord himself is able to fill that need.
Brd,
“You wrote, “You have a need – and that need is manifesting itself.
The Lord himself is able to fill that need.”
Reply:
My need is to fulfill my, calling which is to reveal the Truth.
The Lord Himself is able to fill that need, when you ask Him in faith and without doubting He will answer.
1saved
The Lord can break through that and deliver.
But we have to be willing to allow him to do so.
And that sometimes means giving up things we cling to.
Br.d,
You wrote, “The Lord can break through that and deliver.
But we have to be willing to allow him to do so.
And that sometimes means giving up things we cling to”
Reply:
2 Corinthians 9:6-8
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
My wife and I notice you don’t capitalize the G in God or the H in “him” above.
Here are two more examples of your writing where God isn’t capitalized.
…”There were Christian thinkers in Calvin’s day – who disagree with the image of god Calvin created.”
…”The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.”
To us, that demonstrates a lack of proper respect for the Lord thy God.
1saved
1saved
My wife and I notice you don’t capitalize the G in God or the H in “him” above.
br.d
You’ve probably noticed I definitely don’t use an upper case “G” when I refer to Calvin’s god.
And I don’t think the Lord who loves us both – cares about whether I use an upper case “h” when referring to him – any more than he cares about me wearing wide phylacteries, or blowing a horn before I pray, or making sure I look a certain part.
However – if I were going to author a book – I would certainly want to ensure capitalization, spelling, and grammar are appropriate for that venue. :-]
Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel…
br.d
Isn’t that a wonderful saying!!!
I totally love how the Lord gets right to the heart – and cuts through all of that stuff!!!!
Every Word is a treasure!
In the very least, it is a verse I don’t see legalistic people refer too it very often. One of those glossed over verses that people ignore when it goes against their beliefs/practices.
br.d
Oh I got a kick out of that one A2A!
Yea its one of the verses we wouldn’t expect a legalistic person to quote.
God must have a good sense of humor! 😀
Br.d,
You wrote, “You’ve probably noticed I definitely don’t use an upper case “G” when I refer to Calvin’s god.”
Reply:
God’s name is Yahweh. His Son’s name is Yeshua.
There are about 2.4 billions Christians worldwide seeking the same God.
Church affiliation breakdowns:
There are about 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
There are about 220 millions Eastern Orthodox practitioners worldwide.
There are about 85 millions Anglicans and 2 million Episcopalians worldwide.
There are about 81 millions Lutherans worldwide.
There are about 75 millions Calvinists worldwide.
There are about 67 millions members of Assembly of God churches worldwide.
There are about 40.5 millions Methodists worldwide.
There are about 14.8 millions Southern Baptists worldwide.
There are about 2 millions Church of Christ members in the world.
There are about 1.2 millions non-denominational church members worldwide.
Your bias toward Calvinists and Catholics is against (1.275 billion/2.4 billion x 100%) = 53% of all Christianity.
In other words, you are bias against more than half of all Christians worldwide.
Talk about grieving the Spirit 😢.
1saved
br.d
That one is hilarious 1saved!
Somehow I don’t think the Holy Spirit is grieved over not honoring graven images!
I wonder what kind of discernment would do so! :-]
Eyes they have – but they see not.
Ears they have – but the do not see.
And those who worship them become like unto them.
Once one gets familiar enough with Calvin’s god – it becomes pretty obvious he is created after the image of John Calvin. I’m not even sure Calvin would be grieved over someone not honoring his image. :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, :Somehow I don’t think the Holy Spirit is grieved over not honoring graven images!
I wonder what kind of discernment would do so! :-]”
Which do you think is more grievous to the Spirit?
Catholics honoring angels, because they are deceived or Protestants committing adultery because they are deceived thinking they can divorce and remarry?
Here’s a hint.
No adulterers shall enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).
1saved
Well, Protestants tend to lean more on the Catholic side of that issue, so you don’t really have that right.
Also, liars, thieves, fornicators, idolators etc…won’t enter the Kingdom of heaven. Also transgressing in one law makes someone guilty of transgressing ALL of them…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity.
Christ died for the sins of the world, and God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we repent.
Remember what I said about being legalistic? Legalism emphasizes law and rules but is short on Grace, which God is abundant in.
A2A,
You wrote, “Christ died for the sins of the world, and God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we repent.
Remember what I said about being legalistic? Legalism emphasizes law and rules but is short on Grace, which God is abundant in.”
Reply:
The key phrase above is “…if we repent.”
False teachers deceive others, so they will not repent their sins and die in their sins.
Reply on grace – undeserved, unmerited, unwarranted favor from God:
God is abundant in grace. He graciously sends those He has graciously provided spiritual gifts.
For example, He graciously taught Paul so Paul could write His Word and graciously sent Paul to the Gentiles.
He saves us from the consequence our sins by grace, through faith, in Christ.
If you have faith in God, why not ask Him yourself concerning His marriage/divorce doctrine as in James 1:5-6?
He will answer, if you do not doubt He will.
1saved
Yes I have, and all that He showed me I have shared here.
Genuinely, I did pray and seek Him on this issue and this is the discernment He gave me.
But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.
A2A
But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.
br.d
A few years ago I saw a documentary of the remaining followers of David Koresh
Even years after the incident in that compound – these people were totally convinced he had spiritual gifts.
A2A,
You wrote, “But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.”
Reply:
That is why you test the Spirits
1 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. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess [a]that Jesus [b]Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:1-6 NKJV
You wrote, “Yes I have, and all that He showed me I have shared here.
Genuinely, I did pray and seek Him on this issue and this is the discernment He gave me.
Reply:
You already admitted you could absolutely be wrong about what you teach on divorce and remarriage; so which is it?
Either the doctrine came from God (but could be wrong), which is ridiculous – or you deceived yourself into thinking it came from God and it is wrong.
1saved
John Piper holds your position on divorce and remarriage. In his paper he starts by saying Godlier men than he take a different position and he could be wrong, but he will lay out his research and reasoning. While I don’t agree with Piper on much, I appreciate the humility demonstrated there.
It goes like this: humans are subject to error. I am human, therefore I am subject to error.
A2A,
You wrote, “Also, liars, thieves, fornicators, idolators etc…won’t enter the Kingdom of heaven. Also transgressing in one law makes someone guilty of transgressing ALL of them…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity”
Reply:
Previously you wrote:
“Piety is good, pride, arrogance and stubbornness is not. Part of piety is also humility…claiming to be pious isn’t humble, so it refutes the claim of piety. Do not take this as an attack, but a claim of “having the gift of discernment” really comes off as not very humble. Anyone can claim God gave them discernment and showed them things. It isn’t an argument that holds water.
Just in case you are wondering, I could absolutely be wrong about my interpretation of divorce and remarriage.”
24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.” Jeremiah 9:24 ESV
1) Having been given the gift of discernment Jeremiah 9:24 tells you I have a freedom to boast, because I understand and know the Lord.
2) You admit you could absolutely be wrong about your interpretation of divorce and remarriage.
.Putting those two statements together, do you really think you are qualified to say “…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity.”?
Before you answer, keep in mind that teachers will be held to a stricter standard.
3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. James 3:1-2
Finally, do you recall my advising you to search the Scriptures on the word “perfect” using biblegateway.com?
Did you?
1saved
1saved
Which do you think is more grievous to the Spirit?
Catholics honoring angels, because they are deceived or Protestants committing adultery because they are deceived thinking they can divorce and remarry?
br.d
I had a sense from the last post – you were starting to go wherever a wind happened to be blowing
I’ll refrain from that – but thanks anyway.
Hello 1saved
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for A2A to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
Br.d,
You wrote:
Hello 1saved
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for A2A to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
Reply:
I have nothing to hide.
Since you have previously revealed my full name to those on the SOT101 website, providing my first name seems rather superfluous. Should you or the administrator want to question me directly – you have my email and I encourage you to contact me directly on any questions you have.
1saved
1saved:
Since you have previously revealed my full name to those on the SOT101 website, providing my first name seems rather superfluous.
br.d
That would not have been me.
Perhaps you are referring to a post that Ed made?
And that would not be considered – something you provided.
1saved
Should you or the administrator want to question me directly – you have my email and I encourage you to contact me directly on any questions you have.
br,d
SOT101 Admin is already approaching you in this manner
Please provide an answer one way or the other.
Br.d,
You wrote:
br,d
SOT101 Admin is already approaching you in this manner
Please provide an answer one way or the other.
Reply:
My first name is George.
I’m glad to hear the SOT101 Administrator will contact me.
1saved
1saved
My first name is George.
br.d
Thank you – but the question you are being asked – is if you are comfortable posting your first name in your posts – rather than 1saved?
Br.d,
You wrote:
1saved
My first name is George.
br.d
Thank you – but the question you are being asked – is if you are comfortable posting your first name in your posts – rather than 1saved?
Reply:
I thought I answered the question when I said I have nothing to hide.
I’ll provide both my first and last names on every post if it helps, since apparently Ed Chapman previously revealed them, an action which I believe you concurred with.
When can I expect SOT Admin to contact me? We’re coming up on a holiday weekend.
George
Thank you George
Please go ahead and use your first name from now on within your posts – in any place in which you had previously used 1saved. That is sufficient for the time being.
1saved
I invite you to test me further to determine whether or not I have received the spiritual gift of discernment from God.
br.d
That test was completed a long time ago! :-]
I was actually thinking about that this morning.
You have – what I at this point – would call “A Familiar Friend”
In your case – your “Familiar Friend” is a self-image – which you’ve created.
And the urgency to tell people up front – is part of establishing and maintaining that image.
And probably for the same basic needs out of which a child will create a “Familiar Friend”.
The “Familiar Friend” serves a need for something within the child’s life – which the child would otherwise would not have.
A2A,
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for 1saved to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
I might be open to it. Forgive my reluctance, I tend to like to know reasoning behind such requests…what reasons were given?
Thanks A2A
The reason – is to see how relational a user is willing to be – as a professing believer.
My name is Kurt. While a believer, I am also a little paranoid and guarded at privacy when it comes to online, but I love the work and ministry Dr. Flowers is doing here, so I’ll stick my neck out a little!
Do I need to include my name each post or just this time for introductions?
Thanks Kurt!
SOT101 is asking if you are ok using your first name in all of your posts.
So where you might have A2A within a post – which indicates your statement within that post – you would instead use Kurt.
Are you comfortable with that?
Part of why I am using a handle is I am personally going through some spiritual abuse, from some reformed people, who have both belittled me on my opposition to Calvinism and are condemning me on the remarriage I am about to enter into this year. While I doubt they would frequent this site, they have also done private research on me, digging into my divorce dates etc…in a very intrusive manner without my permission. (Hence my recent deep study into divorce).
I am certain if they found what I was posting here was me, they would use it all as ammo to try and sabotage my relationship. I know it is a long-shot, but I do hope the Admin here would understand and show compassion in this matter. Do let me know.
br.d
I understand!
If that is the case – perhaps it would be best for now – for you to discontinue participation at SOT101?
Not because there is anything in particular having to do with you
But simply because they would prefer the use of first names – and because of the sensitivity of your current circumstances – that might not be best wisdom at this point in time?
If he puts her away it CAUSES her to commit adultery. Why might this be? Well, she is kicked out of where she has been living and being taken care of. She has no other means of caring for herself, and so goes with another man while still married. Jesus isn’t saying putting her away makes her GUILTY of adultery, but that it CAUSES her to commit adultery (eventually and for lack of options). Also, whatever man goes with her (because she is still married) ALSO commits adultery. Don’t put your wife away, try to work it out, or divorce her is the lesson here.
The point that seems to be not understood in this conversation is that the act of putting an adulterous wife away is actually an act of mercy. She cannot be granted a divorce, which would assert her sexual purity. This concept is reflected in Joseph’s intention of putting away Mary, who he initially assumed had been adulterous, rather than having her stoned. A ‘put away’ wife, technically, was a wife who was indeed adulterous, but whose husband mercifully spared her life. Obviously an unfaithful wife who was stoned, as per the Law, could not be put away or remarry. It was only the unfaithful wife who was not stoned who could legally be ‘put away’. She was already an adulteress, and any man who married her would know this. She had already broken the covenant of marriage, and as far as her husband was concerned, she was as good as dead. He was no longer legally bound to her.
The issue was that this process was being abused. Men were ‘putting away’ wives who were not adulteresses, and not granting them the proper papers of divorce so that they could legally remarry, as per the Law. In other words, men who were wanting to end their marriages for reasons other than unfaithfulness on the part of their wives were wrongly treating their wives as if they had been unfaithful, leaving them under that false condemnation, as well as almost ensuring that they did indeed become adulteresses, as harlotry was their only alternative role in life, unless a father was willing to endure the shame of taking in his guilty daughter.
A put away wife, technically, was an unfaithful wife who had been spared the death penalty. No other situation allowed for ‘putting away’, which was essentially a picture of God’s grace. All knew that she was guilty, and her husband would likely be admired for being so ‘gracious’ as to spare her life. The hypocritical Pharisees were putting away innocent wives, for reasons other than unfaithfulness, and not granting them the divorces required by the Law of Moses (given by God), all so that they would preserve their reputation (of not frivolously divorcing their wives) and even falsely appear pious. The women were helpless, unless a man who believed in their innocence – probably by knowing the character of their husbands – and married them, making them both technically guilty of adultery.
Jesus correctly stated that God did not ever desire divorce (I mean He would know, right?), but allowed it out of his heart of compassion. Just as God did not really desire sacrifice, but the hard (sinful) heart of man made it a necessity. It is utterly unlike God to condemn any person to a lifetime of marriage in which they are not loved. This is the enormous and gross mischaracterization that has long been caused by the institutional Church’s faulty interpretation of Jesus’ words concerning divorce. Countless men and women have been deeply wounded by the false idea that God would have them remain in bondage in an abusive or loveless (which inevitably becomes at least emotionally abusive) marriage. It is only when we do not understand the heart of God, the purpose of the Law, what ‘putting away’ meant and what divorce meant that the statements of Jesus are misunderstood, to great harm.
When we remember that God’s heart is always one of love and compassion we will be encouraged to study until confusing – and misinterpreted – passages of scripture make sense.
TS00,
If only the Catholics would have had all of our conversations in this matter, it would have saved a lot of heartache down the line when Protestants defected the Catholic church.
I once heard a Catholic joke, to where a pope died, got to the pearly gates, met Peter, and that this pope was granted his desire to go to the heavenly library. He spent a lot of time there, and one day he bursts out laughing uncontrollably.
Peter asks why he is laughing, and the pope said, “The word was CELEBRATE, not CELIBATE.”
Ed Chapman
TS00,
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was made null and void by Christ. He reinstated God’s law on marriage at creation (Matthew 19:4-6).
Do you adhere to Deuteronomy 24:5 ?
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. ESV
Perhaps you will answer my question asked of others here.
How many times can a husband divorce his wife and remarry if he provides a certificate of divorce each time?
1saved
Jesus didn’t state He was reinstating the original intent. Gods original intent was a perfect world without sin, did He reinstate that?
Ed did answer that question about how many marriages. As many as it takes.
A2A,
You wrote:
“Jesus didn’t state He was reinstating the original intent. Gods original intent was a perfect world without sin, did He reinstate that?”
First, I said He reinstated the original doctrine on marriage – not His original intent. If you are going to question what someone has said, quote them correctly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Luke 6:31
Second, God called His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31) – not “perfect” and perfect doesn’t mean without sin anyway. Jesus hasn’t yet reinstated that.
Where there is no law, there is no sin. The only sin Adam and Eve could commit was to eat the forbidden fruit, because that was the only law they were given.
Having eaten the forbidden fruit their minds were filled with the entire law (knowledge of all good/right and evil/wrong).
They were banished from the garden so they couldn’t eat from the Tree of Life and each was punished. Adam would have to work hard to eat and Eve would have painful childbirth, want to dominate her husband, but he would lord over her.
They couldn’t keep every aspect of the law, so they sinned. We are all sinners in need of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
1saved
Please point to me where it says He was reinstating anything. It doesn’t say that. Anywhere. You are reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.
A2A,
Please point to me where it says He was reinstating anything. It doesn’t say that. Anywhere. You are reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.
Definition of reinstate:
re·in·state
/ˌrēinˈstāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.
Merriam-Webster
transitive verb
1: to place again (as in possession or in a former position)
2: to restore to a previous effective state
3 And there came unto him [a]Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, [b]that he who [c]made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, [d]For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, [e]Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. Matthew 19:3-8 ASV
2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, [a]What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, [b]and shall cleave to his wife; 8 and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:2-9 ASV
Simply there twice for all to see.
1saved
Right. I know the verses and have a Bible. Nowhere does it say He is reinstating anything. He explained how things were before hearts were hardened. Do we not still have the problem of hardened hearts?
And still, He is talking about putting away, NOT divorce. The word for put asunder in the Greek is chorizo, which means to send away, to separate. It isn’t a word used anywhere to describe divorce, which DOES HAVE specific words!
Again, even today, someone says we’re separated or “we’re divorced” the 2 things mean something very different!
A2A,
You wrote, “He explained how things were before hearts were hardened. Do we not still have the problem of hardened hearts?”
Reply:
Yes, many still have hard hearts. We also have the problem of blind guides leading the blind. We have the problem of false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing. We have the problem of tares growing up amongst the wheat – none of which is germane here.
We did not have those problems at creation when God made them male and female (Genesis 1:27).
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:22-24 NIV
No longer two, but one flesh. Inseparable by putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
1saved
Again, it doesn’t state THE CONCLUSION you came to. Yes, they cleave to each other and become one flesh. The question is, what does that mean?
When someone “joins” with a harlot, they become one flesh. When Isaac took Rebekah into a tent, they became married. Sex and marriage are very closely related, so much so that they are often recognized as the same thing. When Abraham went into Hagar she became his “wife”.
A2A,
You wrote, “Again, it doesn’t state THE CONCLUSION you came to. Yes, they cleave to each other and become one flesh. The question is, what does that mean?”
Reply:
If God joined them together in marriage they are not to be separated by anyone (Matthew 19:6).
You wrote, “When someone “joins” with a harlot, they become one flesh.” True, but God didn’t join them together.
You wrote, “When Isaac took Rebekah into a tent, they became married.” Didn’t God join them together?
1saved
Now you are getting it! Did God join 2 satanists together? Did God join a man who beats his wife every day together? Did he join together a drug addict who abandons his wife? Why are we assuming every marriage is one God joined together?
Even so, it uses the word separate. While married, do not separate. There is a covenant together. Honor the covenant while in it. If you can’t, sever the covenant.
A2A,
You wrote, “Now you are getting it! Did God join 2 satanists together? Did God join a man who beats his wife every day together? Did he join together a drug addict who abandons his wife? Why are we assuming every marriage is one God joined together?
Even so, it uses the word separate. While married, do not separate. There is a covenant together. Honor the covenant while in it. If you can’t, sever the covenant.
Reply:
Look who’s leap-frogging now Br.d. I never assumed every marriage is one God joined together. Do you think the pronoun “we” above applies to A2A, Ed Chapman, TS00, etc? It definitely doesn’t apply to me.
Note: A2A’s comments above are from the same A2A who previously admitted he could absolutely be wrong on the subject, while at the same time claiming the doctrine came from the Lord.
1saved
Look who’s leap-frogging now Br.d.
I never assumed …….xyz
br.d
What I see here is A2A asking a question.
When Person_A asks a question about Person_B’s position on [X]
Person_A is trying to discover Person_B’s position on [X]
That is the opposite of assuming Person_B’s position on [X]
Yes, admitting one could be wrong on a subject I believe is an act of humility, as opposed to claiming to be a final authority on truth. I’ve researched and have backed my research with reasoning, but I am always open to being mistaken so that I may grow in knowledge.
I found I was mistaken on this divorce issue BEFORE I prayed, sought and studied where I used to hold Aidan’s position.
br.d
A little note here
Just as a person can be self-deceived about a certain doctrinal issue – that person can just as easily be self-deceived when they -quote “Seek the Lord for an answer – and in faith the Lord will give that answer”
History shows us clearly that believers can be deceived about what they believe the Lord is giving them, showing them, or doing within them.
The critical issue is human PERCEPTION and the inability to be self-discerning concerning the secret places of the heart.
The heart is deceitfully wicked – who can know it?
A believer – such as 1saved – can have the PERCEPTION that he is going to the Lord in faith – with the full expectation that because his faith met some specified criteria – the Lord will bypass his human free-will and sovereignly implant spiritual discernment (i.e. SOME TRUTH) into his brain.
This is a deception in and of itself – about how the Holy Spirit works.
A counterfeit spirit will TAKE OVER a faculty of the individual.
The Holy Spirit will never do such a thing.
We have for example – believers within the charismatic movement – who have done exactly what 1saved states.
They have gone to the Lord in faith – and asked the Lord for spiritual gifts or manifestations.
And as far as their PERCEPTION is concerned – they have meet the proper criteria for faith just as 1saved assumes.
In the process – they have been influenced and used by counterfeit spirits because they did not rightly understand the the difference between the way the Holy Spirit works – and the way a counterfeit spirit works.
The net result – is that we have believers walking around having spastic body movements which they cannot control – believing they received that manifestation from God himself – because they went to God in faith.
We have believers crawling around on floors like snakes during church meetings – believing they received that manifestation by God himself – because they went to God in faith.
1saved may have the PERCEPTION that he met some special criteria of going to God in faith.
And with that belief that he received some kind of special gift from God
When in fact – all he did was deceive himself – because he was not self-discerning enough to realize he was seeking God out of a LUST for self-promotion – rather than for Godly reasons.
Well said!
This is why I believe in running interpretations through unchanging, unbiased FILTERS to see if said interpretation is accurate.
Logic, reason, what the interpretation does to God’s character, if an interpretation creates a contradiction with other scripture, IT ALL helps us get closer to the truth if it passes those tests!
br.d
Yes exactly!
And that is the way TRUE scholarship is designed to work.
For example – F.F. Bruce was considered one of the top 10 leading scholars of the twentieth century.
He had his own personal beliefs and ways of interpreting scripture.
But as a teacher and scholar – he did not promote himself.
As a teacher and scholar – his duty was to provide all of the possible exegetical, hermetical, etc options – and give people absolute freedom to make up their own minds about which option provided the best possible understanding.
That is the sign of a true scholar!
Anyone who runs around trying to convince people he has some special divine gift or understanding – would be considered a child playing power games – assuming himself to be something he isn’t.
And would never be considered trust-worthy.
We often bump into believers who posture speaking with authority – and do not have much good to say about scholarship.
The reason they are doing that – is because they know they don’t qualify to sit at the table of scholarship – because it requires a discipline and a price they were not willing to pay.
A2A,
You wrote:
“This is why I believe in running interpretations through unchanging, unbiased FILTERS to see if said interpretation is accurate.
Logic, reason, what the interpretation does to God’s character, if an interpretation creates a contradiction with other scripture, IT ALL helps us get closer to the truth if it passes those tests!”
Reply:
That is what the noble Bereans did. They searched the Scriptures to determine whether a professed doctrine was true.
Acts 17:11
I suggested you search the Scriptures for the meaning of “perfect” using biblegateway.com You may be enlightened by the result.
1 saved
You might not realize it, but it comes off as very condescending to present commonly known biblical examples (like the Bereans) as if the other person isn’t aware of it. Yes, I know the Bereans, I admire their example and practice it.
I am also aware of biblegateway, got questions etc…anyone who has ever googled knows these tools. I don’t stop at ONE of them as a final authority, but cross reference several of them, opposing interpretations, read myself AND talk to several pastors for their interpretations too before I come to a conclusion.
Kurt, I’m guessing you have heard these interpretations before. But here is mine. If your divorced wife is not yet remarried, she is still your wife in God’s eyes. I hope you’ll have confidence from God for the next right thing to do!
Divorce & Remarriage
In brief, though not dogmatically, I hold adultery and divorce do not break the marriage bond in God’s eyes by themselves. Death breaks that bond, and so does divorce and remarriage together break that bond in God’s eyes. The first person to remarry after a divorce for whatever reason commits adultery in forming that new marriage. The other former spouse, after their divorced spouse remarries, is now no longer a “spouse” and is therefore free to marry, in the Lord.
Matthew 19:5-6 NKJV — “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Romans 7:2 NKJV — For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Mark 10:11 NKJV — So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”
1 Corinthians 7:27-28 NKJV — Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned…
John 4:17-18 NKJV — The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Also … God’s forbidding returning to the first husband after the death of the second (Deut 24) indicates the first bond was broken in God’s eyes. And the implied meaning in Jesus’ command – “let not man put asunder” doesn’t seem to imply death but something else ending the bond and is clearly a disobedient act..
The bond is what God makes and does not need a legal or social or ecclesiastical confirmation to make it real. Divorce only breaks the legal confirmation of that bond, but not the bond itself.
Divorce and Remarriage breaks the bond of the first marriage and starts a new real bond in God’s eyes, but not because of a wedding or license. There must be a life commitment and consummation of the second marriage.
Brian,
Romans 7:2 is missing verse 1 where it states, “(for I speak to them that know the law,)”. Paul is taking you back to Deu 24:1-4, which covers a lot more than just death. Divorce was allowed.
And since it was, God did not kick anyone out of Judaism if they divorced, or remarried. They were not “cut off from their people”.
So, what you are concluding is that the Jews can divorce and remarry, but Christians can’t. Hmmm…
Ed Chapman
Actually, Ed, I’m saying that getting remarried after divorce is an act of adultery, but it ends the first bond and starts a new marriage bond.
Brian,
I know what you are saying, but it does not support Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The Law of Moses is God’s law, not an invention of Moses.
A twice divorced woman is mentioned, meaning that she was remarried at least once. And her remarriage was not considered adultery.
If it is, she is to be killed.
Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Adultery has consequences under the law of Moses. Death, not remarriage. And yet, GOD allowed for divorce and remarriage…not Moses!
So, are you saying that God allowed for adultery? I don’t think so!
Ed Chapman
Also Deut. 24:5 Instructs what a man is to do when taking a “new” wife. This is a continuation of the thought from 24:1 where it says when a man hath taken a wife (but leaves out new). If this was adultery…well he wouldn’t have to do anything because he’d be stoned to death!
Why did Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, yet told nothing to the woman at the well (regarding her sin) with 5 past husbands and presumably working on her 6th? Not a peep. What a great opportunity to teach us all though! He could have said, “I forgive you if your sins. Do not marry this 6th man, as it would be adultery”. But He did NOT say that. Sometimes what Jesus DIDN’T say are things that we can also learn from.
Ed, In the OT, did God allow for murder to go on without civil punishment if there was only one witness? God allowed many sins to go on without civil punishment. Divorce by itself is such a sin. God hates it. Every sin is worthy of death. Right? Remarriage is an act of adultery by the first one who does so after a divorce. But it does form a legitimate new marriage, imo.
Brian,
Ya, I know about witnesses. It goes way back. Deu 19:15 is before 24:1-4. So what’s your point? I don’t see anything that states that divorce is a sin. You can’t make sin up. The law begins with the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, and there are 613 commandments. Which one are you discussing? #343, or #22, or #605 or choose another number? But which? Book, Chapter, verse please. The law is not in Genesis, or the first 19 chapters of Exodus either.
Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Why do you think that David and Bathsheba wasn’t killed for their indiscretion?
I’ve never read anywhere in the law of Moses that divorce is a sin.
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Please show me where divorce is a sin in the law of Moses?
Ed Chapman
Brian,
You had said:
“Every sin is worthy of death. Right?”
My response:
NO. That is not right. Years ago, I made a list of every sin that falls under capital punishment, and the means by which that death would occur, aka stoning, etc.
Not ever sin is worthy of death.
Ed Chapman
Malachi 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
That is KJV. NKJV says what in place of putting away? Divorce.
What is the Hebrew word here? Shalach. What is the Hebrew word for divorce? Keriythuth. As seen in:
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Put her away (shalach) AND gave her a bill of divorcement (keriythuth). 2 different words, 2 different concepts. Which one does God hate? Shalach, according to the verse from Malachi you referred to.
This is present through all the relevant scriptures on this topic, both OT and NT.
Hello Brian, thank you for the response and the verses. I have read and deeply studied these verses, including the Greek of these words. The NKJV mistranslates these verses, while the KJV more accurately translates them (one mistake in Matthew 5:32).
Put away and divorce are 2 different words and concepts. Hebrew shalach (put away) and keriythuth (divorce). Greek apuolo(put away) and apostation (divorce). Putting away is separation. Much like today, separated and divorced are different things (even in court!).
Jesus only condemns and forbids putting away. He never uses the word for divorce and He could have if that was his intent.
Mark 10 in NKJV uses the word divorce, but in KJV it is put away, which translates better from the Greek word apuolo.
Romans 7 a woman who HAS a husband. A divorced woman doesn’t have a husband. This is clarified by the next verse you listed in John 4, where Jesus says “have had 5 husbands”. Have had is past tense, where as has is present tense in Romans 7. Notice Jesus doesn’t say anything to this woman about her “sin”. He does to the paralytic man (Your sins are forgiven) and to the adulteress (Go and sin no more) yet says nothing to the Samaritan woman at the well who had 5 husbands.
Did all 5 of her husbands die? Unlikely. Did they put her away without giving a writing of divorcement? Possible, but Jesus says nothing correcting her or forgiving her for those actions. Most likely she had been divorced by her husbands.
1 Corinthians 7:27-28 clarifies all of this. If you are loosed from a wife (divorced) and remarry you have not sinned. Well, adultery IS a sin. What is adultery? A married person engaging in sexual immorality or marriage with someone who isn’t their spouse. Since someone loosed (divorced) from their spouse is NOT married, they haven’t sinned if they marry another. Very clear. If Jesus was talking about divorced people in Matthew 19:9, then Paul would be contradicting Jesus here. Jesus was talking about someone who separates from their wife WITHOUT divorcing her and then marrying another.
Oh, and the Deut. 24 verse you were referring to is 24:3 which doesn’t say if her second husband does, but if he hates her and gives her a bill of divorcement she can’t go and marry the first husband who divorced her (but can marry someone else is implied).
Kurt,
Yes! If only people would see Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and read it slowly.
There, we have ONE WOMAN being discussed as THE “example”.
Notice how many times that ONE woman in the EXAMPLE got divorced?
Twice. Once in verse 1, and another time in verse 3. Same woman!
Imagine that ONE woman, after the 2nd divorce, crying out to God, saying, “No man wants me, I want a husband”, and God states back at her, “TOO LATE! YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE, YOU BLEW IT, LIVE THE REST OF YOUR DAYS ALL ALONE!, SUCKS BEING YOU!” All because the husband didn’t like her very much.
Ed Chapman
That is the biggest tragedy in these mainstream interpretations. It really damages the image of God. So much so that a lost person I know who heard this “no remarriage” interpretation said they could never believe in such a cold and unforgiving “god” like that. I agree with them. I don’t believe in a “god” like that either. I believe in the God the Bible describes, Who literally IS love. Who is kind, patient, rich in mercy and forgiveness, Who wants the best for us.
The God you just described, in my humble opinion, does not exist.
Totally agree!
Ed
Kurt,
Keep in mind, some are Baptists here, so you are going to get push-back. It’s generally the Baptist church’s that SHARE with the Calvinists. So their views are going to be LIKE the Catholics in many regards.
One of the first things I learned when looking at religion was how much many hated Ronald Reagan when I was in the service, and I was like, “WHAT”?
It was the squeeky clean, but terrible president, Jimmy Carter they loved…cuz he was a baptist, a southern one at that.
But Reagan, who got Gorby to TEAR DOWN THAT WALL…he was public enemy #1.
Oh, and don’t offer a Baptist a White Russian at the Casino!! LOL.
Ed Chapman
That’s so interesting Ed, because I identify very closely as a Baptist and go to a Baptist church, and have had a very different experience with their beliefs and teachings. I go to an independent Baptist church, which is wildly different than a Baptist church in the SBC. Reformed Baptist is different than independent Baptist, though some independent are reformed.
The big thing with independent being different is they are privately funded and run, independent of any organization (like the SBC) who tells them the doctrine they must follow. Nuance, but important. I wondered why people had such weird stories about Baptists and why it was so much different than my experience!
My Church has been supportive of mine and other members remarriages.
I am a Navy vet as well!
Ohhhh…Independent Baptist! That’s good, cuz if you look at our US History, Baptists contributed a LOT to our nation, and I always had respect for the Baptists in that regard for that. It’s unfortunate regarding the SBC, and what many call “EVANGELICALS”. That capped word puts a sour taste in my mouth. Many in the EVANGELICAL SBC world, I’ve read some mean stuff regarding our country, and the flag.
Yep, I served under Reagan to 2nd Bush, from Yokosuka, Japan (Midway), to Bremerton (Nimitz), to Bangor Sub base, to Norfolk (Enterprise) to San Diego (John C Stennis)! Good times!
Ed
Thank you, Kurt, for your reply. You haven’t changed my mind. 😉 Legal divorce doesn’t end the marriage in God’s eyes, imo. Imo, if your wife has not remarried, you are still bound to her in God’s eyes. And what God has joined together, don’t put asunder. I wish you the best in your desire to be a good testimony for Jesus!
While very few people will change their mind on this issue, here are some questions and thoughts to consider as to why it might warrant more looking into:
What are the origins of the “no remarriage” doctrine? (Hint: Commonly held among Catholics and Calvinists)
1 Timothy 4:3 defines forbidding to marry as a doctrine of devils. Are we absolutely sure this only means those who have never been married and those whose husbands have died? If someone started teaching that single people or widowed people can’t get married, would enough people really fall for that? Just ponder it.
Spiritual abuse is a very real problem in our Churches and in the Body. Guess who are common victims of it? Divorced people.
What does it say about the Character of God? Say you are witnessing to a lost person who is divorced. Will you tell them God now forbids them to ever remarry? They had their chance, now they must be alone for life? Will this “truth” about God draw people to Him, or push them away?
Involving ministries that houses battered, abandoned and abused women and their children, restoring them, sheltering them, giving them training and teaching them about Christ: In that teaching them about God, are we to tell these women that their first abusive, horrible, traumatizing marriage was one God joined together, that they shouldn’t have fled from, and that they will never have a chance at real Godly love from a good man who will treat them well?
Brian, sincerely, these are questions worth pondering. If they disrupt your conscience at all, and it’s truly ok if they do, it does for most people, then maybe, just maybe, it is a sign that we have perhaps misunderstood something about God’s word, and there are alternate interpretations that help make sense of it.
Much like the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. The Calvinists cling tightly to it, as it is how they have always understood it and been taught it. It is a foundation of their theology. There are alternative interpretations that get rid of all those things it does to God’s character (damning people to hell before the foundation and there is nothing they can do to change it).
Outside of that, no qualms about the disagreement. I don’t mind when there are disagreements, I just do like to hear reasons for the disagreement. I provided information about Greek and Hebrew words that most people weren’t aware of. What about those definitions did you find to be inaccurate?
Brian,
Thank you for your exegesis of the doctrine on divorce and remarriage.
According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, the things of God are to be spiritually discerned
Discernment isn’t researching the scriptures, studying etymology nor studying the writings of various theologians.
Discernment is given by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit as a result from persevering through trials of faith (James 1:4). This process is called perfecting the saints. God also gives the gift of discernment to those He chooses (1 Corinthians 12:8).
That said, here’s how to first approach discerning Jesus’ teaching for Matthew 5:31-32.
31 “Now it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away is to give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who [a]divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [b]divorced woman commits adultery. NASB
(a) Matthew 5:32 Lit sends away, the Heb term for divorce
(b) Matthew 5:32 Lit woman sent away
Without studying the meanings of words “send away” or “put away” and “divorce” , nevertheless it is clear that Jesus acknowledged Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24) and He states His teaching is different from it. This is later confirmed, because the Pharisees came to Him in order to test Him (Matthew 19:3).
Again the meanings words “send away” or “put away” and “divorce” are debatable. What isn’t debatable is that Christ told them the Mosaic law was not God’s original intent. It was permitted only because the Jews had hard hearts.
3 Some Pharisees came to [b]Jesus, testing Him and [c]asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [d]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [e]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. Matthew 19:3-8 NASB
Matthew 19:9 is a problem, because there are ancient manuscripts which differ in what they say. The ASV, RSV and NASB have the other passage in their footnotes and it is the same as Matthew 5:32
The KJV has “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Resolving this conflict is by discernment. Which ancient manuscript is genuine? Were words added to make it the same as Matthew 5:32 or were words omitted to make the KJV verse? Determining which is true and which is false is by discernment.
What is said next is the key in my opinion.
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
Discernment tells me His disciples understood what Jesus meant. His teaching was different from Mosaic law and so strict that no man should get married. They understood that Jesus returned marriage doctrine back to the time of creation – two becoming one flesh – inseparable until death.
Give unto God the things of God {Mark 12:17). Therefore, legislators, judges and lawyers have no jurisdiction in this matter. They cannot make no-fault divorce legal. They can provide terms of separation (alimony) from abandonment, mandate child support and oversee property settlements to protect innocent wives and children.
Arguing over words “send away” or “put away” and “divorce” with or without a certificate of divorce is to obfuscate His teaching on divorce and remarriage.
George
Thank you George for your thoughtful response. Can you “discern” that the disciples’ reaction, which you mentioned, might be no proof that marriage is insoluble until death?
Since when should we trust the naive disciples’ reactions to Jesus’ words as helpful for understanding?
Can you “discern” that Jesus’ command, “What God has joined together, let no man separate,” would probably not mean, “Don’t kill your spouse”, but must infer the bond God created can be separated some other way?
Brian,
Thank you for asking, “Thank you George for your thoughtful response. Can you “discern” that the disciples’ reaction, which you mentioned, might be no proof that marriage is insoluble until death?
Since when should we trust the naive disciples’ reactions to Jesus’ words as helpful for understanding?”
I don’t need to discern to answer your question, since Jesus agreed with His disciples by what He said next.
11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 9:11-12 NASB
You also asked:
Can you “discern” that Jesus’ command, “What God has joined together, let no man separate,” would probably not mean, “Don’t kill your spouse”, but must infer the bond God created can be separated some other way?
My reply:
Separated by divorce due to the wife repeatedly being sexual immoral in which case the husband isn’t responsible for causing his wife to commit adultery. Separated by abandonment as stated earlier. Separated by mutual consent with anticipated reconciliation.
In no case can the man divorce his wife and marry another (Luke 16:18). In no case can a woman divorce her husband and marry another (Mark 10:11). In no case can a man marry a divorced woman (Matthew 5:32b and Mark 10:12).
This is not to say a man and woman cannot live together without being married (joined together by God)..
Earlier you wrote, “John 4:17-18 NKJV — The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Can you discern the woman had been widowed five times and the man she was living with was not interested in marrying her, perhaps being superstitious? Can you discern Jesus was not condemning her for this arrangement?
Note: The widowed woman perceived (discerned) Jesus was a prophet (verse 19) and added, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and yet you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” John 4:20 NASB
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs nor cast pearls before swine…” If the woman had done anything wrong, Jesus would not have revealed the following to her:
21 Jesus *said to her, “Believe Me, woman, that [f]a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews. 23 But [g]a time is coming, and [h]even now has arrived, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be [i]His worshipers. 24 God is [j]spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman *said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” 26 Jesus *said to her, “I am He, the One speaking to you.” John 4:21-26 NASB
Ask yourself, “Would Jesus tell a sinful woman He is the Christ after telling His disciples to not tell anyone the same thing?”
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 29 And He continued questioning them: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and *said to Him, “You are the [o]Christ.” 30 And He [p]warned them to tell no one about Him. Mark 8:27-29 NASB
Yours in Christ,
George
Well it is obvious we discern things differently, George! 😉 Jesus was responding to the disciples’ statement about it being better not to marry, by affirming the legitimacy of singleness, not by teaching the indissoluability of marriage. Man can put marriage assunder, and it takes more “discernment” than I have to think all five husbands of the Samaritan woman died, and less “discernment” to believe the fifth one had since remarried, after their divorce.
And I see harmful “discernment” in suggesting Jesus was condoning living together outside of marriage. This woman and her town folk “discerned” her own bad reputation better than you seem to be able to. She was definitely now unmarried, the former bond made by God between her and her fifth husband was now broken. On that we can agree. I have nothing more to add. Thanks for the interaction.
Brian,
You wrote, “This woman and her town folk “discerned” her own bad reputation better than you seem to be able to.”
My reply:
If what you say is true, why did the townspeople follow her out to meet the Lord?
27 Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” 28 So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, 29 “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” 30 They went out of the town and were coming to him. John 4:27-30 ESV
39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” John 4:39-42 ESV
Yours in Christ,
George
George, I really have nothing more to add. Didn’t you discern that? And you should be able to discern the easy answer why the town went out to Jesus? Enjoy the rest of your evening.
Discernment should tell you the definitions of words DO matter. Example.
When I worked in prison.
When I was in prison.
The first sentence is taken very different than the second one, because worked and was are different words with different meanings. Even punctuation can drastically change meaning of a sentence without changing any words.
Let’s eat kids!
Let’s eat, kids!
It is absolutely astounding to me that someone could ignore the importance of the definitions of words. We could make anything mean whatever we want if words don’t have set meanings.
Calvinists do this. World doesn’t mean everyone, all doesn’t mean all.
Kurt,
Your earlier words, “You might not realize it, but it comes off as very condescending to present commonly known biblical examples (like the Bereans) as if the other person isn’t aware of it. Yes, I know the Bereans, I admire their example and practice it.
I am also aware of biblegateway, got questions etc…anyone who has ever googled knows these tools. I don’t stop at ONE of them as a final authority, but cross reference several of them, opposing interpretations, read myself AND talk to several pastors for their interpretations too before I come to a conclusion.
My reply:
Definition of condescending: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others.
Patronizing can mean “giving support to” or “being a customer of,” suggesting that the “condescending” sense implies superiority gained through a donor-dependent relationship. The verb condescend used to be free of any hint of the offensive superiority it usually suggests today.
I’m not sure which “condescending” definition you mean, if you are implying malice – I have none toward you. I see you as blind to the truth and sometimes the blind resent offers of help – even from well meaning Samaritans.
I’m trying to help you understand the meaning of “perfect” in Scripture by telling you the Bereans searched the scriptures and advised you use biblegateway as a tool instead of having to laboriously search all the Bible.
Your current words, “Discernment should tell you the definitions of words DO matter. Example.
When I worked in prison.
When I was in prison.
The first sentence is taken very different than the second one, because worked and was are different words with different meanings. Even punctuation can drastically change meaning of a sentence without changing any words.
Let’s eat kids!
Let’s eat, kids!
It is absolutely astounding to me that someone could ignore the importance of the definitions of words. We could make anything mean whatever we want if words don’t have set meanings.
My reply
In this case the meaning of “put away, send away and divorce” with or without a certificate of divorcement don’t matter, since the two shall become one; inseparable until death. Stop trying to obfuscate things that are clearly stated.
As to your statement, “It is absolutely astounding to me that someone could ignore the importance of the definitions of words. We could make anything mean whatever we want if words don’t have set meanings”.
I believe you are leap-frogging to conclusions again.
Br.d, is Kurt leap-frogging or not?
George
.
George
Br.d, is Kurt leap-frogging or not?
br.d
The issue of leap-frogging into poorly thought-out conclusions is only relevant to the claim of an (above normal) discernment.
The reason it is relevant to that claim – is because leap-frogging into a poorly thought-out conclusion – serves as a clear refutation of the claim.
Here is a different example:
A person in an exercise gym claims God has given him a gift that allows him to lift a 5000 pound weight over his head
People in the gym who hear him make that claim – are interested in seeing if this claim bears itself out.
So they keep an eye out for his activities to see if in fact he does lift 5000 pound weight over his head.
Instead what they see is him struggling to lift 50 pounds over his head
The fact that he struggles lifting 50 pounds over his head is a clear refutation that his claim is false
If he is struggling with 50 pounds – how in the world is he going to lift 5000 pounds!
Hence – every time you manifest struggling with little forms of rational reasoning – such as leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions – serve as clear refutations of the claim of having a gift of discernment.
In the example above – the fact that other people in the gym might struggle lifting a 50 pound weight has no relevance to the issue – because they never claimed to have an above normal ability.
This question to me – serves as another indicator.
It shouldn’t be that difficult to for a person with normal rational reasoning to figure out.
This is not intended to be a criticism or a dig
Just to simply speak the truth in love.
Br.d,
You wrote, “The issue of leap-frogging into poorly thought-out conclusions is only relevant to the claim of an (above normal) discernment.”
Reply:
Can you please provide a citation of authority for the statement you made?
I’m asking this, because deductive reasoning is parallel to discernment.
Google search says:
“Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as top-down logic. Deductive reasoning relies on making logical premises and basing a conclusion around those premises.”
According to Thesareus.com
‘Discern and deduce are semantically related In some cases you can use “Discern” instead a verb “Deduce”‘
According to wikipedia.com:
“Discernment is the ability to obtain sharp perceptions or to judge well (or the activity of so doing).[1] In the case of judgement, discernment can be psychological, moral or aesthetic in nature.[2] Discernment has also been defined in the contexts; scientific (that is discerning what is true about the real world),[3] normative (discerning value including what ought to be)[4] and formal (deductive reasoning). The process of discernment within judgment, involves going past the mere perception of something and making nuanced judgments about its properties or qualities.[4] Discernment in the Christian religion is considered as a virtue, a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom, and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter often overlooked by others.[5]”
George
George
Can you please provide a citation of authority for the statement you made?
br.d
The example I provided should serve as conclusive evidence.
I am reminded of the verse: If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?
Lets say a person claims God has given him a gift that allows him to run with the horses
But the fact is – he becomes weary trying to keep up with the footmen.
This is a different example from the gym example I provided – but the same principle.
Discernment entails the ability to rightly differentiate [X] from [Y]
A poorly thought out conclusion is a clear indicator of the inability to make such differentiations.
Many of your responses within posts here serve as consistent examples of the inability to differentiate things.
Consequently – the majority of your posts – served as continued refutations of the claim of having an above normal degree of discernment.
Especially when differentiations which you struggle discerning are discerned by other people who do not claim to have above normal discernment.
That is one of the reasons why I was waiting to see how other responded to you – and whether or not they would decide to give up having dialogs with you. I was waiting to see confirmations from others of what I myself observe.
Let everything be confirmed in the mouth of two or three witness is wonderful wisdom.
Br.d,
Previously you wrote:
“The issue of leap-frogging into poorly thought-out conclusions is only relevant to the claim of an (above normal) discernment.
“The reason it is relevant to that claim – is because leap-frogging into a poorly thought-out conclusion – serves as a clear refutation of the claim. Here is a different example:
A person in an exercise gym claims God has given him a gift that allows him to lift a 5000 pound weight over his head…”
You now write, “The example I provided should serve as conclusive evidence.”
Reply:
Don’t you need to prove the conclusion is false, before you claim the conclusion is poorly thought-out? Don’t you need to search the scriptures, like the noble Bereans did, to determine whether a claim is true or not?
Suppose the person in the gym, lifted the 5000 lb. weight over his head, that still wouldn’t prove to me that he received his strength from God unless Scripture cited a example of God giving such a gift.
gotquestions.org gives this account:
“What was the source of Samson’s strength?:
In Judges 13:5 an angel gives a promise and command to Manoah’s wife: “You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” Her son was Samson. As an adult, Samson’s strength allowed him to tear apart a lion with his bare hands and to defeat many Philistines with supernatural acts of strength.
The Philistines, of course, saw Samson as their mortal enemy. In an attempt to defeat him, some of the Philistine leaders plotted with a woman named Delilah to discover the source of his strength. They said to her, “See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how we can overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you eleven hundred shekels of silver” (Judges 16:5).
Delilah tried three times to pry from Samson the secret of his strength. Three times she failed, as Samson misled her with various stories. Then we read, “With such nagging she prodded him day after day until he was sick to death of it. So he told her everything. ‘No razor has ever been used on my head,’ he said, ‘because I have been a Nazirite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man’” (Judges 16:16–17).
Verse 19 records Samson’s defeat: “After putting him to sleep on her lap, she called for someone to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him. And his strength left him.” The Philistines, who had been waiting to pounce, bound Samson, gouged out his eyes, and put him in prison where he was forced to work at a mill (Judges 16:21).
After a time, the Philistines chose to bring Samson out of prison to make sport of him. He was brought into the arena during a festival where about 3,000 men and women were in attendance (Judges 16:27). Samson rested against the pillars and prayed for God to give him strength one more time to defeat the Philistines.
God answered his prayer. Verse 30 notes, “Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.”
It seems as though Samson’s hair was his human source of power, but it is clear from this final event that God was the true, ultimate source of his strength. Samson’s uncut hair was simply the sign that he was obeying God’s command for him to be a Nazirite. God’s strength was the power behind each of the judges, including Samson.”
Is gotquestions.org leap-frogging their conclusion? I would say yes.
Scripture says the source of Sampson’s strength was his hair, but after having been cut, God answered his prayer for strength one more time.
Furthermore, I would say feats of strength do not prove they are derived from God.
So, no, the example you provided does not serve as conclusive evidence.
George
George
Don’t you need to prove the conclusion is false, before you claim the conclusion is poorly thought-out?
br.d
Yes
And I’ve done that on several occasions for your benefit.
Whether or not you were able to discern that – was also questionable.
In many cases – from all appearances – that was not the case.
And something tells me this conversation is probably not going to be any different
At some point – I’ll simply give up – and let God to deal with it.
But God does not force himself on us.
We have to be willing to let him touch areas in our lives he wants to touch.
He does that for out benefit
And for the benefit of others we come in contact with.
George
Furthermore, I would say feats of strength do not prove they are derived from God.
br.d
Samson would be very interested to hear that! 😀
Enough said!
Its time or me to give this one up!
The Lord knows what he is doing in your life.
br.d
George – here is another point to add to this discussion.
Lets say we have an assistant pastor within a church of 500 people.
This assistant pastor claims that God has given him a gift of preaching.
Now everyone in the congregation is going to be watching to see if in fact this is the case.
There are several sermons this assistant pastor gives which are quite good and all of the elders as well as the senior pastor are happy with his preaching.
However – when it comes to counseling and having conversations with people – everyone observes that he is not a very rational thinker. He leap-frogs into poorly thought out conclusions. Thus people notice that he lacks the ability to discern things which they themselves have the ability to discern.
What is God going to do with this assistant pastor?
Is God going to use this man in serious way?
What if his inability to reason rationally inadvertently causes damage to God’s people?
The elders and the senior pastor come to the conclusion that God needs to refine the assistant pastor a little more before he can be given any serious ministry for God’s people.
God himself would not put this assistant pastor in a position of inadvertently causing damage to his people.
He needs to spend a little more time allowing God to work on his weaknesses before he contemplates being a ministry.
It obvious he struggles running with the men
So he is not going to be able to run with the horses.
Here are some “discernments” that have been posited.
Polygamy is not a sin.
Ed sounds like a Muslim by quoting Levitical law.
It is obvious all 5 of the woman at the well’s husbands died.
Living with a woman you are not married to is permissible (though this one is arguable)
Discernment is solely achieved by reading the Bible and the Holy Spirit telling you the truth, not by reasoning and research, though Biblegateway and got questions is permissible.
Not capitalizing G in God or H in Him is reason to discredit someone’s spiritual maturity.
This appears to many to be the man struggling with the 50 pound weight. Likewise, I don’t say this mockingly or out of mean spirited criticism, just trying to show that perhaps there are some things being wrongly understood. It is ok to be mistaken. All of us have been mistaken about Bible interpretations at one point or another and learned from it.
br.d
Good morning Kurt
Can I ask you to consider the possibility that all of the points concerning this current topic have been laid out on the table – and continued dialog over the same points in all probability will be fruitless?
Br.d,
You wrote, “George – here is another point to add to this discussion.
Lets say we have an assistant pastor within a church of 500 people.
This assistant pastor claims that God has given him a gift of preaching.
Now everyone in the congregation is going to be watching to see if in fact this is the case.
There are several sermons this assistant pastor gives which are quite good and all of the elders as well as the senior pastor are happy with his preaching.”
Reply:
Someone claiming to have a spiritual gift of preaching (exhortation) would not necessarily have any other spiritual gift.
With God all things are possible, but spiritual “gift” is singular, so two spiritual gifts to the same person is cause to be circumspect.
The rest of your narrative is therefore irrelevant, since the assistant pastor has no spiritual gift to counsel, which would better fall under the gift of service and the gift of mercy.
George
br.d
George – your just going around in circles at this point – for the sake of maintaining a posture.
A continuation of this conversation between us will not benefit anyone.
Be at peace!
Br.d,
You write, “George – your just going around in circles at this point – for the sake of maintaining a posture.
A continuation of this conversation between us will not benefit anyone.”
Reply:
Does this mean I will not be hearing from the SOT101 Administrator?
George
George
Does this mean I will not be hearing from the SOT101 Administrator?
br.d
Yes – the question was whether people would be comfortable using their first names.
Kurt indicated he would
And then you later indicated you would
And then I let you know “That is sufficient for this time”
But thanks for asking
A2A, and Aidan
Exactly the point we’ve been making all along.
Under any circumstance of putting a wife away, give her that divorce decree, and everything will be fine. Except in the case of adultery. In the case of adultery, put away. Adultery is the only reason to put away without a divorce decree, and why?
Only two things here can break a contract of marriage.
1. Divorce Decree (Legal Means)
2. Adultery (Illegal Means), where justice is needed (Death Penalty)
Ed Chapman
A2A, You wrote,
“Jesus isn’t saying putting her away makes her GUILTY of adultery, but that it CAUSES her to commit adultery.”
Response:
I do understand that! Sorry for the confusion if I gave that impression. These conversations can get your head spinning at times! What Jesus forbids is divorce for ANY CAUSE, other than fornication. Certainly if the man puts her away and gives her a bill of divorce (Mt. 5:31); in other words, he divorces her for ANY CAUSE other than fornication, and she goes off and marries another, she will be called an adulteress (cf. Rom. 7:3).
Aidan
This again points to a put away wife who wasn’t divorced. The words in Matthew 5:32 are both apuolo. Apostation means divorce(word used in 5:31 for it). Jesus could have used that word in 5:32, but he doesn’t. Apuolo is used, and is a verb, not a noun or an adjective. It is used elsewhere:
Matthew 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
Send here is apuolo. Nothing to do with divorce. As far as Romans 7:3…very simple. A divorced woman does not have a husband. Romans 7:2 clarifies this by saying a woman who HAS a husband. Active word, present tense. While she is married, she is bound to that husband until he dies. If he dies she is not married. If he divorced her she isn’t bound.
Kurt (A2A),
It should be evident that a word in Greek Lexicons may have several shades of meaning, and several applications depending on the context and the subject discussed. The root is one thing, but the application of the word may be something else. Therefore there is no use in quoting passages that have nothing to do with the subject of divorce.
Here are just a few samples of what the Lexicons say about (apoluo) as it relates to divorce:
Vine says of Divorce, Divorcement:
“to let loose from, let go free” (apo, “from,” luo, “to loose”), is translated “is divorced” in the AV of Mat 5:32 (RV, “is put away”); it is further used of “divorce” in Mat 1:19; 19:3, 7-9; Mar 10:2, 4, 11; Luk 16:18. The Lord also used it of the case of a wife putting away her husband, Mar 10:12, a usage among Greeks and Romans, not among Jews.
Definition number 2 of Arndt & Gringrich is what applies to our passages. It says, “let go, send away, dismiss — a. divorce, send away… one’s wife, or betrothed.”
For the Greek word (apoluo) Thayer under definition number 4 says, “used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.”
So we can see that “apoluo” has to do with divorce in these passages. This of course was in keeping with the context of said passages where the practice was that whoever “put away” his wife, gave her a certificate of divorce” (Mt. 5:31; 19:7). Simply put, divorce is what the Jews would have understood as the context of this conversation as it related to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Pharisaic distortion of that passage.
Concerning Romans 7:2-3.
Scriptures reveal sexual unfaithfulness as the only exception which grants the innocent party THE RIGHT to marry another without being guilty of adultery. Whatever the reason here, it is clear the woman doesn’t have a right to the second marriage. The passage says she is an adulteress as long as her husband lives and she is MARRIED to another man!
Aidan
Aidan,
Did you happen to see verse 1 of Romans 7:2-3? It states, “(for I speak to them that know the law,)”.
The law:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
That’s the ONLY place in the law that speaks about this subject.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Didn’t you say that Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9 was dealing only with the law (Deut. 24)?
I guess Deut 24 is the ONLY place that speaks about the subject of divorce!
Here’s the thing, Ed, if none of it applies to US, as you have imagined, then WE can do as we like.
Perhaps that’s what you are looking for!
Yes, I was, and I still stand by that.
And BOTH match by what I said.
I have said REPEATEDLY, that Matthew 5 and 19 and Deu 24:1-4 are all in agreement, in that if you put away your wife, then by God you had better give her a divorce decree.
If you don’t, THEN she WILL commit adultery IF she goes to marry another.
However, if the reason that you kick your wife out is adultery, then there is no need for divorce at all.
Therefore, YOUR interpretation of Matthew 5 and 19 is NOT discussing a divorce for adultery. It’s not even discussing divorce at all.
There is ONLY ONE reason to “put away” without a divorce, and that is due to adultery.
And YES, if you don’t love your wife, THEN DIVORCE HER, as Deu 24:1-4 indicates. Then when she marries another, she is NOT committing adultery.
Ughhhhh.,…I can’t figure out why you can’t figure this out.
But you conclude that what I say is, “WE can do as we like”?
What does that mean in English? IF you want a divorce, GET ONE. If you don’t DON’T GET ONE. So yes, do as you like. Just don’t forget the divorce decree!
Ed Chapman.
Ed,
Again, IF what Jesus said in Matthew 5 and 19 only applies to the Law, then NONE of it applies to us today!
You can’t have it both ways!
But never mind the facts that most of the translations, the Lexicons, context, AND the rule of harmony suggests that reference is being made to divorce UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST — and NOT the law of Moses!
Sometimes people ignore all the evidence because they only want to see what THEY want to see!
Aidan
Aidan,
So, it really sounds to me like you are trying to “trip me up”, or “trick me” with my own words.
So I’ll play.
Are you indicating that, since we are not under the law, that we can indeed put away for any reason? But then again, you equate put away with divorce.
Or how about this one…Abraham was before the law, so, we can now marry our sisters and live in Alabama!
Ed Chapman
I’ll bring it up again.
It has been said, if you are separated from your wife, give her a divorce also.
But I say to you if you separate from your wife, unless she cheated on you, and marry someone else, you have committed adultery, and whoever marries a woman who is separated from her husband commits adultery.
How is the second part starting from “But” about divorce? If it was about divorce, wouldn’t you use the word divorced instead of separated? Especially considering you used the 2 different words in the sentence prior to the “But”?
Again, Kurt, you keep missing the context of the conversation.
Based on the ASV:
Mat 5:31 “It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [In other words, the context of the conversation is DIVORCE — in order to put her away you MUST give her a certificate of divorce].” The Pharisees viewed divorce as a right and viewed the words of Moses as a command (Mat. 19:7). What would happen is that the certificate of divorce would be given to the wife (usually in the presence of two witnesses and containing the words, “Lo thou art free to marry any man”).
Mat 5:32 “But I say unto you [indicating a contrast], that every one that puts away his wife [the subject hasn’t changed, they were still handing her the divorce papers and sending her away, cf Mat. 19:7], saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away [i.e. after she had been served the divorce papers] commits adultery.”
What they needed to understand is that they couldn’t do this for just any cause. Divorce would only be allowed in the case of fornication! And that’s why verse 32 is still talking about divorce.
I just provided the context. Two different words, that have two different meanings, were used. The following sentences then exclusively used one word and not the other, but your conclusion is the following sentences are talking about the word it didn’t use and not about the word it did use. Then you come and say that I am the one missing the context.
This isn’t how language, communication and sentence structure works.
I have just explained the context, Kurt. There’s nothing more I can do if you can’t see the forest for the trees😉! And, as the Brian would say, right now I have nothing more to add to this thread! I give you the last word.
Thank you for your time
Aidan
br.d
Good morning Aidan
Kurt has kindly indicated – that all points have been covered multiple times on this subject and at this point continuation over subject is “beating a dead horse”.
I thanked Kurt for his good discretion.
Its my hope that your post here will represent the last post on the subject.
Sincerely appreciated!
br.d
Aidan,
NO Aidan, Matthew 5:32 is CONTRASTING a difference between, not equating.
The subject did indeed change.
They were not giving her a divorce decree in verse 32 , and that was the problem that needed further explaining.
The Jews can’t divorce in an adultery situation. And they knew that already. Verse 32 is indicating that people were separating, while neglecting the divorce decree.
Now go eat your sausage!
Ed Chapman
That’s right, Ed, as I told you before, Jesus’ remarks in (v.32) is in CONTRAST to the distorted views as taught by the leaders of the Jews in (v.31).
And, divorce WAS in view, even in verse 32. The sending away was just the physical action. The divorce papers was the legal action. The Pharisees loved the legal niceties!
The subject changed alright! Jesus brought it back to God’s concept of marriage “from the beginning” and then said that fornication would be the only allowable reason for divorce (NO, not under the law of Moses, Ed) but instead, according to the law of Christ.
Jesus was looking FORWARD to the gospel dispensation, NOT back to the law of Moses, Ed!
Anyways, I never liked Chorizo, but it IS time to “depart” now😉. So, having nothing more to add to this thread, I bid thee farewell.
Enjoy the sausages AND having the last word!
Ed, you wrote:
“Are you indicating that, since we are not under the law, that we can indeed put away for any reason?”
Response:
We are not under the law, that’s very clear. Putting away (aka, divorce) for any reason, I thought was more in keeping with your position, as it was with the Pharisees?
I agree, people do that. Both of us are people. How can you be sure that YOU are not doing that, since you are implying it is likely that Ed and I are doing it?
To be clear, my situation involved adultery so even when I held the position you do, I was still personally cleared under that belief to go forward. I had nothing to gain by changing my mind on this topic. Both interpretations put me in the clear. So what exactly is my “motive” for the interpretation I am presenting here?
Why would someone change their mind if their belief on a topic was already in their favor?
Well that’s good to hear. If I was the innocent party I would make sure I kept it that way just to make sure!
Ed,
Did you happen to see verses 4 and 6 of Romans 7? It states:
Rom 7:4 “Therefore, my brethren, YOU also have become DEAD TO THE LAW through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.”
Rom 7:6 “But now WE have been DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and NOT in the oldness of the letter.”
Whether they be Jew or Gentile, Christians are NOT under the law of Moses, therefore, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 DOESN’T apply anymore!
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “Whether they be Jew or Gentile, Christians are NOT under the law of Moses, therefore, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 DOESN’T apply anymore!”
Your exegesis based upon Romans 7:4, 6 is spot on and commendable.
I learned something from you today and thank you for it.
George
No problem, George. I hope it helps.
Yep. The law doesn’t exist to us! As it is said by Paul, I through the law am dead to the law. Sin is dead. You were married to sin, and not that sin is dead, you are FREE to be married to freedom, to Jesus.
That was the whole point of Paul’s chapter 7. He was using DEATH of a spouse as his example, and by the way, the conversation about this death actually begins in chapter 6.
Paul wasn’t being DOGMATIC about the legalities of marriage in chapter 7. He was making an example of sin being alive, and now that the law is dead, we are free.
However, you had said that Deu 24:1-4 does not apply anymore.
Are you indicating that Thou Shalt Not Steal does not apply anymore, since we are not under the law?
Ed Chapman
Or, more appropriately, Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Divorce and remarriage is adultery (according to some), and adultery is part of the Law, but we are not under the Law…so adultery is ok?
Or maybe Paul wasn’t communicating that Deut 24:1-5 doesn’t apply anymore…
Kurt,
Darn it, I should have said that! LOL. I’ll steal that one from you!
Ed
Same answer, adultery is forbidden under the new covenant!
Ed,You wrote:
“That was the whole point of Paul’s chapter 7. He was using DEATH of a spouse as his example, and by the way, the conversation about this death actually begins in chapter 6.”
My Response:
That’s right, Ed. Dead to sin (ch. 6); Now dead to the law through the body of Christ (ch. 7). Chapter 7 is an elaboration of 6:14 where Paul implied that the power of sin over us is due to law. That in order to escape the tyranny of sin, one must be made free from the dominion of law. This passage adds something to our understanding of baptism. For this death took place when we were baptized (6:1-11).
As Jesus died to sin (6:10), so also He died to the law. Compare the phrase “through the body of Christ” (v.4) with Gal 3:10-13, Eph. 2:15, and Col. 2:14 in context (see also 1 Cor 15:55-57). Jesus paid the penalty required by law.
When we are baptized the death of Jesus becomes ours. What He accomplished is applied to us — and so we die to sin (6:1-11), and to the law (7:1-6). The penalty is paid for us; it is as if we had settled the debt.
And, Paul does not say the law died — This is not a passage on the passing of the Mosaic system! — but that WE died to the law.
And the command against stealing still applies because it has been brought over into the new covenant!
Are you indicating that we should keep the Sabbath? If not, then why should we keep Deut. 24:1-4? The only option you are left with is that it has been brought over into the new covenant! Think long and hard before you answer that one.
Aidan,
If you PROPERLY and slowly read Deu 24:1-4, you will see a TWICE divorced woman, which means a remarriage in between.
So your explanation about what the Jews would understand makes NO SENSE at all.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
My explanation makes perfect sense for those who don’t ignore the context of these NT passages!
Aidan
It really doesn’t make sense. It conflicts with every man should have his own wife. It conflicts with it is better to marry than burn. It conflicts with if you are loosed from a wife, seek not a wife, but and if you do marry YOU HAVE NOT SINNED.
Please, and don’t take this as an “emotional” argument, but please, go into a woman’s shelter, where women have been beaten to a pulp, raped, verbally abused and abandoned by their husbands they are now divorced from. Some may have a nice new loving man who has shown them nothing but kindness and love, that they have never experienced before. Please go there and tell these women that they had their chance, God wants them to be alone until they die, that they can’t marry the new loving man they found. That if they don’t have children, they aren’t allowed to be mothers. Tell them all God will allow them to do is go back to the man who had been hurting them. Tell them that THIS is the loving and merciful God of the Bible.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you are misunderstanding a doctrine and there are alternative interpretations that make sense while also not creating this problem with God’s character. Maybe God actually is good, and humans just mistakenly make Him appear otherwise.
If it doesn’t seem right…sometimes that is God nudging us that it IS NOT right. I had the same experience with Calvinism. It painted a cruel God who caused evil. It didn’t seem right. Turns out, it was because it WAS NOT right.
It really does make sense, Kurt. And, it only conflicts with your faulty understanding of those verses. Some of the commands and advice of 1 Cor. 7 must be understood in the light of the circumstances of the “present distress” (v.26). We must be careful to discriminate between principles which were intended for universal application and which were given in light of the distress which faced the Corinthians. Some of Paul’s advice was aimed at sparing the Corinthians trouble in the flesh (v.28).
But suffer as we must, you should never use the sin of men as an argument against the commands of God!
So, Aidan,
When 1 Cor 7 state “LET HER NOT LEAVE”…how do you LET HER NOT LEAVE?
Take the keys? Tie her up? Lock the door?
Ed
So, Ed,
When 1 Cor 7:10 states “LET NOT A WIFE SEPARATE”… Is this simply LET HER NOT LEAVE THE HOUSE?
Or, is it the separation of divorce?
Aidan
Aidan,
My 7:10 states, “Let not the wife depart from her husband:”
Spin it as you will.
My question needs answered first. How will you NOT LET your wife depart?
Tie her up?
Lock the doors?
Block the door?
Lock her in a basement?
Clearly the Bible states LET NOT THE WIFE DEPART, and I know how dogmatic you are! Surely, you have a plan, right?
Duct tape, rope!!!!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You originally said “Let her not leave”
It doesn’t matter, some translations say “depart”, some say “leave” and some say “separate.”
I quoted Young’s Literal Translation which says, “separate.”
Either way it makes no odds, the word is used in reference to the separation of divorce!
What Paul said on this occasion is an inspired commentary on our Lord’s commandment regarding divorce and remarriage.
1 Cor. 7:10 “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband.”
Aidan
Aidan,
You still don’t get it. IF you wife hates your guts, are you, or are you NOT going to LET her leave?
A simple yes or no will suffice. And IF NO, then by what means will you not LET her leave? Duct tape and rope?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You’re missing the point! If your wife wants to leave there’s really nothing you can do to stop her — UNLESS you use Gorilla glue!
“(but if she does leave, she must remain UNMARRIED, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:11 NASB).
As I said, what Paul said here becomes an inspired commentary on what our Lord taught regarding divorce and remarriage!
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “1 Cor. 7:10 “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband.”
Reply:
True, with this addendum:
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. ESV
An unbelieving wife doesn’t believe she cannot leave her husband. In such cases the believing husband isn’t “enslaved” to the marriage and should let her go. If she remarries, she commits adultery. Anyone marrying her commits adultery.
The believing husband can remarry, but only to a widow or a woman that has never been married.
I hope this information helps.
George
I am beating the rotting decayed carcass of a horse at this point, but the Greek word for “leave” in 7:10 is chorizo, which means to part or separate, but is not a legal term nor does it refer to divorce.
Two people who are married should be together while married, while joined by the covenant of marriage. If they will not be together, they should sever the covenant of marriage with divorce.
Think of it like this. If you entered a contract with a contractor and the first part of the work they did was shoddy, cost more than they estimated and took longer than they said it would, do you keep them in contract? Ethically, if they are under contract, you do have to allow them to continue to do the work. However, since their side of the contract wasn’t lived up to, you can ethically sever the contract and find another contractor.
You are in the wrong to do that while still in contract with them, but are right if you sever the contract.
This is very similar to what is happening with the original language regarding divorce and remarriage. At this point though, no amount of reasoning, discussion, evidence etc…will even get either of you to consider that there is another interpretation that has merit to it. I may just stop beating this horse to dust.
Kurt, you wrote:
“…the Greek word for “leave” in 7:10 is chorizo, which means to part or separate, but is not a legal term nor does it refer to divorce.”
My Response:
There is a tendency in modern times among some to distinguish separation from divorce here. There is no such distinction made in the NT regarding the use of chorizo in the context of marriage. In that context it always carries the idea of divorce.
The woman of this passage (1 Cor. 7:10) has left her husband. This is more than just moving out of the house. Thayer says it refers to divorce, as does Arndt & Gringrich, p. 898. Notice, the marriage is severed, she is UNMARRIED (v.11). This is the same word as used in verses 8, 32, and 34 of the same chapter.
The Greek word “chorizo” is defined by Strong:- as “depart, put asunder, separate.” It can also be defined as “separate (oneself), be separated of divorce.”
Thayer says:- “to leave a husband or wife: of divorce, 1 Corinthians 7:11, 15; ἀπό ἀνδρός, 1 Corinthians 7:10 (a woman κεχωρισμενη ἀπό τοῦ ἀνδρός,…)”
Liddell-Scott-Jones:- “III Pass., κεχωρισμένη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρός divorced,…”
Abbott-Smith Greek Lexicon:- 2. “…of divorce (polyb., al.), 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:15…”
CHORIZO is the same word that appears in Matt. 19:6 (“What therefore God has joined together, let not man SEPARATE”) or “PUT ASUNDER” and Mk 10:9 (parallel passage). In that context , everyone admits that chorizo means “TO DIVORCE.”
Those who try to distinguish separation from divorce have only imposed 21st century terminology on 1st century scriptures. There is no such distinction made in the New Testament in the context of marriage.
Aidan
Kurt
I may just stop beating this horse to dust.
br.d
You would be blessing SOT101 for doing so!
Thank you Kurt!!
br.d,
I’ll have my last word here on this subject, addressed to all, but responding to you:
Aidan,
Any “lexicon” that mentions “divorce” as a meaning of chorizo, is flat out wrong. Strong’s does not define it in such manner. The words that the KJV uses based on Strong’s is divorce, but that’s not the definition, meaning, the KJV is NOT correct in its usage of the word.
However, look on the bright side…
According to Google,
Chorizo is a well-seasoned pork sausage used in small amounts to add big flavor to Mexican dishes.
If you want, you can Chorizo an enchilada, but don’t dare divorce a tamale! It will get messy! Unless you use duct tape to tape it back together.
Have a Great Day, all. Be sure to tip your waitresses, I’ll be here all week!
Ed Chapman
br.d
Now for the rest of the day – I’m going to be thinking about mouth watering sizzling sausage smothered in browned onions! Thanks Ed! ;-D
LOL…there ya go!
Ed
George, you said:
“The believing husband can remarry, but only to a widow or a woman that has never been married.”
Response: I don’t see remarriage mentioned in the context of 1 Cor. 7:15? Can you tell me where you got that idea from the context?
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “I don’t see remarriage mentioned in the context of 1 Cor. 7:15? Can you tell me where you got that idea from the context?”
Reply:
I have said this before.
If a wife “divorces” her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Even if a wife abandons/”divorces” her husband and does not remarry, like Zipporah, her husband (like Moses) is free to marry another, but he cannot marry a divorced woman, so the woman must either be a widow or have been never married. In which case, the husband will have two wives.
Separation with reconciliation in mind is different.
The word “divorce” is in quotation marks because it is illegal for a wife to divorce her husband – she is bound by the law for as long as her husband lives.
I offer the commentary from bibleref.com, which may help to enlighten. Unfortunately, bible scholars are divided over the word “enslaved” and the phrase “God has called you to peace.” Their meanings should be discernable or revealed by asking God in faith for their meanings.
“Paul has taught the Corinthians that Christians must not divorce their unbelieving spouses. What if their Jewish or pagan spouses are the ones who want to divorce? What if the unbelieving partner insists on separation? What should a Christian do in that case?
Akin to his advice about civil lawsuits among fellow Christians (1 Corinthians 6:7), Paul advocates for submission. In modern terms, Paul says “Don’t fight it. Let them go.” Since the Christian husband or wife did not initiate the break-up, he or she will not remain “enslaved.”
Some scholars take this to mean that the Christian spouse is simply released from any obligation to the marriage itself. Others understand Paul’s reference to “enslavement” here to refer to all the normal entailments of divorce, which would include not being able to remarry. Rather than being trapped in such a state by the sinful actions of another, this circumstance would include the freedom to marry someone else without being guilty of committing adultery (Matthew 5:32).
The final line of this verse can be read in one of two ways. Ancient writings such as this letter were composed without punctuation, and without modern conventions like chapter and verse divisions. So it’s possible the line “God has called you to peace” is meant to begin a new thought, continued in the following verse. In that sense, God has given believers peace with Him, in addition to the opportunity to live with peaceful minds and hearts. Perhaps the observation of that powerful and transformative peace will persuade an unbelieving spouse to consider faith in Christ, after all.
The other possibility is that Paul means God has called the two separating to peace in the sense that they should not fight the divorce or be overly anxious about letting the marriage go. They can have peace of mind and heart in moving on from their unbalanced marriage. The Greek term used by Paul here is hēmas, usually meaning “we” or “us.” Some manuscripts use a plural equivalent of you. In either case, the reference is to more than one person.
Context Summary
First Corinthians 7:1–16 includes Paul’s teaching about sex and marriage for Christians. Some in Corinth apparently thought even married believers should not have sex. Paul rejects that idea, insisting that married Christians belong to each other and should not deprive each other in this way because of the temptation to sexual sin. Also, married believers should not divorce in order to somehow be closer to God. The Lord intends marriage to be for life. Those married to unbelievers may, by staying in the marriage, help lead the other person to Christ.”
George
br.d
According to Latter Day Saint belief – God revealed the location of buried golden plates to Joseph Smith.
The plates were written in a language called “Reformed Egyptian”.
The Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment . Now empowered with the gift of discernment – Smith was able to discern the real meaning of the text. Using his gift of discernment – Smith read the text to a scribe – who then wrote down the words which would become the book of Mormon.
Aidan,
Br.d wrote to you, “The Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment . Now empowered with the gift of discernment – Smith was able to discern the real meaning of the text. Using his gift of discernment – Smith read the text to a scribe – who then wrote down the words which would become the book of Mormon.”
Reply:
Br.d’s claim that the Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment is refuted by the following:
Scripture was closed with Revelation 22:18-19 and nothing is to be added or taken away as written:
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. ESV
Joseph Smith added to Scripture with the Book of Mormon and therefore any claim to its legitimacy is false, which is why The Church of Later-day Saints is considered to be a cult religion by mainstream Christian churches.
There are many apocryphal books and extra-canonical sayings, which were not canonized and thus are not legitimate for citation of authority.
George
I think the point was exactly that. Just CLAIMING one has discernment and is lead by the Holy Spirit is not a valid reason to believe what they say. Someone with discernment would have the discernment to know that claiming to have discernment doesn’t add any legitimacy to them. Someone with discernment would simply preach truth, and most would recognize it as such.
br.d
And the red-flag of evidence – is found when anyone claiming to have (above normal) discernment – consistently manifests a (below normal) degree of discernment :-]
What do we make of when two people claim to have asked the Lord in faith to make a scripture clear to them, and both have come to opposite conclusions?
This goes back, in my opinion, to the “filters” I was talking about before to run interpretations through. Does this interpretation violate the law of non contradiction? Does it conflict with other scripture? Does it damage God’s character? Is it consistently observable in the world? Is it logical? What are other interpretations? Did this interpretation historically come from a questionable source(Catholicism, Gnostics, Islam, Calvinists, Mormons, Atheists etc…).
Why use these filters? Unlike humans who change and have biases, these concepts are constant, rigid, and unbiased. They can be applied by anyone in exactly the same way. Also, how do we know proper applications of these tools is NOT the method by which God grants us discernment?
Kurt
What do we make of when two people claim to have asked the Lord in faith to make a scripture clear to them, and both have come to opposite conclusions?
br.d
That is a wonderful question!
In my dialogs with Calvinists – it is all too often – I will find the following:
1) This Calvinist has a private interpretation of some aspect of Calvinist doctrine
2) Typically that interpretation will be in full disagreement with Calvin and with historical teachers of Calvinism
3) That private interpretation will thus represent some form of logical contradiction to that which is claimed to be of the Holy Spirit throughout historical Calvinism
4) When I present that logical contradiction to that Calvinist – he will claim I am approaching the subject using -quote Human Reasoning – while he has the mind of God. Therefore I must be wrong – and he must be right.
5) At that point – he is arguing that John Calvin’s understanding and all historical teachers of Calvinism’s understanding are “Human” understandings while his understanding is from God.
BINGO!
Red-flag!!!
And the fact that this Calvinist will not relent – but rather double-down – and then triple-down – and the quad-triple-down serves as a Red-Flag that this person’s mind is ensnared.
Freeing this Calvinist’s mind from that type of ensnarement is going to take divine intervention.
Yes! I have experienced this with Calvinists. Many completely discredit logic and even affirm contradiction as being acceptable to God, because it is simply just a sign of something beyond our understanding. This is faulty though, because it isn’t something we don’t understand, but rather something we DO understand! Then they turn around and USE logic themselves.
A preacher who said contradiction is acceptable then used the law of non-contradiction to explain that God made male and female, and that a male cannot be a female and a female cannot be a male!
When I asked why you can’t use logic and reason to explain God, they gave reasons and used logic to explain THAT about God!
I feel bad for them that they can’t see it, especially when otherwise they are very intelligent/educated!
The funniest thing is in John 1:1 the Greek for “Word” is logos. The modern word “logic” derives from “logos”. The Bible, then, literally tells us that God IS logic!
br.d
Yes!
The claim “you can’t use logic” is itself a claim based on logic.
That is called graduating from the school of how to shoot oneself in the foot :-]
Kurt,
You wrote, “Someone with discernment would have the discernment to know that claiming to have discernment doesn’t add any legitimacy to them. Someone with discernment would simply preach truth, and most would recognize it as such.”
Reply:
Scripture says you are to test the Spirits and not to quench the Spirits.
This would include all gifts of the Spirit.
How would you determine which gift of the Spirit each person claims to have, if they don’t tell you in advance.
Simply preaching might be a spiritual gift of exhortation (preaching), which perhaps Billy Graham possessed. Billy Graham may have been a great preacher of God without being able to distinguish truth from error in what he preached. Another great preacher was puritan Jonathan Edwards, but he wasn’t able to discern truth from falsehood either.
George
George
How would you determine which gift of the Spirit each person claims to have, if they don’t tell you in advance.
br.d
There was once a used car salesman who concluded he had to make sure all new potential customers would assume him to be honest. So – when he introduced himself to new potential customers – he went out of his way to make sure to claim he was honest.
The interesting thing about that claim – was that this used car salesman did not have a reputation for being honest.
New potential customers who had wisdom – used that wisdom to recognize the probability – that this used car salesman was using that claim – in order to fight off his reputation.
Br.d,
You wrote, There was once a used car salesman who concluded he had to make sure all new potential customers would assume him to be honest. So – when he introduced himself to new potential customers – he went out of his way to make sure to claim he was honest.
The interesting thing about that claim – was that this used car salesman did not have a reputation for being honest.
New potential customers who had wisdom – used that wisdom to recognize the probability – that this used car salesman was using that claim – in order to fight off his reputation.
Reply:
Anecdotal examples lack credibility and should never be used as validating evidence.
“Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence.” Google source
“ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS UNRELIABLE, WHY? Your personal experiences and/or your friends experiences are not evidence of how everyone else reacts or thinks. Anecdotal evidence lacks verification and is largely based on very limited context.” Google source May 6, 2021
George
This wasn’t an example of Anecdotal evidence, but rather a parable…you know, like the ones Jesus used.
This is so very apparent that it doesn’t even take discernment.
George
Anecdotal examples lack credibility and should never be used as validating evidence.
br.d
Jesus used anecdotal examples as illustrations
Jesus knew – the people listening to his anecdotal examples had the discernment necessary to connect the dots.
He will be interested to know – his anecdotal examples lacked credibility. :-]
Simple. How do you know someone is good or gifted at anything? You observe them doing it. Patrick Mahomes doesn’t have to tell me he is good at football, Arnold doesn’t have to tell me he lifts weights, Usain Bolt doesn’t have to tell me he is fast, Whitney Houston didn’t have to tell me she could sing, and C.S. Lewis didn’t have to tell me he had a fierce intellect and a skill for making keen observations.
When someone is truly good at something, it is apparent to (nearly) everyone through basic observation.
Kurt,
You wrote, “Simple. How do you know someone is good or gifted at anything? You observe them doing it. Patrick Mahomes doesn’t have to tell me he is good at football, Arnold doesn’t have to tell me he lifts weights, Usain Bolt doesn’t have to tell me he is fast, Whitney Houston didn’t have to tell me she could sing, and C.S. Lewis didn’t have to tell me he had a fierce intellect and a skill for making keen observations.
When someone is truly good at something, it is apparent to (nearly) everyone through basic observation.”
Reply:
Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. is good at writing books on theology, preaching and teaching. He claims he is “unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time.” Many, many people have left Catholicism because his evangelical outreach into Mexico and Latin America. He has television & radio broadcasts, a website ministry entitled “Grace To You”
He even has written an excellent book on the importance of discernment entitled “Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will To Discern.”
Yet, he follows John Calvin and does not discern Calvin was a false prophet dressed in sheep’s clothing as warned by Christ (Matthew 7:15,16).
So, by observation you won’t know. You are to test the Spirits as written (1 John 4:1).
George
George
He [Dr. John MacArthur, Jr.] even has written an excellent book on the importance of discernment entitled “Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will To Discern.”
br.d
AH!
So perhaps this business of this supposed spiritual gift of discernment – has its roots in Dr. John MacArthur, Jr’s book concerning discernment!
That is a critical point of information!
Thank you George for providing it
Very helpful to everyone here.
Then how was I able to tell that John MacArthur is a false teacher? Is everything he teaches false? No. How am I able to distinguish his good teachings from the false, if not by listening and making observations?
Kurt
How am I able to distinguish his good teachings from the false, if not by listening and making observations?
br.d
Wonderful!
A good indicator would be DOUBLE-SPEAK
Language functions as the outward expression of a person’s thinking
Therefore DOUBLE-SPEAK will be the outward expression of DOUBLE-MINDLESS
Dr. William Lutz:
-quote
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing.
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity. The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.
It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language which is to communication. Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language. It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative. Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts.“
Anyone who scrutinizes Calvinism for any length of time – will eventually recognize that Calvinist language is designed to hide incriminating facts.
For any sincere believer to subject themselves to Calvinist material – is to risk unwittingly getting captured within its spider-web of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
I would not wish that on anyone!!!
Especially young and vulnerable believers!
If it weren’t for double-speak, Calvinists wouldn’t speak at all!
YES!
You’re not the first person to say that!!!
God has a sense of humor!!! 😀
Kurt
When someone is truly good at something, it is apparent to (nearly) everyone through basic observation.
br.d
I once knew a ministry who had a general rule within their congregation about that.
If someone claimed to have a spiritual gift – the rule was – that all members of the congregation were to watch that individual and receive their own WITNESS about the degree to which the claim was true.
Someone can in fact have a gift.
But that individual not be mature in the Lord
So the gift may be partially of the Lord and partially of the flesh.
The congregation is taught to discern the difference between the Holy Spirit – and religious flesh.
However the critical key here is – the individual making that claim was forbidden to push it onto people.
He was to allow each member of the congregation to have their own WITNESS concerning the supposed gift.
If the individual started to become pushy or demanding concerning recognition of the supposed gift – that was considered anti-Holy Spirit behavior – and if he continued to be un-submissive – he would be asked to leave.
There are many Christians running around who are often called “Lone Rangers” or “Wandering Stars”.
Pastors recognize these individuals when they show up – because one of their first orders of business is to try to convince people they have a spiritual gift.
Its not unusual for a pastor to pull this person aside and ask him to stop.
And if that individual starts to argue with the pastor – he is simply asked to leave.
George
Br.d’s claim that the Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment is refuted by the following…
br.d
Thank you George – this is a good example of a lack of discernment.
In this case – the inability to discern WHO made the claim concerning Joseph Smith’s gift of discernment.
George
Scripture was closed with Revelation 22:18-19 and nothing is to be added or taken away….
br.d
So things brings to light – and interesting question.
The N.T. is written in the “Koine Greek” language.
Joseph Smith – using the gift of discernment he claimed the Holy Spirit gave him – did not use his gift of discernment to understand the true meaning of “Koine Greek” text.
Rather he claimed to use his gift of discernment to understand the true meaning of “Reformed Egyptian” text.
Smith could have easily claimed his gift of discernment was to discern the true meaning of the “Koine Greek” N.T.
But he did not make that claim.
Instead he claimed his gift of discernment was for understanding the true meaning of “Reformed Egyptian” text.
So here is a question:
Why do you suppose Smith chose a “Reformed Egyptian” text to discern
Rather than the “Koine Greek” text of the N.T. ?
Br.d,
You wrote,
Why do you suppose Smith chose a “Reformed Egyptian” text to discern
Rather than the “Koine Greek” text of the N.T. ?
Reply:
Doesn’t matter to me.
The point was Joseph Smith didn’t receive the Gift of Discernment from the Holy Spirit.
You said he did and you are wrong about that.
George
No, he did not make that claim. All of us here could clearly discern that br.d didn’t say that he thought Smith received discernment from the Holy Spirit but that SMITH HIMSELF claimed he had received discernment from the Holy Spirit.
It is easy to determine that br.d clearly does not agree with Smith, and he was presenting Smith as an example of someone who claimed to have the gift of discernment who did not in fact have it.
Kurt,
Br.d wrote, “According to Latter Day Saint belief – God revealed the location of buried golden plates to Joseph Smith.
The plates were written in a language called “Reformed Egyptian”.
The Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment . Now empowered with the gift of discernment – Smith was able to discern the real meaning of the text. Using his gift of discernment – Smith read the text to a scribe – who then wrote down the words which would become the book of Mormon.”
Reply:
That is his post in its entirety.
Now you say, “No, he did not make that claim. All of us here could clearly discern that br.d didn’t say that he thought Smith received discernment from the Holy Spirit but that SMITH HIMSELF claimed he had received discernment from the Holy Spirit.”
How do you know, “All of here could clearly discern that br.d didn’t say that he thought Smith received discernment from the Holy Spirit”…? Does everyone at SOT101 claim to have been given the Gift of Discernment or are you all mind readers? And, by what authority do you speak for everyone at SOT101?
If Br.d wants to clarify his intent, why didn’t he? And why do you feel the need to clarify it for him?
Br.d’s words speak for themselves. It is crystal clear what Br.d wrote, but unclear as to what he meant to write.
I took it as Br.d was attempting to trap me and got caught in his own snare, by his own words.
“A fool’s mouth is his destruction, And his lips are the snare of his soul.” Proverbs 18:7 NKJV
Lastly:
“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37
Commentary on Matthew 12:36-37
“Those words spoken by Jesus are some of the most sobering of all words He ever spoke. On the Day of Judgment, every one of us will have to give an account for everything we’ve ever said to anyone and every single idle word we have ever spoken will be judged by God, whether for good or for bad. Of course, for those who are born again, their sins have been judged already but we are still accountable for what we say and how we say it.” Internet Source: whatchristianswanttoknow.com
George
That’s the thing. He did clarify it. He even explained how you misinterpreted him about WHO made the claim that Smith had discernment. Twice.
He didn’t explain himself because he clearly stated it.
Br.d, care to confirm who has rightly discerned what you were saying?
br.d
Yes!
You discerned something correctly
Unfortunately George did not.
But we both can realize – for internal reasons – he will not accept that as a possibility.
And the Lord would have us to simply recognize the condition and leave it in the hands of the Lord who is kind and merciful and full of wisdom and deliverance.
George
If Br.d wants to clarify his intent, why didn’t he?
br.d
Apparently – someone didn’t discern the words “According to Latter Day Saint belief…… ” ;-D
Thank you George
Very helpful for everyone here!
Br.d,
According to Latter Day Saint belief – God revealed the location of buried golden plates to Joseph Smith. The plates were written in a language called “Reformed Egyptian”.
The Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment . Now empowered with the gift of discernment – Smith was able to discern […]
Reply:
Two different paragraphs – two different statements.
If connected they should have at least been in the same paragraph.
George
br.d
Thank you George
Using your discernment – can you discern which paragraphs follow “According to Latter Day Saint belief………..etc…etc”
Once again I thank you.
Very helpful to everyone here!
Br.d,
par·a·graph
/ˈperəˌɡraf/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
Reply:
…indicated by a new line…
You wrote:
According to Latter Day Saint belief – God revealed the location of buried golden plates to Joseph Smith. The plates were written in a language called “Reformed Egyptian”. Paragraph 1
There is a space between the two paragraphs on your original post, which indicate a new paragraph follows.
The Holy Spirit gave Joseph Smith the gift of discernment . Now empowered with the gift of discernment – Smith was able to discern […] Paragraph 2
George
br.d
Thank you George
I can see you didn’t answer the question:
Using your discernment – can you discern which paragraphs follow “According to Latter Day Saint belief………..etc…etc”
At this point – I think everyone here has observed enough – to discern what’s going on.
And again you are to be thanked.
BTW:
I suspect – by the nature of things – this is going to be the repeated trend.
And everyone here is going to be able to discern what the nature of things is.
The Lord is good!!!!
Pretty classic. I’m not in error, it wasn’t me who misunderstood, YOU should have explained it better!
Meanwhile, same message was understood by all else who heard it.
Kurt
Meanwhile, same message was understood by all else who heard it.
br.d
Maybe what we are seeing – is a NEED to understand something in a certain way – rather than what it actually is?
The one thing I haven’t been able to figure out is the specific reasons for people refusing to understand plainly explained, logical ideas. There are so many possibilities, not least of all the one you listed.
br.d
I don’t know if you were ever fond of Star Trek – but the writers of that series played off many ancient themes.
One of those themes dates back to Greek philosophy – and a story in which there was a certain man who was a “deep thinker” who asked the question:
1) Is man a predominately rational creature who has some capacity for emotions?
Or
2) is man predominantly an emotional creature who has some capacity for rational reasoning?
Of course the answer is – it depends upon the person.
Hence within the Star Trek theme we have Dr. Leonard McCoy who is predominantly emotional vs Mr. Spock who is predominantly rational.
The whole series includes a continued conflict between these two personalities.
And it picked up again in the Next Generation – with Data who takes on the predominantly rational personality
I think this is also true of every individual.
The emotional person is not so much interested in reaching a logical conclusion
Thus he is not so much interested in reaching truth.
He is for the most part working to service internal emotional needs.
George
You wrote – Why do you suppose Smith chose a “Reformed Egyptian” text to discern
Rather than the “Koine Greek” text of the N.T. ?
Doesn’t matter to me.
br.d
Oh but for the sake of discernment it would be very enlightening!
People who fabricate claims – generally are logical enough to know that those claims have to have some APPEARANCE of credibility.
If Smith claims to have Holy Spirit discernment of the “Koine Greek” N.T. – he’s going to be bucking up against a massive wall of Biblical scholarship.
For example – we have the project known as the BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich)
This massive work represents a compilation of all known “Koine Greek” texts – both of the N.T. and external to it – found within the time period of the N.T.
There are approximately 5000+ unique words within the “Koine Greek” N.T.
Everyone of those words – is examined in its usage – both within the N.T. and within Greek manuscripts found within the time period of the N.T. So scholars have compiled all possible usages and meanings for every Greek word within the N.T. And by this the know what a Greek word cannot possibly mean to the Greek person within that time period.
This work was complete because there is a general rule within proper Biblical interpretation – that a word within the N.T. cannot possible mean anything other than what the author of that word meant it to mean.
Scholars find – that “would be” interpreters of the N.T. will claim they have DIVINE REVELATION of a given text and will ascribe meanings to words within the text – which are completely foreign to that word’s usage and meaning within the “Koine Greek” language.
By Smith claiming to have Holy Spirit discernment of “Reformed Egyptian” which no-one else can read but him – he is getting rid of his competition.
What the shows us – is that all people who fabricate claims – are very careful about making sure those claims APPEAR to have some degree of credibility.
For example – a person could easily read all of the different interpretations of a given text within the N.T. given by scholars and make a decision about which interpretation they choose to accept.
And then claim – that interpretation was given to them as divine discernment by the Holy Spirit.
That way – their claim is not so far fetched that it doesn’t have an APPEARANCE of credibility.
People can be very calculative about what claims they make
George
The point was Joseph Smith didn’t receive the Gift of Discernment from the Holy Spirit.
You said he did and you are wrong about that.
br.d
Thank you George – that is again a good example of a lack of discernment.
In this case – once again – the inability to discern WHO made the claim of Joseph Smith’s discernment.
Very helpful to everyone here!
Thank you!
Nice switcharoo!😉
Anyways, those miraculous gifts have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-13).
Somebody should tell George!
Aidan,
you wrote, “Anyways, those miraculous gifts have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-13).
Somebody should tell George!”
NKJV:
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is [a]perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Reply:
You just did tell me.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say spiritual gifts have ended although there are Cessationists that believe the gifts have ceased.
Cessationism
A cessationist is someone who “believes that certain miraculous spiritual gifts ceased when the Apostles died and Scripture was complete” (Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudum, pg 1237). To be clear, cessationists don’t believe that God no longer does anything miraculous or that the Spirit cannot give a miraculous ability today. What is called into question is whether or not the actual gifts are given to individuals today as a normative pattern. Cessationists believe the Holy Spirit no longer sovereignly gives individual believers the miraculous spiritual gifts that were present in the first century. Since the Apostles died, the miraculous gifts also passed away or “ceased” as being normative for the current Church age.” Source: aplaceforyou.org
And there are Continuationists:
I’d also point to the extensive NT evidence of so-called miraculous gifts among Christians who are not apostles. In other words, numerous non-apostolic men and women, young and old, across the breadth of the Roman Empire consistently exercised these gifts of the Spirit (and Stephen and Philip ministered in the power of signs and wonders). Others aside from the apostles who exercised miraculous gifts include (1) the 70 who were commissioned in Luke 10:9, 19-20; (2) at least 108 people among the 120 who were gathered in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; (3) Stephen (Acts 6-7); (4) Philip (Acts 8); (5) Ananias (Acts 9); (6) church members in Antioch (Acts 13); (7) anonymous converts in Ephesus (Acts 19:6); (8) women at Caesarea (Acts 21:8-9); (9) the unnamed brethren of Galatians 3:5; (10) believers in Rome (Rom. 12:6-8); (11) believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 12-14); and (12) Christians in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:19-20).Source: thegospelcoalition.org
Both give sides provide biblical evidences for their position. Do your own research on both and see what you learn.
The bottom line is they are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true.
The way to determine for yourself which is true and which is false is to ask God in faith and believe He will answer (James 1:4-5). After you receive an answer from God, because you did not doubt, you can then provide the answer to others here.
My answer to this dilemma is this:
“Do not add anything nor take anything away from Scripture.” If you claim cessation of Spiritual Gifts aren’t you taking them away from Scripture? In doing so, aren’t you violating Revelation 22:19?
George
George,
In Acts 2:1-4 the surrounding context makes it clear that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 8:18 reveals that the Spirit could only be bestowed through the laying on of an Apostle’s hands. That means the ability to pass on the gifts died out with the apostles. Unless of course you can show that others also had the ability to pass on the gifts.
What happened on Pentecost to the apostles with it’s accompanying signs is the only thing we can scripturally say qualifies as baptism in the Holy Spirit. The only known exception similar to this is the pouring out of the Spirit on Cornelius and his household in Acts 10.
While all Christians had the non-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit, only some had the laying on hands measure of the Spirit by the apostles. And the apostles had the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit.
And according to 1 Cor.13:8-13 the gifts ceased when revelation was complete and they were no longer needed.
Aidan.
Aidan,
You wrote, “In Acts 2:1-4 the surrounding context makes it clear that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 8:18 reveals that the Spirit could only be bestowed through the laying on of an Apostle’s hands. That means the ability to pass on the gifts died out with the apostles. Unless of course you can show that others also had the ability to pass on the gifts.”
2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all [a]with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them [b]divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:1-4 NKJV
8 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, Acts 8:18 NKJV
Reply:
I don’t find the word “only” in the passages you cite.
There is controversy within the Church on this issue.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com asked the question:
Is there any way to tell from the text who they were? Was it The New Twelve (as evidenced by Acts 2:14) or a larger number, possibly 120 (as evidenced by Acts 1:13-15)?
“If you follow the pronoun ‘they’ backwards, you finally discover who was being referred to in:
1.15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
So ‘they’ the 120 were all together. But did ‘they’ get the Spirit?
Peter quotes Joel to say that the prophecy was fulfilled that day:
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
In order for Joel to be fulfilled, daughters, servants and handmaids had to be included in the number. This suggests that all 120 got the Spirit.” answered May 13, 2012 at 5:43 by Bob Jones
What about Acts 8:18?
biblecrossfire.com has this commentary:
“Acts 8:18 reads “And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money.” Many say that means only the apostles had this power to lay hands on someone to impart miraculous gifts. But are we justified in adding the word “only” to this text to make it say the gifts were imparted via the apostles only?
First, most true Christians can see adding the word “only” to verses like Rom 5:1 (“justified by faith”) is incorrect because of verses like James 2:24 which teach we are not justified by faith only. Similarly, might Acts 8:18 be saying apostles could impart the miraculous gifts but not trying to say the apostles only?
This truth is more easily seen once you realize Acts 8:18 is not talking about the twelve apostles, but specifically two apostles, Peter and John (verse 14). Verse 18 says Simon “saw” something. What did he actually see? He didn’t see that the gifts were bestowed by the twelve apostles (they weren’t all there), but what he actually saw was that the gifts were bestowed by the apostles Peter and John. So if we add the word “only” to this verse, that would say the gifts could only be bestowed through the hands of Peter and John, as they are the only apostles verse 18 is referring to.”
Controversies, like this, between Christians need to be resolved by discernment or by asking God in faith.
My answer would be, “Do not add anything to Scripture” which would be the word “only” in the cases cited above.
Jesus said, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one [a]jot or one [b]tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Matthew 5:18-19 NKJV
The Word of God is perfect, inerrant and infallible in the original manuscripts. Do not add or take away anything.
George
George,
The 120 are only mentioned in connection with the choosing of a replacement for Judas, not the baptism of the Spirit.
After choosing Matthias to replace Judas the focus switches to the apostles. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise made to a FEW, not to all men. The words of John (Mt. 3:11), were addressed to a mixed group, a few of whom would receive the baptism of the Spirit, while others, the “brood of vipers” would receive the baptism of fire (verses 10-12). The promise concerning the Holy Spirit found in (John 14-16, Luke 24:48-49, and Acts 1:1-5) were addressed to the eleven apostles after Judas had departed. Many of the words concerning the Holy Spirit and His work were directed to the apostles only, not to all men.
The Holy Spirit, when He did come, was SEEN and HEARD (Acts 2:33). His coming was not something “better felt than told,” as some claim today.
Read Acts 1 again and notice how the focus is on the apostles all the way through, even with the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas.
Speaking to the apostles in (Acts 1:4-5), it says:
And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Skip down to the last verse (1:26) where they had just chosen Matthias to join the apostles:
“And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
So, that’s the context before you turn the page to (Acts 2:1-4) where the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs. Remember, the promise concerning the Holy Spirit was only addressed to the apostles, and Matthias had just being numbered with the eleven apostles. Then the Holy Spirit comes “and THEY were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave THEM utterance” (Acts 2:4).
Who is Luke speaking about? It has to be the 12 apostles, no others! I think that’s enough for the moment.
Aidan,
You said, “It has to be the 12 apostles, no others! I think that’s enough for the moment.”
Reply:
My wife and I are taking two weeks off for vacation, so maybe we could discuss this further when I return.
George
Okay, George, have a nice holiday!
If I post a few more on this subject, maybe you can check them on your phone while on holiday, when you get the time of course?
Regards,
Aidan
George,
Further to my last post, you will also notice in Acts 2:14 that it is only Peter and the other eleven apostles who stand up to make a defense against the mockers (I wonder if Ed was there 😉). Evidently, some in the crowd thought that the apostles were drunk as they were speaking in tongues, i.e. (different languages). So, Peter says, these are not drunk as you suppose. So again, it adds to the previous evidence that it was only the apostles who were baptized with the Holy Spirit, as Jesus had promised them just a few days earlier (Acts 1:5; Luke 24:48,49; and John 14-16).
But notice also that some in the crowd did marvel when they heard the apostles speak in their native tongue in v.7, and said, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?” “And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?” This seems to give further support to the evidence that it was just the apostles. We know that ALL of the apostles were from Galilee, but what are the chances that the 120 just happened to be all from Galilee as well? Highly unlikely! And yet, it is only the 12 apostles who then stand up to make a defense against being drunk in verse 14? The evidence is stacking up in favor of it being only the apostles who were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Also, in the first 5 chapters of Acts, after the day of Pentecost, it is ONLY the apostles who are performing miracles, signs, and wonders. It is not until the apostles lay their hands on the 7 in Acts 6, that we begin to see others, besides the apostles, possess miraculous gifts. Yes! only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in (Acts 2:1-4).
Aidan,
I read what you said and will reply at a future time.
However, I’m pretty sure you will hear back from Ed before I reply.
I hope he will be civil and perhaps even gracious toward you.
George
br.d
Hoping you and your wife have an enjoyable holiday together
Be well – and be safe!
Aidan,
You had said:
“George,
In Acts 2:1-4 the surrounding context makes it clear that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.”
My response:
How long have you been a Christian and you say this?
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles had already received the Holy spirit LONG BEFORE Pentecost.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
The believing crowd did get the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. And they started speaking in tongues, and the crowd thought they were drunk.
You church believes as you?
LAUD HAVE MUSEY!
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote to Aidan, “How long have you been a Christian and you say this?
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles had already received the Holy spirit LONG BEFORE Pentecost.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
The believing crowd did get the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. And they started speaking in tongues, and the crowd thought they were drunk.
You church believes as you?”
In Aidan defense, bibleref.com says this regarding John 20:22::
:”Jesus’ action here evokes the original creation of humanity and fulfils part of His promise to send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26–27). This will be crucial to their mission, though the full indwelling of the Spirit will not happen until Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4).”
So, in the spirit of graciousness, can we agree Aidan was only partly wrong?
George
George,
You had said:
“So, in the spirit of graciousness, can we agree Aidan was only partly wrong?”
My humble response:
Nope. Aidan and I disagree on just about everything. That’s no surprise.
The wording in John 20:22 is HUGELY important. More specifically, the word “BREATHED”.
Now, I know that cults concentrate HEAVILY on the HEBREW word for spirit as RUACH. Especially the LAW OF MOSES abiding Christians, who insist that Jesus is the wrong name, and YESHUA is the only name.
Having said that, the Greek word for SPIRIT is PNUEMA, meaning air. Jesus likened it to WIND at one time. But it is also BREATH, AKA THE BREATH OF LIFE.
The Holy Spirit is THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON. Jesus breathed on them the Holy Spirit, therefore, it cannot be as bibleref.com indicates, which you say is NOTHING MORE THAN A PROMISE for a later date, i.e. Pentecost.
But I’ll have even more to discuss with Aidan, such as if he sees the gifts listed, i.e. speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc., and he states that they are done away, then why do we have END TIMES people speaking in tongues, in which Peter mentions regarding Joel? Dreams and visions, prophesying, etc.
IF it was all done away, there would be none of that at all. So, it is still relevant for TODAY, as well as in the future, as well as in the past.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
Does this commentary change your mind about being gracious toward Aidan?
“I always thought the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples in John 20 when Jesus breathed on them in v. 22 and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
In your podcast you said they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until the Holy Spirit came upon them in the beginning of Acts.
How do you see the difference between the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20 and the Holy Spirit “coming upon” them and Acts 1 when they received power?
I always connected Acts 2 with 1 Cor 12:13 and the baptism of believers into the body of Christ, signifying the establishment of the church.
Starting with his last comment—yes, Acts 2 does tell of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Peter and the other Apostles had already been born again. But only then were they baptized by the Holy Spirit. Remember that Jesus had said in the upper room, “the Spirit of truth…dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:17, emphasis added). The Holy Spirit began permanently indwelling believers at Pentecost. That permanent indwelling is when believers are placed into (baptized into) the Body of Christ by the Spirit.
There is no question but that the Apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost. But did they also receive the Holy Spirit on the very day Jesus rose from the dead (John 20:22), seven weeks earlier?
The normal understanding of John 20:22 is that when Jesus breathed on the Eleven, He gave temporary enablement by means of the Holy Spirit. They did not gain permanent indwelling then. But they did get some special measure of the Spirit being with them.
I do not find that view convincing.
For one thing, the Apostles did not boldly go forth proclaiming the message of Christ at that time. In Acts when the disciples were filled with the Spirit, they proclaimed the word boldly (e.g., Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31). If they had received temporary enablement at the time of John 20:22, I think we’d see evidence of that recorded in the Gospels. But we do not.
For another thing, we know by the Lord’s own words that the time they would receive the Spirit would be after He ascended to heaven: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7). That is clear.
Also, immediately before He ascended, the Lord Jesus said, “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Compare that with Peter’s words in Acts 10:47, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Or Peter’s words in Acts 15:8, “So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us.” Peter was talking about Pentecost (see Acts 2:33), not the day Jesus rose from the dead.
I hold to another interpretation.
Jesus could not breathe on the disciples after He ascended to heaven. So, if He wanted to do that, He’d do it before His ascension.
The word translated “He breathed” is emphusaō, which is related to the Hebrew word for breath or spirit (nephesh). Thus, there is likely a play on words here.
The words, “Receive the Holy Spirit” need not be understood to mean receive the Holy Spirit right now. These words could be proleptic, meaning “the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished” (Merriam–Webster).
Say that your son was going to play in the Super Bowl in two weeks. But you have less than 24 hours to live. If, on your last night before death, you said, “Receive my blessing,” your son would know you were talking not about some blessing you were giving him that very moment, but your blessing for the game in two weeks. You need to say the blessing now because you’ll be in heaven when the Super Bowl is played.
I looked online and found an article (see here) which says that at least as early as the sixth century, John 20:22 was seen as proleptic. The article says that George Ladd held that view. While that is not the view of the author, he does show that it is a long-held view. (Some NT commentators suggest that John 20:22 refers to the time when the Eleven were born again. However, they were born again long before that, as a comparison of John 2:11 and John 3:16 shows.)
I also found another article, by Cornelis Bennema (see here), in which the author actually takes the view that John 20:22 is proleptic.
Proleptic definition, (of a date) retroactively calculated using a later calendar than the one used at the time.
George,
Again, you have another long comment, so I am only going to concentrate on this:
“How do you see the difference between the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20 and the Holy Spirit “coming upon” them and Acts 1 when they received power?”
My response:
The Apostles were not only called apostles, they were also called disciples, even tho they got a promotion.
But many times, they are also called, “THE TWELVE”. After the suicide of Judas, they were called, “The Eleven”.
Before Jesus died on the cross, he told THE TWELVE that after he rose from the dead, to meet him in Galilee. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, but he wasn’t going to be seen of THE ELEVEN until GALILEE.
Matthew 28:16
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
NO ONE ELSE.
NOTE the word “disciples” instead of APOSTLES.
John 20:19
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
That is when Jesus met TEN of the ELEVEN disciples (Apostles) in Galilee. Thomas wasn’t there, Judas was dead.
Then in verse 22, Jesus breathed on THOSE people. Therefore, the vast numerous other disciples of Jesus did not get the Holy Spirit until Pentecost.
In other words, WHO is being discussed in John 20:22? Location, Location, Location. First you must ascertain WHERE they were in John 20:22, and who was present. More importantly, who was NOT present.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Again, not my commentary. Only used it to show that Aidan had reasons to say Acts 2 was when the Holy Spirit was received.
So, be gracious and cut him some slack.
George
George,
Aidan and I already acknowledge our differences on this subject. I think you can let Aidan speak for himself. And I don’t believe that Aidan thinks that the 2nd coming of Jesus was with John at Patmos.
My bullet point is that there will be speaking in tongues and prophesying and dreams and visions in the future, as noted by Peter, when he mentioned the 6th Seal with reference to Joel. That proves that it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
Nothing is complete/perfect until the new heavens and new earth, when lion lays down with the lamb, and there will be no more pain, or sorrow, or sin.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, ‘You had a very long comment, but I am going to only talk about the following of what you said:
“First, what is the point of saying that the miraculous spiritual gifts will end at the second coming of Christ?”’
Reply:
I didn’t said that – I maintain the Second Coming of Christ was to John on the Isle of Patmos.
You are confusing what westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com wrote in their commentary with my reply.
I only quoted westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com, because I wanted to point out there is controversy on this issue, so be gracious to Aidan..
You wrote, “Because when the story is ALL OVER, when Jesus returns, all of us will be RESURRECTED from the dead, and it will be over, done, finished, complete, and perfect.”
Do you know what “perfect” means in Scripture? No? Try searching biblegateway.com.
Jesus returned to John, will return again to Rapture the Church and He’ll return again to save Israel from the armies of the antichrist. Then He will reign on earth for 1000 years. Afterwards, Satan will be released and finally dealt with. Then new heavens and a new earth will be created.
Then you might say it’s over, done, finished and complete.
The Rapture involves resurrection of the dead of believers for His wedding in heaven.
Then there is the resurrection of the dead for the Great White Throne Judgement after Jesus reigns for 1000 years..
“The great white throne judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15 and is the final judgment prior to the lost being cast into the lake of fire. We know from Revelation 20:7-15 that this judgment will take place after the millennium and after Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are (Revelation 19:19-20; 20:7-10). The books that are opened (Revelation 20:12) contain records of everyone’s deeds, whether they are good or evil, because God knows everything that has ever been said, done, or even thought, and He will reward or punish each one accordingly (Psalm 28:4; 62:12; Romans 2:6; Revelation 2:23; 18:6; 22:12)” Source is gotquestions.org.
George
And I don’t consider the 2nd coming of Christ with John at Patmos.
John was IN THE SPIRIT.
Ed Chapman
Strong’s concordance definition of Perfect regarding said verse is:
G5046
COMPLETE
Ed Chapman,
Just to be sure I’m understanding you correctly:
1 Corinthians 13:10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Strong’s concordance definition of Perfect regarding said verse is:
G5046
COMPLETE
You’re saying the word “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 means complete, because Strong’s concordance says it does.
Do you realize you are implying that consulting Strong’s concordance is more reliable than searching the Scriptures as the noble Bereans did, since you didn’t search the word “perfect” to find all the meanings in context as I suggested?
George
You miss something very vital here, George. The Bereans had no need of a concordance, because they spoke the original language the Scriptures (which would have been OT, as NT wasn’t written yet) were written in, and had access to original unaltered texts. They also would have understood cultural and language nuances, figures of speech etc…
Today, we do not have that same ability. Use of a concordance IS being a good Berean because it bridges the language gap to help us gain proper understanding.
Simply reading modern English versions from a Eurocentric perspective doesn’t best represent an ancient text written from a Jewish/Eastern perspective. Being a good Berean involves trying to understand the time, culture, language, and intentions of the writings from that perspective. A concordance is one tool that helps achieve this.
George may not answer you because he said he was going on vacation for two weeks.
Aidan
Aidan,
Regarding the meaning of “perfect” in Scripture: and whether to use a concordance or search the word in context:
I tried to answer Ed Chapman, but my comment wouldn’t post.
“Can’t find the IP address” was the error message I got..
George
Hi George,
Are you still on vacation or are you back? Maybe br.d might know why these things can happen?
Aidan
Hi Aidan,
We are asking non-content developers (i.e. posters) at SOT101 to refrain from posting links to internet sits.
The concern is that casual readers may misconstrue a link to another site – as a recommendation from SOT101.
Content developers for SOT101 may of course need to have URL links within their content.
Perhaps George would simply post the text of particular interest – in regard to the topic of discussion.
Thanks brd, I didn’t realize George had done that again.
Regards,
Aidan
br.d
No he didn’t
I just assumed he was referring to a link he posted a while ago.
Okay Brd, no problemo.
Aidan,
Br.d wrote, “No he didn’t
I just assumed he was referring to a link he posted a while ago.”
Reply:
Perhaps I innocently said something in which I was attempting to teach the Truth and our government’s Ministry of Truth blocked the comment.
Everything on the Internet; Google, Facebook and Twitter specifically are routinely censored for content. Do you think SOT101 is a safe place to provide God’s truth – exempt from the way of truth being blasphemed?
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV
George
Relax George!
br.d
Good Joke! 😀
Aidan,
I’m back from vacation.
Br.d wrote:
We are asking non-content developers (i.e. posters) at SOT101 to refrain from posting links to internet sits.
The concern is that casual readers may misconstrue a link to another site – as a recommendation from SOT101.
Content developers for SOT101 may of course need to have URL links within their content.
Perhaps George would simply post the text of particular interest – in regard to the topic of discussion
Your reply to Br.d:
Thanks brd, I didn’t realize George had done that again.
My reply:
I don’t believe I did use any links to other sites.
Perhaps Br.d is mistaken.
George
Kurt,
You wrote, “You miss something very vital here, George. The Bereans had no need of a concordance, because they spoke the original language the Scriptures (which would have been OT, as NT wasn’t written yet) were written in, and had access to original unaltered texts. They also would have understood cultural and language nuances, figures of speech etc.
Reply:
Kurt, I think you miss something very vital here. The Bereans had no concordance, so they searched the scriptures to determine whether what Paul was teaching was true. We have search engines to make research much easier.
Strong’s Concordance dates back to 1890 and “the purpose of Strong’s Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible.”
Ed Chapman gave the meaning for “perfect” as complete, because that definition is from Strong’s Concordance.
If “perfect” means complete then James 1:4 is redundant. “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” ESV
Had Ed searched using biblegateway, he would find 53 results in the ESV. Here are seven:
And when anyone offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it. Leviticus 22:21
“The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. Deuteronomy 32:4
This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:31
For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you. Job 36:4
Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge, Job 37:16
This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30
The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; Psalm 19:7
What is your understanding for the meaning of perfect in Matthew 5:48?
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. ESV
George
George,
First of all, the KJV is used with the Strong’s Concordance. Therefore, your Bible version, ESV, words things differently than the KJV.
You quoted James 1:4 in the following manner:
James 1:4 (ESV)
“And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
The KJV words is different:
James 1:4 (KJV)
But G1161 let G2192 ➔ patience G5281 have G2192 her perfect G5046 work, G2041 that G2443 ye may be G5600 perfect G5046 and G2532 entire, G3648 wanting G3007 nothing. G1722 G3367
Perfect: G5046
Entire: G3648 (Your version of the ESV “Complete”)
1Co 13:10 (KJV)
But G1161 when G3752 that which is perfect G5046 is come, G2064 then G5119 that which is in G1537 part G3313 shall be done away. G2673
Perfect: G5046
Your issue is with G3648, so let’s look at the definition of both G5046 and G3648:
Perfect: G5046
complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with G3588) completeness:—of full age, man, perfect.
Now, Entire: G3648 (Your ESV “Complete”)
complete in every part, i.e. perfectly sound (in body):—entire, whole.
IS James 1:4 really redundant, since it was two different Greek words used?
Matthew 5:48 is G5046
Ed Chapman
Ed
First of all, the KJV is used with the Strong’s Concordance.
br.d
That is correct.
My rememberance is that scholars consider Strongs to be a useful tool for finding words – but not for understanding word meanings.
Strong’s – as you indicated – is linked to the KJV translation.
Its been a few years since I dealt with this topic – but if I remember correctly – Strongs is considered a valuable tool as a concordance – but not to be used as a lexicon.
br.d,
You had said, twice, I might add (LOL):
“but not for understanding word meanings/lexicon”
My response:
In my experience, that is partially true. I only say partially, because I’ve found that it’s a research tool to do your own homework to FIND the definition. In other words, definitions are NOT as explicit as most people want it to be. But that is where FURTHER digging is needed, using the same concordance.
And, I know me and Brian banter about grammar, but I don’t discount what he brings all the time, as Greek words are tricky based on a whole slew of factors, just like Brian states. I still love to banter with him tho.
But it’s not the Greek that interests me, really. I could care less, to be honest. Everyone is a Greek expert. They are a dime a dozen.
What fascinates me, more-so, is the Hebrew, and how words can be made by putting together other Hebrew words to make one word, and how words lettering that combines words by adding lettering brings serious spiritual meanings that many don’t even bother to look at.
Take for example, the word Abram, to Abraham. What was added? HA.
Interesting that HA was added, because that HA has spiritual meaning. It’s a BREATH sound, aka meaning “spirit”.
Ab=Father, Ha=spirit, and I can’t remember the rest…it’s been a while.
And like Benjamin is Ben-Yamin, defined as “Son of the RIght Hand”…a spiritual reference to Jesus, meaning that we need to look deeper into the life of Benjamin on a spiritual level.
But no, the Greek doesn’t interest me at all. That’s Brian’s thing. LOL
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “IS James 1:4 really redundant, since it was two different Greek words used?”
Reply:
If complete, entire and lacking nothing all have the essentially same meaning, then indeed there is redundancy in James 1:4.
For example:
Johnny took a math test and answered every question on the test.
His entire test was complete and lacking nothing in his answers, since he showed his work as was required.
However, his grade was far from perfect, because he got over half the answers to the questions wrong.
Matthew 5:48 (Strong’s Concordance) Be ye therefore complete, even as your Father which is in heaven is complete.
My question is, “Complete how?”
A) Completely Sinless
B) Completely Holy
C) Completely Omniscient
D) Completely Loving
E) Completely Truthful
F) Completely Wonderous
G) Completely Flawless
H) Completely Forgiving
I) Completely Merciful
J) Completely Righteous
K) Completely Just
L) Other: ___________________
George
George,
Keep in mind, George, two different Greek words. While each word means “complete”, each definition goes into MORE detail regarding WHAT KIND of complete it’s discussing.
One of those is more detailed than the other.
Besides, I didn’t make the rules. I’m just noting the Greek words, which are different, both having SIMILAR definitions, but not EQUAL definitions.
Therefore, it is not redundant after all.
Your list of A-L, is, in MY opinion, irrelevant to the definition, because the way I see Matthew 5:48 is…MATURITY…
Why maturity?
Look at the definition of Perfect in the Strongs:
Perfect: G5046
complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with G3588) completeness:—of full age, man, perfect.
That does NOT mean that you are SINLESS.
You are already righteous, and just, without the maturity, due to just BEING a Christian. But you do have to “GROW”, both in MENTAL and MORAL character.
It’s the difference between being a BABY Christian (INCOMPLETE), and a GROWN UP Christian, who is wise, and makes better decisions, etc…complete.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
If I understand you correctly:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5:48 KJV
Is according to Strong’s Concordance:
Be ye therefore complete, even as your Father which is in heaven is complete.
And complete here is best understood as mature.
Be ye therefore mature, even as your Father which in heaven is mature.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying we are to be as mature as God in heaven.
Note that Jesus is saying we are to obtain the same level of perfection as God and you suggest it’s about being mature.
A large part of maturity is wisdom, which comes from God. Do you think what you’re suggesting is wise?
You are right that it’s not about being sinless, righteous or holy These are imputed to us when we are justified.
Scripture says we are to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16, Rom. 12:2, Phil. 2:15).
Peter writes, “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18 KJV
Paul advises, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJV
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV
We grow in grace and knowledge of Christ, with the goal of having the mind of Christ, and this knowledge is taught to us by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit through discernment. as result of persevering through trials of faith (James 1:4).
When we have obtained the mind of Christ, flawlessly understanding His teaching, we are said to be perfect.
George
Aidan,
You had said:
“And according to 1 Cor.13:8-13 the gifts ceased when revelation was complete and they were no longer needed. ”
My response:
I don’t remember reading “when revelation is completed…”
I remember reading “when that which is perfect come…”
Jesus isn’t back yet. Gifts are still relevant.
1 Corinthians 13:10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
We ain’t there yet.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “I don’t remember reading “when revelation is completed…”
I remember reading “when that which is perfect come…”
Jesus isn’t back yet. Gifts are still relevant.
1 Corinthians 13:10
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”
Reply:
westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, When The Perfect Comes
Misunderstanding the Perfect
A popular understanding of the “perfect” is that this is a reference to return of Jesus. This explanation makes sense. Jesus is perfect and we are waiting for his return. So many teach that Paul is saying that miraculous spiritual gifts will continue until Jesus returns. But there are many problems with this understanding of Paul’s teaching. First, what is the point of saying that the miraculous spiritual gifts will end at the second coming of Christ? Of course those gifts would end! Everything is going to end at the second coming of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Second, what is the point of saying that right now we cannot know all of God’s will but when Christ returns we will know fully? Again, this is not helpful, especially to these first century Christians who are arguing over spiritual gifts. Third, Paul says that three things will remain: faith, hope and love. But faith and hope cannot remain after the second coming of Christ. The scriptures are very clear that hope that is seen is not hope (Romans 8:24). No one hopes for what he sees. Hope is necessary until we are joined with Christ. Hope will not remain after the second coming. Further, faith will not remain either. The writer of Hebrews teaches that faith is the evidence of things no seen (Hebrews 11:1). There is no need for faith in Christ when we are gathered home with him. Paul is describing a time after the ending of spiritual gifts when faith, hope, and love will remain. Finally, many jump to verse 12 and state that we have not seen God face to face. Therefore, Paul is talking about the second coming when we will see God face to face. But this is not what Paul says if we carefully read it. The text does not say we will see God face to face. Paul simply says that we will see clearly like being face to face, rather than dimly. I will explain what this means in a moment. But I just want to point out that Paul does not say we will see God. That is not the time frame. These are just a few reasons why “the perfect” is not referring to when Jesus’ second coming. So what does Paul mean?
Understanding the Perfect
Since the partial is referring to the limited knowledge and information the Christians had in the first century through the spiritual gifts, the most natural understand of “the perfect” is a time when that knowledge would be complete and no longer limited. Reread verses 8-13 and consider how this interpretation fits best and makes the most sense of what Paul is teaching. In verse 8 Paul declares that these spiritual gifts that the Corinthians are fighting over will stop. Paul continues in verse 9 that at that time when Paul writes they only had partial knowledge and partial revelation from God, coming to them piece by piece, part by part, through the gifts. But when the full knowledge and revelation of God is given, then these spiritual gifts (the partial) will end (13:10). In verse 11 Paul describes these spiritual gifts as “elementary ways” or “childish ways.” Paul is not being derogatory toward spiritual gifts but is making a point that a more mature way is coming. Paul and the Corinthian Christians were living in a time of limited knowledge and understanding. But the perfect and mature was coming so that these things would be set aside and no longer necessary.
Verse 12 is beautiful. Paul describes their current condition of knowledge as seeing in a mirror dimly. Mirrors in the first century were not like mirrors today. Their mirrors were not made from glass. They could see their reflection clearly like we can today. They saw dimly in the metal they were looking at. But when the perfect arrives, Christians will be able to see so clearly that it will be like seeing face to face. Listen to the rest of verse 12. “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” This is a staggering declaration. Knowledge could only be received partially. God’s new covenant was being revealed a piece at a time. Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to write Ephesians. Peter was moved by the Spirit to write his two letters. James was moved by the Spirit to write his letter. John would write his three letters as the Spirit moved him. Living in the first century was a time when God’s will was being revealed a little bit at a time. But Paul pictures a time when that will no longer happen. When the full revelation of God came, Paul says he will know fully.
We are able to see God clearly with the word of God. We are not looking at God dimly. God has revealed all we need to see clearly. The clarity to which we are able to know God now through his word is unparalleled to any time in human history before the revelation of the scriptures. Once God revealed his word and will to his apostles and prophets, these spiritual gifts that Paul is writing about would no longer be necessary. Those gifts were revealing the knowledge of God. But once the apostles and prophets wrote God’s words down, continued revelation would be unnecessary. So only three things would remain once the full revelation of God came: faith, hope, and love. These are the great Christian characteristics that we must cling to. The greatest of these is love.”
Again, can we agree to be gracious and cut Aidan some slack?
The issue here is “what is the meaning of ‘perfect’ in Scripture?”. I have suggested many times the best way to find out is to search the Scriptures as the noble Bereans did and the best way to do that is to search biblegateway.com for the keyword “perfect” using your favorite translation. You might be enlightened if you do.
George
George,
You had a very long comment, but I am going to only talk about the following of what you said:
“First, what is the point of saying that the miraculous spiritual gifts will end at the second coming of Christ?”
My response:
Because when the story is ALL OVER, when Jesus returns, all of us will be RESURRECTED from the dead, and it will be over, done, finished, complete, and perfect.
There will be a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, etc.
There will be no need for prophesying, no need for tongues, etc.
It is my belief by then, we will NOT have more than one language, so there will be no need for tongues. There will be no need for miracles. Everything will be perfect.
By the way, FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE are not GIFTS.
Love will continue on, yes, but what is faith? Faith is…Hebrews 11:1. Your belief in an expectation that you are waiting for. Hope is part of that definition. But they are not gifts.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You said, “In Acts 2:1-4 the surrounding context makes it clear that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.”
My reply:
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy. Acts 2:14-18 NIV
It states in Acts 2:17 and Joel 2:28 that God pours out His Spirit on all people (sons and daughters, young men, old men, His servants both men and women).
I would have written earlier, but was on vacation and I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
George
George,
I WROTE: “In Acts 2:1-4 the surrounding context makes it clear that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.”
YOU REPLIED: “It states in Acts 2:17 and Joel 2:28 that God pours out His Spirit on all people (sons and daughters, young men, old men, His servants both men and women).”
MY RESPONSE: It is always best to interpret a verse in light of the surrounding context which shows that only the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
_Was everything mentioned in this prophecy fulfilled on Pentecost?_ No. Joel did not prophesy what would take place on just one day. He spoke of the last days, a period of time or dispensation:
17 “‘IN THE LAST DAYS, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit IN THOSE DAYS,
and they will prophesy. Acts 2:14-18
Aidan,
You wrote, “_Was everything mentioned in this prophecy fulfilled on Pentecost?_ No. Joel did not prophesy what would take place on just one day. He spoke of the last days, a period of time or dispensation:
17 “‘IN THE LAST DAYS, God says,…”
My reply:
Don’t let the words “in the last days” cloud your understanding. Remember, one day to God is 1000 years to man (2 Peter 3:8).
Peter was saying the people speaking in tongues were not drunk, they were prophesying (declaring the wonders of God) as written in Joel.
11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”
Peter Addresses the Crowd
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: Acts 2:11-16 NIV
The people (both Jews and converts to Judaism) speaking in tongues were not drunk v15. NO! They are fulfilling the prophecy of Joel v16, because the Holy Spirit was poured out on them.
George
.
George,
You wrote:
“Don’t let the words “in the last days” cloud your understanding. Remember, one day to God is 1000 years to man (2 Peter 3:8).”
Response:
Okay, so that opens up the POSSIBILITY that he could have been speaking of at least a 1000 years here.
But if you are going to insist that everything in Joel’s prophecy occurred in just one day, then where was the BLOOD, FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE on that day (2:19) or ‘THE SUN TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, on that day (2:20)? Somehow I get the feeling you are going to give a silly answer to this question!
And then in the last verse of Joel’s prophecy quoted by Peter, he says: ‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED’ (2:21). That would mean, if we are to follow your interpretation, that calling on the name of the Lord was limited to calling on the day of Pentecost. This of course is debunked by (Romans 10:9-17).
Your NIV translation of Acts 2:15 is unfortunate which says “These PEOPLE are not drunk, as you suppose.” From which you surmise: “The people (both Jews and converts to Judaism) speaking in tongues were not drunk v15.” The NIV is not the only translation which adds the word “people” to this verse. But that’s not what the verse says.
The English word “people” is not there in the greek or the literal translations. Young’s literal translation says:
“for these are not drunken, as ye take it up, for it is the third hour of the day.” YLT
“For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” KJV
“For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.” NKJV
“For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day” ASV
Who are the “THESE” of the passage? The previous verse shows that “THESE” are the apostles who are standing with Peter as he addressed the crowd.
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. “For THESE are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day” (2:14-15).
That my friend is in keeping with the context of not only this passage, but also the rest of scripture on this matter.
Aidan,
You wrote, “Okay, so that opens up the POSSIBILITY that he could have been speaking of at least a 1000 years here.
But if you are going to insist that everything in Joel’s prophecy occurred in just one day, then where was the BLOOD, FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE on that day (2:19) or ‘THE SUN TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, on that day (2:20)? Somehow I get the feeling you are going to give a silly answer to this question!
Reply:
Actually, “last days” is plural, so 2000+ man years is two God days.
Jews have long believed that because God created in six days and rested one day, and because one day to the Lord is 1000 years, therefore man will work 6,000 years and rest 1000 years.
Scripture supports this belief (Chiliasm).
“After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” Hosea 6:2 KJV
According to Bishop Usher who studied biblical genealogy, Adam was created 4000 years before Christ was born and we know Christ was born ~2,000 year ago.
Jesus will reign 1000 years on earth in peace and prosperity (Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:6, 65:20, Revelation 20).
The Day of the Lord does not last one day, nor 1000 years. This is an “epic day” or “epoch period” colossal event of undetermined length.
The word “day” has several meanings.
1) He called the light “day” – daylight period which can be very long in Alaska.
2) There was morning and evening, one day – 24 hour day.
3) A day unto God is as a thousand years – 1000 man years = 1 God day
4) Epic day, or epoch period – An colossal event of undetermined length.
I hope you take this explanation seriously.
George
Aidan,
Like it or not, GEORGE IS RIGHT. He is right on his premise, regarding speaking in tongues, but he’s a TINY bit off, regarding his INSIGHT on Joel. But he’s NOT FAR OFF even in that.
I’ve never said this about George, ever. And I hope George reads this. But I am addressing it to you, Aidan. Because George is CORRECT, and RIGHT.
The SIXTH SEAL is what Joel is discussing. But what was PETER talking about?
Peter was discussing TWO things.
1. The 144,000 of Revelation 7
2. The 6th Seal of Revelation 6
Right after the 6th Seal, of which Joel is discussing, the 144,000 are SEALED with the Holy Spirit. And it is THEY who will be speaking in tongues, and all the things that Peter mentions.
The 144,000 are LEFT BEHIND, after the RAPTURE, to preach to the Unbelieving Jews that are ALSO “LEFT BEHIND”…for those who can’t stand Jerry Jenkins, and that Tim Lahaye.
The 144,000 are raptured IN THE MIDST of the 7th Seal in chapter 14, right before Armageddon.
Now…what about the rest of us? Jesus mentions the rapture…seems that some haven’t gotten that memo yet!
Matthew 24
Sixth Seal:
Matthew 24:29
Rapture:
Matthew 24:30-31
Mark 13
Sixth Seal:
Mark 13:24-25
Rapture:
Mark 13:26-27
Luke 21
Sixth Seal:
Luke 21:25-26
Rapture:
Luke 21:27
And that ENDS everything that Jesus said about End Times.
Please NOTE that Jesus never said ANYTHING, and I do mean NOTHING, about the 7th Seal of Revelation at all.
But he certainly did indeed mention the 6th Seal, just like Peter did, Just like Joel did, and Just like Revelation chapter 6 does.
And, regarding Peter, he included the 144,000 Jews, indicating that the two events are SIDE BY SIDE events. The 6th Seal, THEN the 144,000 getting the Holy Spirit.
Jesus never mentions the 144000 in his end of times gospels, and why? Because CHRISTIANS are not going thru the 7th Seal, so we won’t even be bothered with…THE INFAMOUS MARK OF THE BEAST, which is embeded in the 7th Seal.
It’s all about connecting the dots, and the 6th Seal is the key to do so, because it is mentioned A LOT.
Yes, there is a Rapture, Waldo! We do indeed fly away in a secret rapture.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “Yes, there is a Rapture, Waldo! We do indeed fly away in a secret rapture.”
Reply:
Nothing secret about the Rapture.
Timing:
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Hosea 6:2 KJV
After two days (2000 years), he (Jesus) will revive (bring back to life) us; in the third day (2000+ AD) he (Jesus) will raise us up (Rapture) and we shall live in his (Jesus) sight.
Prelude:
The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins
25 “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom [a]is coming; go out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.
11 “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ 12 But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’
13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour [b]in which the Son of Man is coming. Matthew 25:1-13 NKJV
Note: “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’
NO SECRET RAPTURE, because a cry goes out in advance!
Warning to be prepared:
7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’
Too late for the foolish:
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.
Begging from the foolish:
11 “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ 12 But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’
Notice they call Jesus Lord, Lord, which is the same as Matthew 7:21
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’. NKJV
George
That’s fine, Ed, I’ll leave the WALDO stuff between you and George to discuss! Ye can WALDO away to your hearts content.😉
Aidan,
You wrote. “I’ll leave the WALDO stuff between you and George to discuss! Ye can WALDO away to your hearts content.”
Reply:
Ed Chapman wrote, “Yes, there is a Rapture, Waldo! We do indeed fly away in a secret rapture.”
I know the Rapture is not secret and explained why to Ed, so no need to discuss that further.
Perhaps Waldo refers to:
“Etymology. From the Robert A. Heinlein story Waldo, published in Astounding in 1940, derived from the name of the eponymous protagonist, Waldo F. Jones, who invented remote manipulators to overcome his own myasthenia gravis.”
“Waldo’s personality can best be described as arrogance combined with misanthropy. He does not think of himself as crippled. In his mind he is superior to all other humans because of his weakness. He reasons that if a chimpanzee is ten times as strong as a man, and a man is ten times as strong as a Waldo, then Waldoes are as far above men as men are above chimpanzees. He calls the rest of humanity “overmuscled canaille, smooth chimps”. His home’s location, which he calls Freehold, is located in orbit high above Earth and is symbolic of his relation to the rest of humanity.”
It would seem that perhaps by Ed calling you “Waldo” he considers you’re both arrogant and weak, which would be unchristian of him to do so. IMO he needs to apologize or explain what he meant by calling you “Waldo!”
George
George,
The rapture topic that I mentioned was NOT MEANT to prove that there is, or isn’t a rapture, but to prove that it is the 144000 who will be the ones speaking in tongues after the 6th Seal, and I had to use the 6th seal as a starting point, because that is what YOU referenced with Peter in Acts 2, regarding Peter’s reference to Joel, and we all know that Aidan keeps referencing Acts 2 in his GIFTS and BAPTISM discussions.
The Rapture is just in the way of the topic of the 6th seal, so it really couldn’t be ignored, even tho it was not part of the subject at hand.
It was a means to get to the final point that gifts have not ceased, and will not cease until EVERYTHING is COMPLETE…at the END of “THE AGE”. That’s when THE FULLNESS, will be. In THE END. Not some 2000 years ago.
So, you were right, and Aidan is offended at Waldo remark! Imagine that.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Again, nope, I wasn’t offended by the funny Waldo remark. The rest of it was far more offensive than that.😎
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “The rapture topic that I mentioned was NOT MEANT to prove that there is, or isn’t a rapture, but to prove that it is the 144000 who will be the ones speaking in tongues after the 6th Seal, and I had to use the 6th seal as a starting point, because that is what YOU referenced with Peter in Acts 2, regarding Peter’s reference to Joel, and we all know that Aidan keeps referencing Acts 2 in his GIFTS and BAPTISM discussions.”
Reply:
saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”
Revelation 7:3 NKJV
15 And the Lord said to him, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him. Genesis 4:15 NKJV
First, I don’t see any proof that the 144,000 are sealed with the Holy Spirit – only that they are sealed with a mark on their foreheads – not unlike the mark God put on Cain.
Second, I don’t see any proof that the 144,000 are speaking in tongues. Why would they need to, since they are Jews witnessing to Israel?
Third, you say the seventh seal comes after the sixth seal.
However, you don’t include the Gog/Magog/Persia/Ethiopia/Libya attack on Israel in your eschatology (Ezekiel 38,39).
It takes 7 years to just burn their weapons, so a significant amount of time passes between the sixth and seventh seal..
And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years: Ezekiel 39:9 KJV
Seven year tribulation?
This high school student knows better.
However, he still makes the error of adding 7 weeks to 62 weeks = 69 weeks (Daniel 9:24).
“It is argued amongst Christians if the seven year tribulation of the prophetic end times is a true interpretation. In fact, this futurist view is not the most popular and most believed amongst Christians today. The idea of a seven year tribulation comes from a misinterpretation of Daniel chapter 9 which is a prophecy about the Messiah, not the antichrist or a seven year tribulation. So in Daniel chapter 9, the Jewish people are still in Babylonian captivity. There was a Jewish man by the name of Daniel and he loved God a lot. Daniel was praying in the first half of this chapter and it is at verse 24 where the prophecy begins.
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel Chapter 9, verses 24-27 KJV)
So here, the angle Gabriel explains what must happen in this prophecy. Now this time is not literal. 70 weeks is about more than a year, and the Jews were in Babylon longer than a year. So what can this mean? Well the Bible has the answer, In Ezekiel chapter 4 verse 6 it states, “And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. I have appointed thee each day for a year.” (Ezekiel 4:6 KJV) Ezekiel is a prophetical book, so when relating with time, one prophetical day equals one literal year. So what is the time period that the Angle Gabriel explains. Let’s do the math. 70 weeks times 7 days in each week equals 490 days. Using the day for a year principal, this results to 490 years God has given Ancient Israel as the Angle clearly states. So when does this prophecy of the Messiah begin. The Angle has the answer. He said, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks” (Daniel 9: 24 KJV) So from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem is when the prophecy would start. This command came in 457 BC when the Persian king made a decree allowing this to happen. So 457 BC is the starting point. Now the angle says seven weeks, threescore and two weeks or 62 weeks. So 62+7=69 weeks. This is equivalent to 483 days, and using the day for a year principle, 483 years. SO remember, years in BC go down while AD goes up. So subtract 483 from 457. 457-483= -26. So converting to AD, that is 26 AD. But there is a problem. You also need to remember that there is no year 0. It goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, so you need to add a year. This leads you to 27 AD. Now this is when the Messiah would arrive on this scene. now we can find in Luke Chapter 3, it states, the following, “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” (Luke 3: 1-2 KJV) SO here is where some people may see a problem. There is a lot of date mixing with the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign. Since he officially became Roman emperor by himself in 14 AD, people start it there, and that would bring us to 29 AD. However, there is one fact to consider. Tiberius was made co-regent or co-ruler alongside Augustus, the Roman emperor who succeeded him. Tiberius began being co-ruler in 12AD. Add 15 years to 12AD and it reaches 27AD which many actually believe was the baptism of Jesus Christ, therefore anointing him as the Messiah and he began his ministry.
Now the last week is where everything gets crazy. This is where people get a 7 year tribulation from and that’s where they use the day for year principle. Yet, they do not use it for the first big chunk. Just this little part to go with their false interpretation. This is cherry picking from the Bible. So what is the real interpretation. Well it says the MESSIAH shall be cut off, and in the midst of the week (the last) he will cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease and he shall confirm the covenant. You see there is no indication if this talks about the antichrist. The only person mentioned before the actions is the messiah. Most Christians today think the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews. Yet, this prophecy is about the coming of the Messiah and his sacrifice. It says in the middle of the week. The middle of the week or 7 literal years is 3 1/2. So Jesus did preach the gospel for 3 1/2 years. This would lead to 31 since the half of the year would reach to 31 AD or sometime around that. After these 3 1/2 years, he was killed as it says, Messiah shall be cut off or killed. Then he shall cause the sacrifices to stop. What does that mean? It means the old Mosaic sacrificial system was over nd Jesus established the new covenant with the blood he shed on the Cross for all humanity. Now what about the other half? The last 3 1/2 years. That was the time that the apostles of Jesus preached mainly to the Jews to give them more time to accept Christ as the Messiah. At this time, they rejected the message and it is debatable, but in one of the years from 33, 34 AD, 35 or 36AD. However, with the accuracy of the prophecy, 34 AD would be the most accurate choice. We can now see the brilliance or Christian prophecy and how God planned this out. Jesus’ sacrifice and mercy and love is enough to save the very worst of sinners. Will you accept it friends? I sure hope that you do.”
March 29, 2021
9th Grade
By: Diego
Fernandez.
Queens Village
Benjamin N Cardozo High School
George
George,
You write a very long reply, and I don’t have time, at the moment to read all of it. I only get 1/2 hour for lunch.
But, from scanning a few paragraphs of yours, the following is my response:
It sounds to me like you need to learn all your can about those 144000.
The word SEAL is not a foreign word. We are sealed.
That’s a huge hint right there.
And finally, I do not concern myself with Gog and Magog, or anything from Daniel, etc.
I don’t concern myself with 7 years either.
I don’t concern myself with the mark of the Beast either.
All of that is within the 7th seal, and we won’t be here for that.
From my study, seals 1 thru 6 is NOT the wrath of God, meaning that it is not God’s judgment, meaning it is not THE DAY OF THE LORD.
And as such, we will go thru seals 1-6.
But not the 7th seal.
Got and Magog is for someone else to worry about. Not us.
The mark of the Beast is for someone else to worry about. Not us.
However long it takes to go thru seals 1 thru 6… that’s our only concern.
But, for you, learn about those 144000. What is their characteristics?
One of them is that they are all unmarried virgin men. Never been with woman. And, they are all Jews.
That’s about it.
When the crowd told Peter that they sound drunk, he spoke about what people will be doing around the time of the 6th seal.
And I answered that. The 6th seal, is in chapter 6 of Revelation. The sealing of 144000 is chapter 7. The 7th seal, which we aren’t here for, begins in chapter 8, ending in chapter 16. The rest of Revelation explains 12 headed monsters, and giant mice, and 14 toes on a one legged dog, that has pimples and purple hair. Kinda. Which means, I don’t care, cuz I’m not attending that party. I’m outta here back in the latter part of chapter 7, right after the 144000 get sealed.
Ed Chapman,
The 144,00 are sealed with a mark on their forehead – not by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
You are to be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect and you have made it clear you are not interested in knowing anything beyond the Rapture, which is far, far, far from being perfect.
Why learn math beyond arithmetic, since being able to balance your checkbook is all you feel you need to know?
Why have any education, if everything you need to know is instantly accessible on your phone?
More importantly, why attempt to teach the meaning of Scripture to others, if you don’t care to know what you think doesn’t apply to you? Ask yourself, would you want a teacher with that attitude?
George
George,
Thanks for the education on Waldo! I didn’t know what Waldo was, nor did I think Ed was calling me Waldo either. I just saw it as something funny to throw back at him for all the crazy stuff about the 144000. I’d rather leave that discussion between him and yourself. That’s all it was.
Ohhhh..you don’t see the connection of What Peter said equating to the 6th Seal/144000. That’s a pity.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You wrote, “Thanks for the education on Waldo! I didn’t know what Waldo was, nor did I think Ed was calling me Waldo either.”
Reply:
You’re welcome.
Apparently Ed was in the navy and may have served on the USS Waldo County (LST-1163). Perhaps he was only flashing back to his naval days. He never explained what he meant by “Waldo”.
George
No problem George.
You know, Ed, is wrong about SO many things, I thought we could give him a pass on Waldo😉!
Aidan,
You wrote, “You know, Ed, is wrong about SO many things, I thought we could give him a pass on Waldo.”
Reply:
Attacking fellow Christians is a serious thing:
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ (empty head) shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22 NKJV
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5 NKJV
So, I feel it is my Christian duty to warn Ed and others here of the serious consequences for their judgmental postings.
Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. Colossians 1:28, 29 NKJV
Did you notice that it is by warning and teaching in all wisdom what we help perfect others?
I hope Ed now understands the meaning of “perfect” in Matthew 5:48. Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. NKJV
George
Lighten up, George! Facts don’t care about his feelings.
Aidan,
Wow, really? I didn’t know that the Waldo thing would be that detrimental that it offended you. I was in my Van Halen mood. I know you lied the 80’s, as I did. We didn’t have MTV on the ship I was stationed on at the time, as I was stationed in Japan, and out to sea a lot. So a buddy of mine from back home mailed me a VHS tape of MTV, and I took that tape and gave it to our SITE-TV guy, so he played it for the whole ship…when he wasn’t supposed to, cuz it wasn’t DOD approved. LOL.
The whole point of my comment is that in the END TIMES, as George was discussing, and you deny, gifts have not ceased, speaking in tongues has not ceased, as those 144000 will be doing it.
George is RIGHT.
And I hit a nerve with you, otherwise, Waldo would mean nothing to anyone, because it was not used in a derogatory way. You took it as such, tho, because George proved you wrong.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I didn’t know what Waldo was. Didn’t think you were calling me Waldo. Just thought it a funny way of saying I’ll leave you and George to the 144000. I’m sure it would be an en-rapturing conversation between the two of ye.😉
Ya, I never meant for Waldo to be derogatory. Glad you didn’t take it as such, but your subsequent response dismissing the 144000 (speaking in tongues) connection with Acts 2 concerns me, big time.
I’m glad you dismissed Waldo, but I’m not so happy about your dismissing the 144000 speaking in tongues.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
“I’m glad you dismissed Waldo, but I’m not so happy about your dismissing the 144000 speaking in tongues.”
Response:
I’m sure you’ll get over it.
No, I’d really like to hear what your interpretation of the following means to YOU, as it relates to JEWS speaking in tongues in Acts 2:8
Acts 2:8
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Acts 2:16-20
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
It’s OBVIOUS that verse 20 is referring to Revelation 6:12-17, which Joel mentions, which Peter refers.
So, it’s not that simple to just “get over it”, because Acts 2 is your CLAIM TO FAME for two different subject matters.
1. Baptism
2. Gifts
Inquiry minds want to know!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
No thanks! We’ve gone down that rabbit hole before. No point going there again as far as I’m concerned.
But you know my position:
Acts 1:2-3 “until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments TO THE APOSTLES WHOM He had chosen, TO WHOM [aka the apostles] He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, BEING SEEN BY THEM [the apostles] during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Acts 1:4 AND BEING ASSEMBLED TOGETHER WITH THEM [ he is still talking about the apostles], He commanded THEM not to depart from Jerusalem, but to WAIT FOR THE PROMISE of the Father, “which,” He said, “YOU [the apostles] HAVE HEARD from Me; [John 14 to John 16]
Acts 1:5 “FOR [here comes His explanation harping back to Mt. 3:10-12] John truly baptized with water, BUT YOU [the apostles] SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT NOT MANY DAYS FROM NOW.”[Jesus tells the Apostles that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now, (cf Acts 2:1-4)]
IT’S AS CLEAR AS DAY! It would take a blind man NOT to see that it was ONLY THE APOSTLES who were to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit “not many days from now” (Acts 2:1-4).
By the way, I’m not sure whether you are confused, but the baptism of (Acts 2:38,41) is WATER BAPTISM, a completely different baptism to (Acts 2:1-4). WATER BAPTISM IS THE ONLY BAPTISM FOR SALVATION. It is FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS according to (v.38). And notice, they also received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” which I believe in this instance is NOT Holy Spirit baptism — but rather, part of the new birth.
On the other hand:
What occurred in (Acts 2:1-4) IS HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ALLOW JESUS TO DEFINE IT in (Acts 1:5).
No dude, you gotta step up!
* By the way, that “no dude, you gotta step up” was words of Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters, regarding Nandi (the 9 year old girl drummer), who challenged him to a drum-off! You GOTTA see that. She even played in his band last August, and just a couple weeks ago, regarding Taylor Hawkins tribute. You gotta see her! Dave’s friends told Dave, “No dude, you gotta step up!”
You can’t give up just like that.
Peter mentions that 6th seal, and you just don’t want to admit it, and the context…the next event of Revelation 7 is the sealing of the 144000, and it is in that sealing that the 144000 will be speaking in tongues.
It’s as if you just want to DELETE that part of Acts 2.
It’s really AMUSING that you don’t wish to address this.
I’ll take the WIN, due to your FORFEIT!
But, check out NANDI on YouTube!
Ed Chapman
No dude, I don’t gotta step up!
You and I have a completely different approach to the book of Revelation which I don’t want to get into. That’s another ball of wax altogether!
But, you can take the WIN, if that’s what floats your boat.
At least I learned about NANDI.
George,
Consider the following:
1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was made to a few, not all men (Matt. 3:10-12).
2. Many of the words regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit were directed only to the apostles, not all men (John 14-16; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5).
3. The Holy Spirit, when He did come, was seen and heard (Acts 2:33). It was not something, “better felt than told” like some claim today.
4. It was only the apostles who were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. That whole chapter centers around the apostles.
5. Also, [reading from 1:26] both the pronouns and context are referring to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 when the Spirit falls on them.
6. The apostles were all Galileans. It was only Galileans who were speaking in tongues in 2:7.
7. Only the apostles make a defense for not being drunk because of speaking in tongues in 2:14.
8. Only the apostles are manifesting miraculous abilities in the first 5 chapters of Acts.
9. It is not until the apostles lay hands on others in Acts 6, that others begin to manifest spiritual gifts as well.
Spiritual gifts were imparted by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands:
This was necessary at Samaria (Acts 8:12-18). We see that Philip could perform miracles [The apostles had laid their hands on him, Acts 6:6], but he had to send for Peter and John to impart “spiritual gifts.” These gifts had nothing to do with the salvation of these people (Acts 8:12-13; Mark 16:15-16).
Also, after the apostle Paul baptized 12 men at Ephesus he laid his hands on them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:1-7). Paul also wanted to go to Rome in order to “impart some spiritual gift” (Rom. 1:8-11). Evidently no apostle had been among them.
Timothy had received a gift by the laying on of Paul’s hands in (2 Tim. 1:6). [This is not to be confused with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery or eldership in (1 Tim. 4:14).]
Acts 2 and 10 are special cases. B.B. Warfield makes a good observation. He says, “Only in the two great initial instances of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the reception of Cornelius are charismata recorded as conferred without the laying on of the hands of the Apostles. There is no instance on record of their conference by the laying on of the hands of anyone else than an Apostle. The case of the Samaritans, recorded in the eight chapter of Acts, is not only a very instructive one in itself, but may even be looked upon as the cardinal instance” (21-22).
Based on the scriptural evidence, unless you can provide biblical evidence to the contrary, what I can conclude is this: When the last person on whom the Apostles had laid their hands had died, spiritual gifts would have certainly ceased!
Aidan
You had said:
“1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was made to a few, not all men (Matt. 3:10-12).
2. Many of the words regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit were directed only to the apostles, not all men (John 14-16; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5).
4. It was only the apostles who were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. That whole chapter centers around the apostles.
My response:
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 3:16
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Which apostle was being addressed?
Who is “YOU” in the above references? Apostles? LOL. Come on, Aidan.
Ed,
Instead of trying to pick on what you THINK is the weakest point, why don’t you try and take on the rest of the points as well? Take the argument as a whole!
Here are the rest of the points again:
2. Many of the words regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit were directed only to the apostles, not all men (John 14-16; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5).
3. The Holy Spirit, when He did come, was seen and heard (Acts 2:33). It was not something, “better felt than told” like some claim today.
4. It was only the apostles who were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. That whole chapter centers around the apostles.
5. Also, [reading from 1:26] both the pronouns and context are referring to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 when the Spirit falls on them.
6. The apostles were all Galileans. It was only Galileans who were speaking in tongues in 2:7.
7. Only the apostles make a defense for not being drunk because of speaking in tongues in 2:14.
8. Only the apostles are manifesting miraculous abilities in the first 5 chapters of Acts.
9. It is not until the apostles lay hands on others in Acts 6, that others begin to manifest spiritual gifts as well.
Spiritual gifts were imparted by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands:
This was necessary at Samaria (Acts 8:12-18). We see that Philip could perform miracles [The apostles had laid their hands on him, Acts 6:6], but he had to send for Peter and John to impart “spiritual gifts.” These gifts had nothing to do with the salvation of these people (Acts 8:12-13; Mark 16:15-16).
Also, after the apostle Paul baptized 12 men at Ephesus he laid his hands on them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:1-7). Paul also wanted to go to Rome in order to “impart some spiritual gift” (Rom. 1:8-11). Evidently no apostle had been among them.
Timothy had received a gift by the laying on of Paul’s hands in (2 Tim. 1:6). [This is not to be confused with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery or eldership in (1 Tim. 4:14).]
Acts 2 and 10 are special cases. B.B. Warfield makes a good observation. He says, “Only in the two great initial instances of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the reception of Cornelius are charismata recorded as conferred without the laying on of the hands of the Apostles. There is no instance on record of their conference by the laying on of the hands of anyone else than an Apostle. The case of the Samaritans, recorded in the eight chapter of Acts, is not only a very instructive one in itself, but may even be looked upon as the cardinal instance” (21-22).
Aidan,
You had said:
“Acts 2 and 10 are special cases. B.B. Warfield makes a good observation. He says…”
My response:
I think Ed Chapman makes a better observation! BB puts his pants on the same way that I do.
Having said that, you also said:
“We only find out who the “YOU” are later on when the rest of the evidence is examined. Something which obviously you are not prepared to do!”
And
“The reason for this is that the words of John the baptist were addressed to a mixed group, a few of whom would receive the baptism of the Spirit, while others, the “brood of vipers” would receive the baptism of fire.”
Ahhhhh. Interesting how you word this…
BROOD OF VIPERS = FIRE?
Apostles = Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Everyone else? Water?
At what point? JUST AS SOON AS THEY DEPART THE WOMB???? By appointment only, of course, and that might take a couple a months! LOL. In the mean time…hell for Adam’s sin, until, let me check calendar again…November 22?
What are you suggesting here, Aidan? That the BROOD OF VIPERS is gonna visit Satan’s Kingdom soon? Hell Fire?
Apostles only ones going to heaven?
It might surprise you, but John’s Baptism was for REPENTANCE.
The BROOD OF VIPERS people did indeed get John’s Baptism.
Luke 3:7
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
So let me get this straight…those who were baptized by John, are going to go to hell? Most of them? But only 12 will be lucky to be spared?
Got it!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote;
“So let me get this straight…those who were baptized by John, are going to go to hell? Most of them? But only 12 will be lucky to be spared?”
Response:
Boy!!!!!! You really don’t pay attention much, do ya? Those who repented and were baptized by John were fine. But those who rejected the gospel refusing to repent Mth 3:7-9 (aka the likes of the Pharisees etc) were the BROOD OF VIPERS.
And, John doesn’t specify here WHO would be baptized in the Holy Spirit — which has nothing to do with HOW you get saved btw. That was NOT THE PURPOSE of Holy Spirit baptism. People are saved by hearing and responding to the gospel.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, BROTHER AIDAN, but those VIPERS of Pharisees, are the exact same ones that Luke mentions. It’s the same story. THOSE Pharisees and such did get baptized by John.
I mentioned Luke in my reference, you mention Matthew. It’s the same story.
How can you tell?
Both have the following statement addressed to the VIPERS:
“who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come”
NOTE:
Luke 3:7
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
The VIPERS were Baptized by John. It does NOT say anything about those who do not believe.
Pharisees were getting baptized.
Matthew specifies Pharisees and Saducees, whereas Luke specifies MULTITUDE. Same story told by two different people.
You need some reading glasses.
Ed Chapman
WRONG AGAIN ED,
As a whole, THE PHARISEES and many of the religious leaders DID NOT SUBMIT TO JOHN’S BAPTISM:
Luke 7:29 “And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.”
Luke 7:30 “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, NOT having been baptized by him.”
Why do you think John rebuked them? Matthew 3 is just more specific about whom John was rebuking for their unwillingness to repent.
“and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Mat. 3:9). THEY WERE JUST THERE FOR SHOW!
Wrong, Aidan,
Luke 3:7
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
That does not say what you say it says.
Do you see the words TO BE BAPTIZED OF HIM?
Just because they were called Vipers, SO WHAT? They came to be baptized. Where does it say that they were NOT baptized?
He discussed PUBLICANS, and SOLDIERS, as well in the chapter.
Ed, you wrote:
“Just because they were called Vipers, SO WHAT? They came to be baptized. Where does it say that they were NOT baptized?”
Response:
Luke 7:30 “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, NOT having been baptized by him.”
Aidan,
So, you got Vipers coming to be baptized.
And here you have Jesus calling Peter, Satan!
Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
I think that’s worse than being called a viper.
And you know both of our “Brethren of the flesh”, the BRITISH?
Why is everything so “bloody” to them? LOL.
Ed Chapman
It could have been worse, he could have called them Waldos😎!!!!
Furthermore, you said:
“And, John doesn’t specify here WHO would be baptized in the Holy Spirit — which has nothing to do with HOW you get saved btw. That was NOT THE PURPOSE of Holy Spirit baptism. People are saved by hearing and responding to the gospel.”
My response:
This is such a confusing statement. I don’t know any church that actually preaches what you said here.
Hearing and responding is the means by which you are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Every Christian is Baptized in the Holy Spirit. And YES, that IS how you get saved. The Holy Spirit is the SEAL of the Promise that you are SAVED ALREADY, even tho the event has not taken place until we die.
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
WHICH IS ALSO the same SEAL that the 144000 get in the book of Revelation chapter 7.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“Hearing and responding is the means by which you are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Every Christian is Baptized in the Holy Spirit. And YES, that IS how you get saved. The Holy Spirit is the SEAL of the Promise that you are SAVED..”
Response:
As I said before, you are confused! The baptism of (Acts 2:38,41) which is WATER BAPTISM, is a completely different baptism to (Acts 2:1-4). WATER BAPTISM IS THE ONLY BAPTISM FOR SALVATION. It is FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS according to (v.38).
Notice they received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in (v.38) which I believe IN THIS INSTANCE IS NOT HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM — but rather, part of the new birth. WATER BAPTISM IS WHERE THEY WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT!
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
After the 3000 believed, they repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of their sins; AND THEY RECEIVED the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). They now had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand:
What occurred in (Acts 2:1-4) IS HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ALLOW JESUS TO DEFINE IT in (Acts 1:5). This was only for the few, namely, the Apostles.
Ed,
You wrote:
“Which apostle was being addressed?”
Response:
Don’t be ridiculous, I didn’t say the apostles were specifically addressed — they hadn’t even been called yet! Instead, I said: “The baptism of the Holy Spirit was made to a few, not all men (Matt. 3:10-12).” The reason for this is that the words of John the baptist were addressed to a mixed group, a few of whom would receive the baptism of the Spirit, while others, the “brood of vipers” would receive the baptism of fire.
We only find out who the “YOU” are later on when the rest of the evidence is examined. Something which obviously you are not prepared to do!
Aidan,
You wrote, “Consider the following:
1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was made to a few, not all men (Matt. 3:10-12).
Reply: He (Jesus) will baptize you (His disciples) with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matthew 3:10-12
All believers are His disciples (John 8:30-32), so “you” refers to all believers.
2. Many of the words regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit were directed only to the apostles, not all men (John 14-16; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5).
Reply: Acts 1:15 “If you (all believers) love me (Jesus), keep my (Jesus) commands. 16 And I (Jesus) will ask the Father, and he (God the Father) will give you (all believers) another advocate to help you (all believers) and be with you (all believers) forever.
Note: If “you” only applies to His 11 disciples, then only they are to love Him, only they are to keep His commandments, only they would receive the advocate (Holy Spirit) to help and be with them forever. Note that it says FOREVER – not only until the 11 disciples die.
3. The Holy Spirit, when He did come, was seen and heard (Acts 2:33). It was not something, “better felt than told” like some claim today.
Reply: v33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he (Jesus) has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you (all believers present) now see and hear. Note v32 “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we (500+ witnesses) are all witnesses of it. “In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul gives a list of people to whom the risen Jesus appeared. These witnesses to the resurrected Jesus include the Apostle Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and, most intriguingly, a group of more than 500 people at the same time.” Internet source.
4. It was only the apostles who were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. That whole chapter centers around the apostles.
Reply: You have used the word “only” which I have answered already by saying all believers are His disciples.
5. Also, [reading from 1:26] both the pronouns and context are referring to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 when the Spirit falls on them.
Two different events. One occurred in the upper room for ~120 disciples.
v26 Then they (the 11) cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
The second event happened about ten days later.
Pentecost
Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they (all present) were all together in one place (Temple?). 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house (house of Jehovah?) where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
I discern they were in the temple rather than the upper room because v5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language.
Note: The multitude would not know where the sound had come from, so they would likely gather at the Temple.
Why would the Temple be called a house?
10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of Jehovah, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah. 1 Kings 8:10-11 ASV
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized (with the Holy Spirit), every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you (all who believed) and your children (who also believe) and for all (who believe) who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call (and believe).” 40 With many other words he warned them (all); and he pleaded with them (all), “Save yourselves (all present) from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized (with the Holy Spirit), and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Many believe 3000 were baptized in water
6. The apostles were all Galileans. It was only Galileans who were speaking in tongues in 2:7. Reply: The disciples were speaking in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but the believing recipients heard them in their native tongues by the power of the in-dwelling Holy Spirit. v4 All of them (all believers) were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Note: Those of different nationalities could freely converse with one another as well.
7. Only the apostles make a defense for not being drunk because of speaking in tongues in 2:14. The 12 apostles were speaking in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but understood by all – they were not the ones thought to be drunk.
8. Only the apostles are manifesting miraculous abilities in the first 5 chapters of Acts. Yes, and gifts of the Spirit includes healing. However, healing for the sick is to be administered through prayer and anointing by elders in the church (James 5:14). Furthermore, it could be that only the apostles received the Spiritual Gift of Healing at Pentecost.
9. It is not until the apostles lay hands on others in Acts 6, that others begin to :manifest spiritual gifts as well.
Spiritual gifts were imparted by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands:” Reply: Acts 6:1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. Note: They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit and THEN they laid hands on him. So, Stephen had already received the Holy Spirit prior to their blessing (laying on of hands) to take charge of this duty.
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: 16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized (by water) into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the [e]Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this [f]matter: for thy heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. 23 For I see that thou [g]art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. 24 And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me. ASV
The Holy Spirit is a gift from God, which is available to all who repent and believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Although the apostles could administer Spirit baptism by laying of hands, this does not mean the ONLY way the Holy Spirit can be received is by the apostles laying on of hands.
Note: The apostle Paul didn’t baptize anyone.
Prior to Paul, there was very little instruction for new believers apart from James epistle and the preaching of the apostles.
The first thing James wrote was instructions on how to learn the meaning of Scripture in order to be “perfect.”
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion, greeting.
2 Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations; 3 knowing that the proving of your faith worketh patience. 4 And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing.
5 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. James 1:1-6 ASV
Next, Paul’s letter to the Galatians came to him by revelation of Jesus Christ years after Pentecost..
Galatians1:12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 1:22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; 24 and they glorified God in me. ASV
I hope this helps explain things.
George
George,
Thank you for at least making an effort to answer my points. But I have to say that it is nothing more than eisegesis of the worst kind.
1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was made to a few, not all men (Matt. 3:10-12). It is a mixed crowd. The most we can say at this point is John doesn’t specify who would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
2. Many of the words regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit were directed only to the apostles, not all men (John 14-16; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5). If you had bothered to read John chapters 14 to John chapters 16 you would have realized that this is a private conversation between Jesus and the 11 apostles which begins after Judas leaves in chapter 13. Therefore, the promise of the Holy Spirit in these chapters is NOT to all believers.
3. The Holy Spirit, when He did come, was seen and heard (Acts 2:33). It was not something, “better felt than told” like some claim today. Acts 2 and 10 show what REAL Holy Spirit baptism looked like in the NT. Only two cases recorded by the way. But you avoided answering this one.
4. It was only the apostles who were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. That whole chapter centers around the apostles. Acts 1:5 says “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Again, if you had bothered to read verses 2-4 you would know that Jesus is speaking only to the apostles here. But you don’t really want to see that, do you?
5. Also, [reading from 1:26] both the pronouns and context are referring to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 when the Spirit falls on them. Again, this goes back to only a couple of verses earlier (Acts 1:1-5) where only the apostles are promised the baptism of the Spirit. Acts 2:1-4 is simply the fulfillment of this promise in (1:5)!
6. The apostles were all Galileans. It was only Galileans who were speaking in tongues in 2:7. That’s just a fact, and the people knew what Galileans sounded like. What you said is just total nonsense to try and explain it away.
7. Only the apostles make a defense for not being drunk because of speaking in tongues in 2:14. All of which were Galileans btw.
8. Only the apostles are manifesting miraculous abilities in the first 5 chapters of Acts. And it wasn’t just healing as you have surmised. But they had many miraculous abilities: “Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). Again, just coincidence that only the apostles are manifesting such powers after the day of Pentecost? It all fits together my friend.
9. It is not until the apostles lay hands on others in Acts 6, that others begin to manifest spiritual gifts as well. Stephen was ALREADY a Christian and was full of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is normal for EVERY Christian to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with the miraculous. But when the Apostles laid hands on the 7 we see two of the seven, Stephen and Phillip manifesting powers afterwards. That is now a different measure of the Spirit than what an un-gifted Christian had. Read 1st Corinthians, not every Christian had the gifts. Your efforts to explain this away won’t work!
The scripture says that it was “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given” (Acts 8:18). It’s as simple as that if you are prepared only to speak where the scriptures speak and be silent where the scriptures are silent. Something I think you are NOT prepared to do.
Aidan,
You wrote, “Something I think you are NOT prepared to do.”
Reply:
Do not quench the Spirit. 1 Thessalonians 5:19 NASB
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16 NKJV
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Romans 6:9 NKJV
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:19,20 NIV
Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”? James 4:5 NKJV
Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Romans 5:5 NKJV
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, Ephesians 5:18 NKJV
Eastern Christianity
Conscious and hardened resistance to the truth leads man away from humility and repentance, and without repentance there can be no forgiveness. That is why the sin of blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven, since one who does not acknowledge his sin does not seek to have it forgiven.
An Internet site on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:
“Jesus rebuts the Pharisees with some logical arguments for why He is not casting out demons in the power of Satan (Matthew 12:25–29). Then He speaks of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (verses 31–32).
The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. Blasphemy is also attributing some evil to God or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This particular case of blasphemy, however, is called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. The Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by a demon (Matthew 12:24). Notice in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has to do with accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. This particular type of blasphemy cannot be duplicated today. The Pharisees were in a unique moment in history: they had the Law and the Prophets, they had the Holy Spirit stirring their hearts, they had the Son of God Himself standing right in front of them, and they saw with their own eyes the miracles He did. Never before in the history of the world (and never since) had so much divine light been granted to men; if anyone should have recognized Jesus for who He was, it was the Pharisees. Yet they chose defiance. They purposely attributed the work of the Spirit to the devil, even though they knew the truth and had the proof. Jesus declared their willful blindness to be unpardonable. Their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was their final rejection of God’s grace. They had set their course, and God was going to let them sail into perdition unhindered.
Jesus told the crowd that the Pharisees’ blasphemy against the Holy Spirit “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). This is another way of saying that their sin would never be forgiven, ever. Not now, not in eternity. As Mark 3:29 puts it, “They are guilty of an eternal sin.”
The immediate result of the Pharisees’ public rejection of Christ (and God’s rejection of them) is seen in the next chapter. Jesus, for the first time, “told them many things in parables” (Matthew 13:3; cf. Mark 4:2). The disciples were puzzled at Jesus’ change of teaching method, and Jesus explained His use of parables: “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. . . . Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” (Matthew 13:11, 13). Jesus began to veil the truth with parables and metaphors as a direct result of the Jewish leaders’ official denunciation of Him.
Again, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit cannot be repeated today, although some people try. Jesus Christ is not on earth—He is seated at the right hand of God. No one can personally witness Jesus performing a miracle and then attribute that power to Satan instead of the Spirit.
The unpardonable sin today is the state of continued unbelief. The Spirit currently convicts the unsaved world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). To resist that conviction and willfully remain unrepentant is to “blaspheme” the Spirit. There is no pardon, either in this age or in the age to come, for a person who rejects the Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ and then dies in unbelief. The love of God is evident: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And the choice is clear: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).”
I’m prepared to do whatever I can to help you understand scripture and to warn you of the consequences of rejecting the Truth.
George
George, you wrote:
“I’m prepared to do whatever I can to help you understand scripture and to warn you of the consequences of rejecting the Truth.”
Response;
Same here! That’s why I say NOT to add or take away from the word of God.(Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Mark 7:7-8; John 12:48; Gal 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19).
Aidan,
You wrote, “Same here! That’s why I say NOT to add or take away from the word of God.”
Reply:
Rejecting that the in-dwelling Holy Spirit is a gift from God for all believers is a grievous error. You’re only deceiving yourself.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 1 Corinthians 3:16-18 KJV
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Matthew 15:11 KJV
Clearly you are wrong and many biblical proof texts have been presented to you.
However, I’ll list these verses again:
1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
Ezekiel 36:27
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
Isaiah 63:11
Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,
2 Timothy 1:14
Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
Acts 6:5
The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
Ephesians 5:18
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
John 16:13
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Romans 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Romans 8:15
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
George
George,
You are greatly mistaken in saying I deny that the Holy Spirit indwells every Christian.
I have made it abundantly clear on this site that the Holy Spirit indwells every Christian.
What you simply don’t understand is that this happens when the repentant believer is baptized in water (Acts 2:38,39, 41; Titus 3:5; John 3:5).
Aidan,
You wrote, “What you simply don’t understand is that this happens when the repentant believer is baptized in water (Acts 2:38,39, 41; Titus 3:5; John 3:5).
Reply:
Sorry, my mistake.
I’m thinking your contention is that water baptism is for receiving the Holy Spirit and not for washing away original/ancestral sin as some denominations teach. Other denominations teach water baptism is an ordinance and still others teach water baptism as symbolic, but you would make it a requirement for receiving the in-dwelling Holy Spirit. Furthermore, you believe the gifts of the Holy Spirt were only given to the apostles and ceased when they died.
You cite:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38,39
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. v41
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. John 3:5
You should consider:
A) How long it would take twelve men to baptize in water 3000 converts. 3000/12 = 250/disciple. A Herculean feat.
B) Mark 1:4-5 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
C) Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
D) 1 Cor. 12:12-13 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. NOTE: BAPTIZED BY ONE SPIRIT – Not baptized in water to receive one Spirit.
E) Jesus saying we must be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) is not speaking of water baptism. He is speaking of childbirth in water (amniotic fluid).
I found this argument on the Internet, which may help:
“Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation in Christ?
To answer this, let’s look at an article by Robert Gromacki, entitled Repent and Be Baptized.
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter stood before a large crowd of Jews and declared: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). A reader has indicated that this verse has caused much confusion and seems to imply that water baptism is required for salvation.
There is a great difference between the real, intended meaning of a verse and its implied meaning. Implied understanding is based upon the first reading of a passage, but the correct interpretation can be gained only through a serious study of the verse itself, its context, and its relationship to the clear teaching of Scripture found elsewhere.
Several church groups believe in baptismal regeneration; teaching that both repentant faith and water baptism are essential prerequisites to personal salvation. To such groups, one must be baptized in water for the express purpose of gaining the remission of sins. A person thus expresses his faith in and through the necessary baptismal rite, not apart from it. These groups definitely point to Acts 2:38 as one of their supporting passages.
Our reader has asked for an answer to the claim of these groups. By following five steps, we can show that this verse does not teach that water baptism is essential to personal salvation.
Grammar
The grammar of the verse indicates that only repentance is required to receive the remission of sins. Here is my translation of the verse from the Greek, using some extra words to bring out some key differences not observable in the English text: “Repent [you, plural], and let each one [singular] of you be baptized [singular], upon the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and you will receive [you, plural] the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The command to repent and the promise to receive are both plural verbs. The command to be baptized is singular. The imperative (“let each one of you be baptized”) is parenthetical. Peter’s actual command was: “Repent . . . upon the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Peter gave the audience only one thing to do in order to receive the remission of sins. There was only one direct command: “Repent [you, plural].”
Some other commentators approach the verse in a different way. They focus on the word “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins.” This word is a preposition (eis in Greek), normally translated as “into.” But it can also be translated as “because of” or “on the basis of.” In Matthew 12:41, Christ stated that the men of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah.” The word “at” is the preposition eis, translated as “for” in Acts 2:38. Obviously the men of Nineveh did not repent to get the preaching of Jonah. Rather, they repented because Jonah had preached. The preaching occurred before the repentance. Likewise, the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 happened before the practice of water baptism.
Both of these views present acceptable alternatives to the view of baptismal regeneration.
Immediate Context
Second, the immediate context of the verse shows that only repentant faith is needed to gain divine forgiveness. Earlier in his message, Peter quoted from Joel (Acts 2:16-20) and concluded with that Old Testament prophet’s evangelistic appeal: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (v. 21). In the Old Testament period, people became saved by calling upon Jehovah-God. They acknowledged their sinful need, believed that only God could deliver them, and placed their trust in Him. They did not submit to water baptism. If Peter meant that baptism was essential to salvation, then why did he quote from Joel? The reference would be irrelevant.
Later, Peter demonstrated that Jesus Christ was the One, the Lord-God, upon whom his audience should call in repentant faith. God the Father authenticated Christ through His miracles, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven (vv. 22-35). Peter then said: “Therefore let the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v. 36).
The context later states: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (v. 41). What was the word they received? It was the content of Peter’s sermon in which he demonstrated the deity and messiahship of Jesus Christ and the necessity to call upon Him for salvation. When they called upon Christ, they repented. That act of faith brought the remission of sins. They were then individually baptized to show their new identification with Christ.
Greater Context
Third, the greater context of the Book of Acts reveals that only repentant faith is the basis of securing divine forgiveness. Later, in his sermon at Solomon’s Porch within the Temple, Peter appealed to the crowd; “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). There is no mention of water baptism here as a requirement for the removal of sins.
When Peter stood before the unsaved religious leaders who had just imprisoned the apostles, he proclaimed: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (5:30,31). Please note that repentance and forgiveness are joined. The human cause of salvation is repentance, and the divine effect is forgiveness.
When Peter explained the Gospel to the family of Cornelius, he stated: “To him [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (10:43). That verse is extremely clear and simple. And the same person who spoke Acts 2:38 spoke Acts 10:43. Peter, thus, is his own best interpreter. When Cornelius’ family heard those gracious words, they believed, received divine forgiveness, and were filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 44). These divine blessings came as a result of a faith-only experience. Although Cornelius and his house were baptized later, they were not baptized to receive the remission of sins. They already had that spiritual reality.
Later Peter explained to the Christians at Jerusalem the operation of God and the conversion of Cornelius and his family. They responded by glorifying God and saying: “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (11:18).
Paul definitely indicated that water baptism plays no part in the securing of redemption. He exclaimed at Antioch in Pisidia: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things” (13:38,39). Add to that declaration the truth that Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). Please note the juxtaposition between baptism and the Gospel message. Baptism is not an essential part of the Gospel. Submission to water baptism is a requirement for obedience after salvation (Matt. 28:18-20), but it is not a prerequisite to spiritual regeneration.
Ministry of John the Baptist
Fourth, Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38 can be interpreted in the light of the ministry of John the Baptist. The forerunner of Christ preached: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Mark wrote that John proclaimed “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Three features are common between this verse and Peter’s appeal: baptism, repentance and remission of sins. But what actually secures the remission of sins? It is the repentance that produces the divine forgiveness. Water baptism is simply the outward sign or mode through which the believing sinner confesses the fact that he has already been forgiven through repentant faith in the saving Person and work of Christ.
Doctrine of Salvation
Fifth, the doctrine of salvation, taught throughout all of the Scriptures and evidenced in all dispensations and ages, stresses that only repentant faith is necessary to be justified and to receive divine forgiveness. Abraham “believed in the Lord; and [God] counted it to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). From one age to another, the means of getting saved has remained the same. That is why New Testament writers often refer to Old Testament characters as examples of faith. To teach that water baptism is essential to salvation in this Church Age is to say that God has changed the method to gain justification.”
George
George,
You have a habit of sending these huge posts. That’s one thing, but you are not interested in examining the truth. Instead , you quickly look to copy and paste from websites with arguments that simply confirm your preconceived ideas.
You’ve got your mind made up already.
Salvation is too serious a matter to play games with. The bible is very clear about the necessity of baptism for salvation for you are anybody else to twist, not only to your own destruction, but to the destruction of others.
It is so easy to throw up so-called arguments or cast doubts about the truth. I know most if not all of these nonsense arguments you are finding online. All you are doing is promoting a lie. I am busy today and probably won’t really get to this until tomorrow. But I’m not here to answer every little question you throw at me from your online sources. I will answer, but only as is profitable to the genuine hearer.
br.d
You’ve made an excellent observation Aidan!
It might be wisdom for us to cool things down a little bit.
We’ve been hitting a number of hot-button topics – which believers are perennially in disagreement over.
When it becomes obvious that beating a dead-horse becomes detrimental to everyone.
This raises the concern that people who pass by SOT101 to get a glimpse of what it is like – will see individuals waging war against each other.
I would ask everyone to exercise discernment concerning that.
Aidan,
You wrote, “You have a habit of sending these huge posts. That’s one thing, but you are not interested in examining the truth. Instead , you quickly look to copy and paste from websites with arguments that simply confirm your preconceived ideas.”
Reply:
A) I’m not allowed to post links.
B) I’m only interested in presenting Truth, which is spiritually discerned
C) My two favorite Bible verses are:
1. Proverbs 3:5
2. Colossians 1:28
D) These are not my preconceived ideas – until recently I hadn’t paid any attention to “speaking in tongues.”
E) No website supports my understanding on these doctrines:
1. Soteriology – many are called, few are chosen
2. The meaning of “perfect” in Scripture and how believers grow in knowledge and understanding
3. Eschatology
4. Sanctification
5. Divorce, remarriage and whether governments have jurisdiction over these matters
6. Malachi 4:5,6 and Matthew 17:11 prophecies
7. The imminent return of Christ
F) Reckless faith is the result of an unwillingness to discern
G) Faith is belief and trust in God as revealed in Scripture, or by direct revelation from God.
1. Scripture says there is ONE baptism
a) Water baptism was used as a call for repentance by John the Baptist
b) Jesus sent His disciples out to baptize with water (Great Commission) Matthew 28:16-20
c) At Pentecost the Holy Spirt was freely given to all believers who became baptized with fire
d) At Pentecost water baptism ceased, because there is only ONE baptism – which is by the Holy Spirit
2. Scripture says God joins a man and a woman together in marriage and they become ONE flesh; no longer two
a) What God has joined together let not anyone divorce
1) Wives are not permitted to divorce their husband
2) Men are not permitted to marry divorced women
3) Men are not permitted to divorce their wife and remarry
4) If a man divorces his wife for any reason other than sexual immorality, he makes her an adulteress
b) God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)
1) She is your companion and your wife by covenant (Malachi 2:14)
2) He made them ONE, having a remnant of the Spirit; ONE because He seeks godly offspring (Malachi 2:15)
George
I’m so relieved to know that if I have any question about the Bible, I can simply come here and get perfect and infallibly God given discernment from George. After all, he says he has the gift of discernment. Clearly that must be true, as he said so!
Peter, Paul and George!
br.d
There will always be people within the church who will canonize themselves.
Within the list of formal fallacies – this one is called “Appeal to Authority”
br.d
Within the language of the Koine Greek N.T. – Jesus is called our “πρωτότοκος” (proto – tokoss) or (First Born)
Our current English word “Proto-type” is derived from the Greek word “prōto-typos”
So we get the gist of what the N.T. authors are indicating.
Jesus is our example, and our pattern.
Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master
It does not yet appear what we shall be
But we know when He shall appear – we shall be like Him – for we shall see Him as He is.
And now – it is not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
Because Jesus is our “πρωτότοκος”
Isn’t Jesus wonderful!!!!! 😀
Amen! He is!
I just really can’t ignore the red flag of someone claiming to have discernment. The approach of “I could be mistaken, but here are the reasons why I interpret it the way I do” goes so much further for me than “God revealed this to me” or “I have the gift of discernment, and this is what these passages mean”!
One expresses at least some level of humility, the others reeks of pride and self-righteousness, at least to me. It might not be intentional, but it has to be in there somewhere. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.
Please don’t say, Jesus claimed to know the truth! Yes, and He walked on water, healed people, stopped a storm, turned a tiny bit of food into enough to feed 5,000, raised someone from the dead, Raised HIMSELF from the dead, and literally WAS GOD! He gets to say something is true and I believe it!
br.d
Yes – there are problems with the claim.
The first problem surfaces – where there is an actual need to alert people of such a claim.
It reminds me of a statement from (I believe it was Margaret Thatcher) who said
“When a woman has a need to tell you up-front that she is a lady – the probability is – she isn’t ” ;-D
The Holy Spirit does not vaunt itself.
But religious flesh always does.
Everyone here can see what gifts the Lord has gifted me with – and what gifts he hasn’t gifted me with.
I don’t have to advertise myself
I simply operate in what the Lord has given me – and let everyone make up their own minds about the value of my contribution.
Discernment in particular, strange one to claim, because it can’t really be proven. If someone says God gave them strength like Samson…they could go lift a truck or something and prove it. Gift of tongues, you could hear them speak to a crowd who spoke differently languages and you and everyone else understand them. Gift of healing or raising from the dead. They go do it, and you believe them.
Discernment though? That’s what this verse means! Ok…I disagree with you. You can’t disagree with me, I have discernment. Because I have discernment, what I say about biblical interpretations is the true interpretation, and that is how you know I have discernment!
Circular reasoning much?
br.d
And you gotta know – the reason for such a claim is probably because the typical response to “this is what this text means” probably doesn’t go so well! :-]
George,
Acts 2:38 is very simple for those who want to see. It says:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Grammar!
In Acts 2:38 the word “and” is a coordinating conjunction which joins repentance and baptism together in this sentence. In other words, they are of equal importance. Whatever repentance is for baptism is for. Peter is saying, “Repent AND be baptized every one of you..FOR the forgiveness of sins..” The translators got it right!
Contradiction!
First you gave the argument: “Peter gave the audience only one thing to do in order to receive the remission of sins….Repent”
But then you argue that the word “for” (eis in Greek) in Acts 2:38 could mean “because of” the remission of sins. Well, if that’s the case then you have defeated your own argument above. For that would mean they were to repent not in order to RECEIVE remission, but BECAUSE they had been remitted? Make up your mind, which one is it? “Because of” or “for”? I challenge you to produce any recognized translation that renders “for” (eis) in Acts 2:38 “because of” or “on account of.”
In Acts 2:38 and Matt. 26:28 the construction is the same in English and Greek:
Matt. 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Acts 2:38 “…Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,”
(A). The blood of Christ was shed “for the remission of sins” in (Matt. 26:28). Peter declared that believers were to repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Again, the construction is the same in English and Greek. Jesus told WHAT provides remission of sins. Peter told WHEN the remission is obtained. “…Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22). Since these passages are parallel, it would follow “without repentance and baptism is no remission.” If not, why not? Note below.
BLOOD – – – – – “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”
Mt. 26:28
REPENT & BE BAPTIZED – – – – – “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”
Acts 2:38
Without shed blood no remission, Heb. 9:22.
Without repentance and baptism no remission.
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
(B). The Greek word “eis” in Acts 2:38 and Matt. 26:28 is translated “for” in our translations.
Matt. 26:28: Christ’s blood shed “for the remission of sins.”
Acts 2:38: Repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins.”
Whatever “for” (eis) means in Acts 2:38, it means in Matt. 26:28. The word “eis” is used “to denote purpose IN ORDER TO, to.” ( A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Arndt & Gringrich. p. 228.) In other words, “for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven.”
If only Aidan knew WHAT the gift of the Holy Spirit actually is. That might solve the problem.
Romans 5:17
gift of righteousness
Romans 6:23
…the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ephesians 2:8
…grace…is the gift of God:
That’s it.
JESUS is the one who does the BAPTIZING. Not man. Otherwise, John would not have said:
“HE” shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost…”.
Who is “HE”? Dat wud bee da head honcho, da mane dude, Jesus! (Not to be confused with the guy who mows you lawn on Saturday!).
If it takes MAN to save MAN, then there is a problem. Do you have a check list?
Someone out in the desert, no water available, and due to NO WATER anywhere, this repentant sinner who did everything according to the check list, except for water, which is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND, is hell bound?
I don’t think so!
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You wrote, “It’s funny how people love to twist words when it suits them to fit their own theology!”
Reply: I think you’re not talking about me – I only quote Scripture exactly and provide the definition of words.
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4
8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Mark 1:8 NKJV
After Pentecost:
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 NKJV
“Repent (for the remission of sins) and let every one of you be baptized (receive the gift of the Holy Spirit) in the name of Jesus Christ.”
There can be no water baptism in Acts 2:38, since there is only one baptism at a time.
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; (Ephesians 4:5 NKJV).
Those with little faith teach two baptisms (water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit) simultaneously.
They should repent their error.
George
George,
You wrote:
“Repent (for the remission of sins)
But in your previous post you wrote:
“But it can also be translated as “because of” or “on the basis of.”
Response:
I’m glad you repented of saying that it can be translated as (because of the remission of sins).
You wrote:
“There can be no water baptism in Acts 2:38, since there is only one baptism at a time.
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; (Ephesians 4:5 NKJV).”
“Those with little faith teach two baptisms (water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit) simultaneously.”
“They should repent their error.”
Response:
I guess the Apostles and the early Christians should have repented of their error so!
Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in WATER in (Acts 8:36-40). Peter should have repented because he commanded WATER baptism in (Acts 10:47-48) “Surely no one can refuse the WATER for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.” Perhaps you think Paul should have repented for baptizing Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:14,16)?
How little faith these INSPIRED MEN had for teaching and practicing (water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism) simultaneously!
I hope they repented of their error, right?!!
Maybe you think the thousands of Churches today should repent for teaching and practicing water baptism!!!!
WHAT SCRIPTURE are they getting the authority for water baptism under the new covenant from? Pray tell.
George,
While dealing with “eis” I want to show further that many do not think much of this “because of” argument except only when it comes to baptism.
The terms “righteousness,” “salvation,” “life,” and “remission of sins” basically all refer to the same thing. They mean that one is SAVED. Enjoyment of these blessings is conditioned upon certain things (not any one of them alone). These conditions are said to be “eis” (unto, in order to) the blessing. Note the following verses on this point:
Rom. 10:10 – Belief – EIS – Righteousness
Rom 10:10 – Confession – EIS – Salvation
Acts 11:18 – Repentance – EIS – Life
Acts 2:38 – Baptism -EIS – Remission of sins
Whatever “eis” means in one of these passages it means in the others. If it means the same in Rom. 10:10, Acts 11:18, and Acts 2:38 that would contradict your doctrine. Oh! But we can’t have that, can we? Because consistency would demand that you say “belief” was ‘BECAUSE OF’ or ‘ON ACCOUNT OF’ righteousness. And we certainly don’t want that!!!
It’s funny how people love to twist words when it suits them to fit their own theology!
Aidan,
You wrote, “What you simply don’t understand is that this happens when the repentant believer is baptized in water.”
Reply:
So, the freely given gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit is not by grace through faith in Christ. You’re saying it’s an obligation God must fulfill, because those claiming to be believers in Him have been baptized in water after repenting their sin.
Three questions:
a) Isn’t this just another a form of salvation by works and/or easy believism?
b) If baptized as an infant, must the new believer be baptized in water again as an adult in order to receive the Holy Spirit or is it retroactive?
c) Is the water baptism by sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
“The term easy believism is in regards to those who believe they’re saved because they prayed a prayer—with no real conviction of sin and no real faith in Christ. Praying a prayer is easy—thus the term easy believism—but there is more to salvation than mouthing words.” Internet source
I did some Internet research on the number of languages spoken at Pentecost and found this list:
Parthia—Parthian, a proto-Aramaic language
Media—a northeastern Iranian language
Elam—a “language esolate” with no relationship to any other
Mesopotamia—Akkadian spoken 2800 BC-500 AD
Judea—Aramaic, Hebrew
Cappadocia—mixed Greek and local dialects
Pontus—Greek and Persian
Asia, a Roman province—Latin
Phrygia—Phrygian until 500’s AD and Greek/Anatolian language
Pamphylia—mainly Greek
Egypt—Coptic
Libya—Berber, Citin and Greek
Rome—Latin
Crete—Cretan Greek
Arabs—Arabic
Just thought you might like to know how many languages were involved at Pentecost.
George
George, you wrote:
“So, the freely given gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit is not by grace through faith in Christ. You’re saying it’s an obligation God must fulfill, because those claiming to be believers in Him have been baptized in water after repenting their sin.”
Response:
Nope, that’s just your imagination. Obedience to God NEVER negates grace through faith! What do you mean by faith? — “faith without obedience” or “faith with obedience”? After dipping himself seven times in the Jordan was Naaman the leper cured by grace or did God owe him? Give one passage that tells what water baptism does.
Not sure what the argument is over. I never viewed water baptism as necessary to salvation but rather a public profession and symbolic action taken to profess Christ, a sort of symbolic “engagement” to Him. It also is following Him as He did. He was baptized by immersion Himself before actually beginning His works. We do it simply to profess our faith, and follow as He did.
We know it isn’t necessary to salvation because of the thief on the cross.
Kurt,
That’s a moot point!
A baptism commanded some 40 days after the thief had died, and after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16) could NEVER have applied to the thief. But it does apply to us.
Kurt,
You wrote, “Discernment in particular, strange one to claim, because it can’t really be proven.”
Reply:
One of the spiritual gifts is distinguishing between spirits (1 Cor. 12:10c), so go find someone with the spiritual gift of distinguishing between spirits. Problem solved.
You wrote, ‘Not sure what the argument is over. I never viewed water baptism as necessary to salvation but rather a public profession and symbolic action taken to profess Christ, a sort of symbolic “engagement” to Him.’
Reply:
Each church denomination teaches water baptism differently. When I tried to list all the different positions each denomination takes, I was reprimanded by Br.d, since this is a hot-topic – too offensive to discuss on SOT101.
Ever heard of the phrase “a hill someone is willing to die on?”
A Church Divided Over Leaders
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 NIV
Here is perhaps the first example of division over water baptism. What exactly is Paul’s point, I ask rhetorically?
Some churches would read this text, Acts 8:36-40 and Acts 10:47-48 to conclude believers must be baptized in water.
George
George
When I tried to list all the different positions each denomination takes, I was reprimanded by Br.d, since this is a hot-topic – too offensive to discuss on SOT101.
br.d
Wow! That event happened right under my nose and I didn’t even see it!
Can you show me where that reprimand happened please?
George,
The division here in 1 Corinthians wasn’t over water baptism, but over the tendency to polarize around various leaders of early Christianity. Seems like that has been a common problem over the ages!
Since the arguments from 1 Cor 1:10-17 are made to prove that baptism is not essential to salvation, let’s examine what these verses have to say about the purpose of baptism. In order for a man to be “of Paul,” two things had to occur: (1) Paul had to die for them and (2) the Corinthians had to be baptized in the name of Paul (v.13). The conclusion is clear that in order to be “of Christ” the same two things had to occur: (1) Christ had to die for us and (2) a man had to be baptized in the name of Christ. So rather than constituting an argument against baptism, this context shows that a man MUST be baptized in order to be “of Christ.”
1 Co 1:12 “Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”
1 Co 1:13 “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Co 1:14 “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1 Co 1:15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.”
Yes indeed, they were baptized instead in the name of Christ and therefore belonged to Him, and Paul was glad because of it.
I just don’t think this issue is all that big. I go by John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 and 13. None of those include baptism. Belief is it. The Gospel is God’s power to save. 1 Corinthians 15 specifically tells us what the Gospel is, and mentions nothing about baptism.
I take the thief on the cross to also be evidence of salvation without baptism, not just some exception. Baptism, also, appears to me to be a work.
Heb. 9:16,17 shows that the New Testament of Christ was not in effect before His death. While on earth Jesus had power to forgive sin in any way He chose (Lk. 5:24). The thief on the cross received pardon before the New Covenant, commanding baptism, came into effect.
I too go by John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 and 13. None of those spell out repentance either. Are you also going to exclude repentance as necessary for salvation on that basis? Not everything is found in one verse! I don’t exclude anything as necessary for salvation. The scriptures teach unless one repents he will perish (Lk. 13:3). Can’t exclude repentance either.
What’s interesting is that you cited Romans 10:13: “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
Acts 22:16 tells us that we call on the name of the Lord in baptism. It says: ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, CALLING on the name of the Lord.’
You say baptism is a work. Is baptism a work of man or God? And, if baptism is not for salvation can you give a passage that tells what baptism is for?
Aidan,
HE shall baptize you…
Who is “HE”?
It’s interesting to note, too, that Jesus COMMANDS (as some denominations proclaim), GO YE, AND BAPTIZE…and yet, Paul said:
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize
Well, WHO did he send to Baptize?
Ed,
If Christ never COMMANDED baptism, then why is it at the forefront of the Great Commission in Mt. 28 and Mk. 16?
And why did Peter in the very first Gospel sermon COMMAND 3000 people to be baptized, if Christ never intended those to be baptized who have believed the gospel?
Why DID Peter tell them to be baptized in Acts 2:38? Why was Paul told to be baptized in Acts 22:16? It’s very simple, all you have to do is repeat the verses. They mean what they say, the Lord is very clear.
You can’t get RID OF BAPTISM no matter how hard you try.😉
Aidan,
You are such a legalist that has no clue that Jesus is the one who baptizes us. WE do not SAVE anyone, at any time.
Again, if it takes man to save man, then God can’t save anyone. God does NOT need us to save anyone. He is the one who baptizes.
If he doesn’t, then John the Baptist is a liar.
Ed Chapman
br.d
We should all be looking to avoid making statements that may incite a more intense response.
Ed,
Under the Great Commission Jesus is the one who commanded men to do the baptizing (Mt. 28:18-20).
Why do you think Philip was baptizing in Acts 8? Because Christ authorized it under the Great Commission.
Aidan,
Apparently Paul didn’t get the memo:
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You mean Paul didn’t get the memo? Yet there he was baptizing Gaius and Crispus, and the household of Stephanas: (1 Cor. 1:14,16). Not to mention the 12 in Acts 19.
I wonder what he meant when he said: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (v.13).
Could he have meant that ALL of the Corinthians WERE INDEED baptized in the name of Christ — and for that reason BELONGED to Him who was crucified for them? (verses 12-13).
Nope! Seems like Paul was a great proponent of baptism, just like the rest of the Apostles were.
Also, Ed,
You’ve got the wrong idea. Just because they baptized doesn’t mean they were doing the saving. They were doing it by Christ’s authority, under His command, His name. Therefore, it is Him who lays down the conditions for obtaining the salvation which He has provided. He is the one who saves and adds to the church those who are being saved
(Acts 2:41,47).
So a person today who professes Christ on their death bed right before they die without getting baptized aren’t really saved?
Going to extreme cases doesn’t help anybody. It certainly doesn’t excuse YOU from YOUR responsibility to obey the command to repent and be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). You worry about yourself and leave the rest up to God.
Aidan,
Extreme cases? Are you indicating that you have no answer to his inquiry? It’s not on your check list?
What if I were to say to you that I am Baptized! Jesus baptized me.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This tells me to wash away my own sins. With what? Water? Or the Blood of Christ?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’ve given my answer about extreme cases to Kurt. I’m sorry it doesn’t suit you, but the same answer applies to you as well.
Ed, WHERE does it say Christ baptized you in Acts 22:16? You’ve got a great imagination.
Maybe You imagine He promised YOU in Mt 3:10-12? You are gravely mistaken my friend — and too blind to see it.
I’m baptized though.
Extreme cases? This is the hope and comfort of so many, and their loved ones who passed! I will very much bring up “extreme cases” because it is vitally important both for evangelism AND comfort and assurance in the Body!
It’s of no value if you were not baptized for the reason commanded by Jesus (Luke 6:46; John 12:48).
The only comfort we can give others is to tell them the truth. We don’t decide what the truth is, God does (John 17:17). Therefore, we better make sure that it is not a lie and a false hope that we give people, because God will bring us into judgment for this.
How do you read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38? How do passages like these give comfort and hope to the unbaptized?
I’m weary of those who claim to be arbiters of truth! Calvinists say this very thing in defense of their theology, and also say it is what the Word of God says!
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Salvation to whom? Everyone that believes! It doesn’t say everyone who gets baptized!
What is the gospel of Christ? Thankfully, Paul tells us!
1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
So that is the Gospel (says nothing about baptism) and whoever believes the Gospel is gifted salvation (doesn’t say believes and is baptized).
Kurt,
I never claimed to be the arbiter of truth, far from it. But, you don’t believe you are wrong about salvation, do you? Do you not appeal to the scriptures? I know you do! And, I bet you encourage people to examine the scriptures to see if what you told them is true (Acts 17:11). I’d be weary of you if you didn’t!
I agree with you, Romans 1:16 doesn’t mention baptism, but other passages mention it! Neither does it mention repentance, but others passages do. Nor does it mention confessing with the mouth, which you know Romans 10 does. So what are we to do? Pit one passage against the other and that’s the hill we die on? Or should we not include ALL of them as true? The sum of God’s word is truth (Ps 119:160).
There was a man we met once who wouldn’t even accept repentance as necessary for salvation. Just kept ranting that all you need to do is “believe” because that’s what the bible says. Some people take it too far because they want a comfortable Christianity that allows them to live as they see fit. My point is, we can’t exclude passages to eliminate any OTHER things God sets forth as a condition of forgiveness. If we do, we are in trouble just like that man was! Such conditions are included in the term “faith” –not in the term “works.”
Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
The gospel, the power of God unto salvation! It is God’s power that operates to bring about salvation to every believer.
John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”
This verse declares that the believer is given the power or right TO BECOME a son. “To become” does not mean “already is.”
Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?”
It is one thing believing, we must also obey! The only kind of faith that the Lord recognizes is one that is CONJOINED WITH OBEDIENCE! This is why we cant exclude conditions of salvation such as repentance, or water baptism –no matter what way we might feel about it.
If the Lord said it, then we must believe it and obey — all of it!
I agree that the WHOLE word must be considered.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Why so much emphasis on a free gift?
Is, I will give this to you IF you do xyz a gift? No. That would be wages, you earned what was given, no matter how small the task required.
A freely given gift, however, can be accepted or rejected. One has to believe it is really being freely offered by the one giving it, with no strings attached, but that is it.
Even as fallen humans, do we give a gift and ask something for it? Do we hold it over the persons head we gave it to and act like they owe us? Do we take the gift back from them? No, no one acting rightly!
How much more gracious would a gift from our Father in Heaven be if even we can act graciously in giving a gift?
What you describe doesn’t fit even the earthly description of a free gift.
You could be correct. I just interpret the things you say we have to do to earn salvation are instead things we do out of gratitude BECAUSE we have salvation.
Kurt,
I agree that salvation is a gift from God. How could anyone disagree, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only way anyone could have been justified by works was to live a sinless life which would eliminate the need of GRACE and forgiveness and make justification a debt owed to one, due to his perfect record. Seeing that such “works” eliminate the need for forgiveness, they certainly cannot include anything set forth in the scriptures as a condition of forgiveness. Such conditions are included in the term “faith” –not in the term “works.”
Psalms 32, which is quoted in Romans 4:7-8, shows in verses 3-11 that “grace” does not rule out “conditions” of pardon. Therefore to say that we never have to do something in order to avail of the gift of God’s blessings, is actually not true!
For example, Naaman the leper received a cure for his leprosy as a gift from God, but still had to dip himself seven times in the Jordan in order to obtain the gift. Did he earn his cure? No! It was totally by the grace of God that He decided to heal Naaman. God didn’t have to cure him! God was actually the one who set the conditions. It was up to Naaman to avail of the cure, or not, by meeting God’s conditions. Fortunately for him, he did.
Another example is Jericho. In Joshua 6:2 the LORD said to Joshua: “See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor.” Note what the LORD said, “See! I have GIVEN Jericho into your hand.” In other words, it was a GIFT! Yet even though it was a gift from God, they still had to march around the city for seven days, blow trumpets, shout, and go up and take the city with fighting. Likewise, the land of Caanan was a gift from God to Israel, yet they still had to fight many battles in order to OBTAIN it.
I could multiply these examples! All through history men and women have had to do XYZ in order to obtain blessings or promises. Even so, it was always said that they OBTAINED IT BY FAITH.
Heb 11:4 BY FAITH Abel OFFERED to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, THROUGH WHICH he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
Heb 11:7 BY FAITH Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, MOVED with godly fear, PREPARED an ark for the saving of his household, BY WHICH he condemned the world and BECAME heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb 11:8 BY FAITH Abraham OBEYED when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he WENT OUT, not knowing where he was going.
Heb 11:9 By faith HE DWELT in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;
Heb 11:10 for HE WAITED for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Heb 11:11 BY FAITH Sarah herself also RECEIVED strength TO CONCEIVE seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:12 THEREFORE from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude—innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.
Heb 11:30 BY FAITH the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.
Heb 11:31 BY FAITH the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had RECEIVED the spies with peace.
Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets:
Heb 11:33 who through faith SUBDUED kingdoms, WORKED righteousness, OBTAINED promises, STOPPED the mouths of lions,
Heb 11:34 QUENCHED the violence of fire, ESCAPED the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became VALIANT in battle, TURNED to flight the armies of the aliens.
Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were TORTURED, not accepting deliverance, THAT THEY MIGHT OBTAIN a better resurrection.
Now, why are these things written? They are written for us, for our sake and for our learning, that we might do the same to obtain the promises of God (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 12:1-2)
“THEREFORE, everyone who hears these words of Mine, AND ACTS ON THEM, will be like a wise man who BUILT his house on the rock. “And the rain fell and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, FOR it had been FOUNDED on the rock (Mat. 7:24-25).
Salvation by “faith alone” has always been, and will always be, a concept alien to the word of God!
It took faith (belief) to do those conditional actions, which were also prior to the work on the cross. Many of them pointed to Christ as part of their purpose.
I simply disagree that the Gospel is conditional on anything other than belief (a genuine belief in the heart) of the simple Gospel message.
Repent simply means to change one’s mind. Sin is a disease, Christ is the cure. Nobody will take a cure to a disease they don’t think they have. But some people know they are sinners, but haven’t heard the cure. They don’t change their mind about sin, they simply accept the cure. Some need to repent in order to believe, others need to hear there is a cure to believe.
Someone can repent all they want, if they don’t believe in Christ, they aren’t saved. It is belief. By grace, through faith. Grace is the plane flight to heaven, Faith is the ticket to board.
Kurt,
Salvation is by grace, through faith, in Christ.
Grace is undeserved, unmerited, unwarranted favor from God.
Grace, though undeserved, accords with the seeker’s attitude:
“But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word. Isaiah 66:2b NKJV
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Matt. 23:12, Luke 14:11 ESV
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3-10 NKJV
Faith is belief and trust in God as revealed in Scripture, or by direct revelation from God.
So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead (James 2:17 ESV).
In Christ
You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength (Matthew 22:37, Deuteronomy 6:5)
If you love Me keep My commandments (John 14:15 NKJV).
George
Kurt,
Of course it took faith to do those conditional actions, otherwise they wouldn’t have done them. But it was because of those “works” that they were justified and accounted as righteous. Hebrew 11 is written to teach us about the kind of faith that saves.
Heb 11:4 “By faith Abel OFFERED to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, THROUGH WHICH HE OBTAINED WITNESS THAT HE WAS RIGHTEOUS..”
Heb 11:7 “By faith Noah, … PREPARED an ark for the saving of his household, BY WHICH he condemned the world and BECAME HEIR OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS ACCORDING TO FAITH.”
James 2:21 “Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?”
Right from the beginning of creation we see the kind of faith that has always saved, and it’s not by “faith alone.”
Abel, Noah, Abraham, all men who lived before the law. Notice how the reward only comes AFTER they obeyed. It was only after they obeyed is it said that they were accounted as righteous. Abraham being the father of all those who believe, no less (Rom 4:11)! The true seed of Abraham, his spiritual descendants, are those “who walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Rom. 4:12). This includes people who live after the cross!
And you don’t repent in order to believe, you repent BECAUSE you believe! And there’s a lot more to repentance than simply changing ones’s mind. You have to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Hence the guy still living in sin with his girlfriend is not a proper candidate for baptism.
Yes, by grace through faith, but that does not mean by “faith alone.”
Aidan,
Your latest post was well said except for “or water baptism.”
You seem to rule out circumcision, dietary restrictions and resting on the Sabbath as requirements for Christians.
What about tithing? What’s your position on drinking, smoking, dancing, etc.?
I believe you would say gambling is sinful, even though not specified as sin in the Bible.
Amish and Mennonites subject themselves and their children to really severe restrictions – all of which are based upon their understanding of Scripture. Are their doctrines and traditional teachings better or more true than yours, because they live more like the early church than you?
“According to the Young Center, ‘Most Amish groups forbid owning automobiles, tapping electricity from public utility lines, using self-propelled farm machinery, owning a television, radio, and computer, attending high school and college, joining the military, and initiating divorce.’ Photos are banned because they might cultivate personal vanity, which runs against the church’s prohibition of “hochmut,” a word meaning pride, arrogance and/or haughtiness.”
“Plainness is the governor of Amish clothing. Some groups are restricted to black and white while others allow muted colors. Buttons are frowned upon because of their potential for ostentation, and such things as Velcro and zippers are banned. Instead, clothes are fastened by pins or hook-and-eye closures. Slightly smarter clothes, such as capes, are used for religious services.”
“Perhaps the most famous aspect of Amish social life is “Rumspringa,” which means “running around” in the Pennsylvania German dialect. According to the Young Center, it is the time, beginning at about age 16, when youth socialize with their friends on weekends. Rumspringa ends with marriage. Apart from introducing young men and women to one another, this period is an important time when Amish youth need to decide if they will be baptized and join the church, which usually occurs between 18 and 21, or leave the Amish community.” Matthew Diebel USA Today 8/15/2014
“And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 NKJV
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” Galatians 5:1-6 NKJV
Paul gives one example of circumcision as being entangled again with a yoke of bondage. There are others he didn’t relate. Are Amish and Mennonites attempting to be justified by law and fallen from grace, or are they submitting in obedience to the Word of God?
George
I will add:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
And:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Who was He talking to? Pharisees. What did they think got you salvation? Following all the laws.
What gets you eternal life? Believing on Him who the Father sent!
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am thankful to God I don’t have to sacrifice animals, worship on certain days, pray facing a certain direction, pray at specific times, wear certain clothes etc…
Kurt,
:Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have [a]judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 1 Corinthians 6:1-5 NKJV
Anyone here know a believer who claims to have received the spiritual gift of wisdom?
George
Well, it is a good thing no one here is suing each other in civil court, but not sure what that has to do with people having different interpretations of scripture!
Kurt,
I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 1 Cor. 6:5 NKJV
Perhaps those with the spiritual gift of wisdom are more prevalent than those with the gift of discernment.
Every believer receives a gift from the Holy Spirit. What spiritual gift did you receive?
George
br.d
George – I am curious
Is there a possibility – you have a history of pushing your “spiritual gift” thing at other places – such as a congregation or two – and the pastors from those congregations instructed you to stop? And it ended up with you leaving?
Br.d,
You wrote, “Is there a possibility – you have a history of pushing your “spiritual gift” thing at other places – such as a congregation or two – and the pastors from those congregations instructed you to stop? And it ended up with you leaving?”
Not exactly. One pastor expressed his concern that I might attempt to take over his congregation. He was jealous of my spiritual knowledge and both my wife and I were made to feel unwelcome. He was pastor at an evangelical free church near me.
Here is the official EFCA doctrine on soteriology from their website FAQ:
“Is the EFCA Arminian/Wesleyan (Lutheran) or Calvinist/Reformed regarding the doctrine of salvation?
Historically, Evangelicals affirm that because of sin God initiates salvation. For one theological stream (Arminian/Wesleyan), they affirm that God initiates through prevenient grace. For another theological stream (Calvinist/Reformed), they affirm that God initiates through effective grace. Though there are differences, in both streams God initiates and affirms that He must do so because of the state of all of humankind after the fall of being spiritually dead. Evangelicals deny Pelagianism (condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431) and semi-Pelagianism (condemned at the Council of Orange in 529).
The framers of our 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith wanted to create a statement that was consistent with both Arminian/Wesleyan and Calvinist/Reformed views of salvation, but which required or endorsed neither. The same is true in our 2008 Statement of Faith in which we state “He [the Holy Spirit] regenerates sinners” (Article 6).
What this means regarding the doctrine of salvation is the EFCA allows Arminian/Wesleyan, Calvinist/Reformed and Lutheran views of soteriology. The fact of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is essential. Both regeneration (the Spirit’s work) and faith (our response) are essential for salvation, and our Statement of Faith affirms both without giving logical priority to either. Whether regeneration precedes faith (Calvinism) or faith precedes regeneration (Arminianism), we have placed in a secondary category. On a doctrine related to this question, we also allow both perspectives of the possibility of apostasy (one can fall away and lose one’s salvation) and the perseverance of the saints (eternal security).
This does not mean that each local church has an equal number of those positions represented. Each local EFC church leans in one theological direction more so than another. But whichever way the church leans, the church ought to be welcoming to the person who leans in the other theological direction.
In the EFCA this theological doctrine falls into the category of the “significance of silence,” or that area in which we affirm “unity in the essentials, dialogue in the differences,” without division.”
Unfortunately, this pastor had been trained at the Masters College where Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. is president and was unwilling to receive the truth I had to offer, because he was loyal to his mentor rather than to Christ, I suspect..
Another church we attended was non-denominational. The pastor there had recently written a book. One dogma he published was that all babies are born with a sin nature. For my wife and I that teaching blasphemes God and we could no longer have communion with them. We haven’t been able to find a church that does not teach this false doctrine.
Here’s the doctrine on “sin nature.” for your review.
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing.
Proof of the sin nature abounds. No one has to teach a child to lie or be selfish; rather, we go to great lengths to teach children to tell the truth and put others first. Sinful behavior comes naturally. The news is filled with tragic examples of mankind acting badly. Wherever people are, there is trouble. Charles Spurgeon said, “As the salt flavors every drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived.”
The Bible explains the reason for the trouble. Humanity is sinful, not just in theory or in practice but by nature. Sin is part of the very fiber of our being. The Bible speaks of “sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3. It’s our “earthly nature” that produces the list of sins in Colossians 3:5. And Romans 6:6 speaks of “the body ruled by sin.” The flesh-and-blood existence we lead on this earth is shaped by our sinful, corrupt nature.
The sin nature is universal in humanity. All of us have a sinful nature, and it affects every part of us. This is the doctrine of total depravity, and it is biblical. All of us have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6). Paul admits that “the trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin” (Romans 7:14). Paul was in his “sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:25). Solomon concurs: “Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, / no one who does what is right and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The apostle John perhaps puts it most bluntly: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
Even children have a sin nature. David rues the fact that he was born with sin already at work within him: “Surely I was sinful at birth, / sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Elsewhere, David states, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (Psalm 58:3).
Where did the sin nature come from? Scripture says that God created humans good and without a sinful nature: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). However, Genesis 3 records the disobedience of Adam and Eve. By that one action, sin entered into their nature. They were immediately stricken with a sense of shame and unfitness, and they hid from God’s presence (Genesis 3:8). When they had children, Adam’s image and likeness was passed along to his offspring (Genesis 5:3). The sin nature manifested itself early in the genealogy: the very first child born to Adam and Eve, Cain, became the very first murderer (Genesis 4:8).
From generation to generation, the sin nature was passed down to all of humanity: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). This verse also presents the unsettling truth that the sin nature leads inexorably to death (see also Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:1).
Other consequences of the sin nature are hostility toward God and ignorance of His truth. Paul says, “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7–8). Also, “the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
There is only one Person in the history of the world who did not have a sin nature: Jesus Christ. His virgin birth allowed Him to enter our world while bypassing the curse passed down from Adam. Jesus then lived a sinless life of absolute perfection. He was “the Holy and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14) who “had no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This allowed Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross as our perfect substitute, “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19). John Calvin puts it in perspective: “For certainly, Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.”
It is through Christ that we are born again. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). When we are born of Adam, we inherit his sin nature; but when we are born again in Christ, we inherit a new nature: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
We don’t lose our sin nature once we receive Christ. The Bible says that sin remains in us and that a struggle with that old nature will continue as long as we are in this world. Paul bemoaned his own personal struggle in Romans 7:15–25. But we have help in the battle—divine help. The Spirit of God takes up residence in each believer and supplies the power we need to overcome the pull of the sin nature within us. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). God’s ultimate plan for us is total sanctification when we see Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 John 3:2).
Through His finished work on the cross, Jesus satisfied God’s wrath against sin and provided believers with victory over their sin nature: “‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). In His resurrection, Jesus offers life to everyone bound by corrupt flesh. Those who are born again now have this command: “Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11).
Babies aren’t born with a sin nature – they’re born with an instinct for self-preservation, which all animal have to survive.
George
George
Not exactly. One pastor expressed his concern that I might attempt to take over his congregation.
He was jealous of my spiritual knowledge and both my wife and I were made to feel unwelcome.
br.d
Ok – that’s what I suspected.
And was there any other situation at all with any other parental ministry – in any way?
Br.d,
You wrote, “And was there any other situation at all with any other parental ministry – in any way?”
Reply:
Did you bother to read what I wrote in its entirety? Or, just responding to the first sentence?
I have no idea what you’re asking – I Googled “Parental Ministry” and got this:
Parent Ministry means the Ministry within whose portfolio a Government institution falls; Sample 1Sample 2. Parent Ministry means the Ministry under the aegis of which the Departments, Divisions, Agencies and Statutory Bodies operate.
What is a parental ministry?
George
br.d
A spiritually mature believer will know exactly what a parental ministry is.
I was grateful for your honesty in answering the last question.
Was there any other circumstance?
Br.d,
You wrote, “A spiritually mature believer will know exactly what a parental ministry is.”
Is “parental ministry” family ministry?
If no, what is it? If yes, then maybe you need to use the correct term.
Either way, what passage in Scripture supports your claim that ignorance of the meaning for “parental ministry” is reason to question a person’s spiritual maturity?
George
br.d
I don’t want to get side-tracked
I just need to know if there where any other circumstances.
Were there?
Br.d,
You asked, “And was there any other situation at all with any other parental ministry – in any way?” “I just need to know if there where any other circumstances.”
Reply:
There was a pastor of a Wesleyan church who said he would believe me if I would just perform a miracle for him. I felt that pastor’s request was inappropriate.
My wife and I were married in a Methodist church. The pastor there was constantly having his congregation ask for mercy from God for their sins, but this pastor never called upon the congregation to repent and turn from their sins.
We didn’t feel we wanted to worship with such lukewarm Christians, who acted like the church in Laodicea.
We desire to worship our God with a church like in Philadelphia (Acts 3:7-13), but we never found one.
The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. Psalm 14/53:2,3 NIV
George
George
There was a pastor of a Wesleyan church who said he would believe me if I would just perform a miracle for him.
br.d
Thank you .
This Wesleyan pastor was saying this in response to your position on “spiritual gifts” then?
Br.d,
You asked, “This Wesleyan pastor was saying this in response to your position on “spiritual gifts” then?”
Reply:
It was many years ago, I don’t recall our exact conversation and neither does my wife.
However, I don’t think it was because I claimed to have been given the spiritual gift of discernment.
I don’t claim to be able to read minds. So, I wouldn’t know why he wanted me to perform a miracle. I only know he did.
I have explained many things to pastors, ministers , bible teachers and theologians over 20+ years – by mail, email and face to face – in response to their false doctrinal teachings, which they deeply resent.
I witness the Truth to others in obedience to our Lord, Jesus Christ – not because I desire to lord over them.
Perhaps, I corrected some false doctrine within the Wesleyan church and he asked me to perform a miracle as proof of what I told him or perhaps he thought I may be a prophet.
George
George
I don’t think it was because I claimed to have been given the spiritual gift of discernment.
br.d
Ok – and that pastor gave you some kind of instruction concerning your communications to people within that congregation regarding your “spiritual gift” ?
Br.d,
You said, “Ok – and that pastor gave you some kind of instruction concerning your communications to people within that congregation regarding your “spiritual gift”?
Reply:
Absolutely not!
I only talk to the pastor of the church about his false teaching. The congregation doesn’t set the church doctrine and I don’t teach them outside bible study, which is moderated by the pastor..
I have written to theologians and bible teachers like Dr. John MacArthur, Jr., Dr. Hadden Robinson, Dr. Mart DeHaan, Dr. James M. Boice, Dr. Joseph Stowell, Dr. Charles Stanley, etc.
I have conversed by email with several Christian Internet websites like SOT101, the-highway.com, gotanswers.com,
I have attempted to interview with the teaching staff at various divinity schools and bible colleges in my area. They asked why I wanted an interview and I told them I want to help them know the truth. They declined to speak with me before they heard anything of what I had to say.
As written, they were not willing to hear. Matthew 10:14, 2 Timothy 4:3, Mark 6:11
George
Imagine that. An unknown person approaching someone who has dedicated their life to study in a field, enough to earn a doctorate, saying you are wrong and I want to teach you the truth, and them declining. Why ever would they do that?
George, you may want to work on your approach, brother. Whether you intend it or not it comes off as arrogant, self-righteous, and close-minded. It isn’t inviting, warm or something that sounds like it would be productive to the person you are asking.
Have you thought of trying a more humble approach? Try”there are some things you are teaching that I am having trouble understanding and I’ve heard different explanations. I really respect your insight and your body of work, I have learned much from you! That is why I was hoping we could discuss these points I am confused about, to get a better understanding and explore these teachings together!”
Do you see how that is different from a “I want to teach you the truth” approach?
br.d
Imagine 2 Georges who are exact duplicates of each other.
We will call them George_#1 and George_#2
George_#1 accuses George_#2 of teaching false doctrines
And he has dug through the Bible to find 666 verses as proof-texts
George_#2 accuses George_#1 of teachings false doctrines
And he has dug through the Bible to find his 666 verses as proof-texts
George_#1 then finds 666 reasons to disagree with George_#2
In response to those 666 reasons to disagree – George_#2 produces 666 condemnations
George_#2 also finds 666 reasons to disagree with George_#1
In response to those 666 reasons – George_#1 produces 666 condemnations
George_#1 insists he has the truth – because he was given divine knowledge
George_#2 insists he has the truth – because he was given divine knowledge
Aren’t humans funny!!! ;-D
That sounds schizophrenic! But I think the real George might say that George 1 and George 2 would more likely be in perfect agreement with each other. For how could divine knowledge contradict itself? Not that I believe he has the gift of discernment since he not only (1) gets much of his information from men off the internet, but (2) has contradicted himself.
Many men and groups out there claim inspiration, yet you find they have so many different doctrines and practices. I wasn’t aware that God liked to contradict Himself!
If a person claims inspiration, or miraculous gifts, it better match perfectly with what we see in the New Testament. In my experience it never does! But even if they fool you on that score, none of their teaching should contradict the apostolic teaching. As far as I can see, none so far have passed that test!
br.d
The contradiction is the key – exactly for the reason you explained Aidan.
The God of scripture is a perfect being – and to contradict himself – would be to deny himself – which is impossible.
But man is not perfect.
And therefore we have contradiction with man.
The theoretical example provided – is designed to show not only contradiction – but man’s personal PERCEPTION of himself.
And in this case – we have two men – each having a PERCEPTION of himself has having divine knowledge.
The contradiction – as you well pointed out – makes it obvious – the PERCEPTION of divine knowledge is a FALSE PERCEPTION
I would add that it’s having a PERCEPTION of himself has having INFALLIBLE divine knowledge. That’s why we got the POPE and the magisterium in the Catholic Church.
It seems there are many POPES and magisteriums out there today claiming INFALLIBLE divine knowledge! Gnostics who understand the deeper things of God.
YES! Well said!
It has been said within academia concerning the historical John Calvin – that he was a “Catholic” with a small “c”
Certain aspects within Catholicism were not rejected by Calvin – and thus still appear within Calvinists today.
Two things in particular:
1) Speaking Ex-Cathedra
2) Being the “Pontifex Maximus” of all things pertaining to god and man.
When we know how to discern these things – we are guaranteed to discern them within Calvinist statements
So when a believer is unwittingly influenced by Calvinist materials – such as materials written by John MacArthur or John Piper – that believer is unwittingly being influenced by those aspects of Calvinism – which were derived from Catholicism – and which Calvinism never cleansed itself of.
Calvinists often AUTO-MAGICALLY assume to speak Ex-Cathedra
And they often AUTO-MAGICALLY position their belief system as the “Pontifex-Maximus” of all things pertaining to god and man.
When you discern these things within statements here at SOT101 – you are discerning a person who has been unwittingly influenced by Calvinist thinking patterns – derived from Catholicism.
I’m not Catholic by the way, just in case you were wondering.😎
br.d
I got a kick out of that!
The thought never entered my mind!
You don’t manifest speaking “Ex-Cathedra”
Neither do manifest your belief system as the “Pontifex-Maximus” of all things pertaining to God and man. :-]
I just thought you might because I wasn’t sure what way it had come across.
One of the verses that has always stuck with me is Prov. 16:25 which says, “There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.” I had heard of a story many years ago of a couple(I think it was a couple) driving at night time down a country road right into a lake and drowned. The belief was that they had gotten off track and didn’t realize what was at the end of that dark country road. Perhaps they felt confident they were going the right way. How many of us have made that mistake when driving. Luckily for us there was no lake at the end!
But how that story is indicative of the proverb.
And so Jesus said of the Pharisees; “Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (Mat. 15:14).
Thanks Br.d,
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “And so Jesus said of the Pharisees; “Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (Mat. 15:14).
Reply:
It’s best to not take a verse out of its context – better to quote the full passage.
15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:1-14 NKJV
Next, it’s a good idea to see how bible commentators explain the verse in question.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“This does not mean Jesus intends His followers to avoid all debates, with all people, for all time. This is in keeping with His prior comments about knowing when to stop wasting energy on the unwilling (Matthew 10:14). Scripture commands believers to be ready to answer those who challenge their faith (1 Peter 3:15–16). This specific group—the Pharisees of Jesus’ day—are not going to listen to what the disciples say, so Christ does not want the disciples attempting to argue with them.” bibleref.com
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
biblehub.com offers 13 commentaries which you can read if you want.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
“After Christ called the Pharisees “blind leaders of the blind,” He said to “leave them” in Matthew 15:14. By this, He meant for His disciples to ignore the Pharisees, to let them alone and not to try to please them. These religious leaders thought they were experts in God’s law, but they were blind and ignorant of the law’s true meaning. Christ revealed that they were contradicting the very laws they claimed to understand. Instead of leading their students along the right path that leads to life, they were guiding themselves and their followers straight to disaster: “Both will fall into a pit.” gotquestions.org
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“Let them alone
Have nothing to say, or do with them; do not mind their anger and resentment, their reproaches and reflections, nor trouble yourselves at the offence they have taken; if they will go, let them go; they are a worthless generation of men, who are not to be regarded, hearkened to, nor to be pleased; it matters not what they say of me, and of my doctrine:” biblestudytools.com
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) “Probably the words may be understood as a sort of proverbial expression for – Don’t mind them: pay no regard to them. – “They are altogether unworthy of notice.” Clarke’s commentary
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
2) “Let them alone – that is the admonition of Christ with reference to the worldly wise, socially prominent, sophisticated, unscrupulous, hypocritical religious leaders. The apostles would have been able to do the Pharisees no good, and there was a grave possibility the Pharisees would do the apostles harm by damaging their faith. The child of God today should heed the same admonition with reference to the same kind of persons. Spiritual darkness and sin are set forth in this place under the figure of blindness, a symbol often so used in the Bible (2 Peter 1:9, etc.)” Coffman’s commentary
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
3) “Let them alone – That is, do not be troubled at their rage.” Barnes’ commentary
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
4) “Let them alone. He sets them aside as unworthy of notice, and concludes that the offense which they take ought not to give us much uneasiness. Hence has arisen the distinction, of which we hear so much, about avoiding offenses, that we ought to beware of offending the weak, but if any obstinate and malicious person take offense, we ought not to be uneasy; for, if we determined to satisfy all obstinate people, we must bury Christ, who is the stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:8.)” Calvin’s commentary
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
5) “Let them alone: Jesus reminds His disciples that they need to continue their mission without regard for the Pharisees. They should not become discouraged by the Pharisees’ attacks or cast their gospel pearls before swine. Jesus is not insinuating that false doctrine should be ignored, but rather that the disciples are not to try to appease these religious leaders–something the disciples apparently would like to do (verse 12).” Contending For The Faith
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
6) “Let them alone,…. Have nothing to say, or do with them; do not mind their anger and resentment, their reproaches and reflections, nor trouble yourselves at the offence they have taken; if they will go, let them go; they are a worthless generation of men, who are not to be regarded, hearkened to, nor to be pleased; it matters not what they say of me, and of my doctrine:” Gill’s Exposition
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
These six commentaries on from studylight.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are many, many more commentaries on this subject, but what do you discern is the meaning of Matthew 15:14?
Is the meaning one of these or something else?
More importantly, have you used Matthew 15:14 correctly to make the point of your argument?
George
Aidan,
You wrote, “Not that I believe he has the gift of discernment since he not only (1) gets much of his information from men off the internet, but (2) has contradicted himself.”
Reply:
1) I read and discern whether or not the information I find on the Internet on in books is true or false. If true and useful, I pass it on to others. If false, I may pass it on as an example of falsehood or poor reasoning. If false doctrine, I try to contact the writer to lovingly correct him or her.
2) I deny I contradict myself. If you are referring to my post about “because of” being interchangeable with “for” – well that was within quotation marks and something I copied and pasted off the Internet Did I fail to detect that tiny error in another’s writing? – yes. Does that mean I contracted myself? – no. Other than that minor issue, I have no recollection of anything you have brought to my attention in which you claim I contradicted myself If there is something else, by all means point it out to me, so I can be corrected.
May I point out your obvious bias against me in this matter?
You deny spiritual gifts exist. You say they ended with the apostles deaths nearly 2000 years ago.
So, of course you deny I could have any spiritual gift – especially the spiritual gift of discernment.
George
Br.d,
You said, “Ok – and that pastor gave you some kind of instruction concerning your communications to people within that congregation regarding your “spiritual gift”?
Reply:
Absolutely not!
I only talk to the pastor of the church about his false teaching.
br,d
Oh I see
Well – that makes it pretty clear!
In that case – that pastor allowing you to communicate anything about “spiritual gifts” to his congregation wasn’t even going to be a question.
How long were you visiting or associating with that fellowship before that happened?
Br.d,
You wrote, “How long were you visiting or associating with that fellowship before that happened?”
Reply:
I believe we attended the Wesleyan church two or maybe three times.
Do you think this pastor was being sarcastic when he said he would believe me if I performed a miracle for him? I didn’t get that impression at the time, because I want to believe those who represent the Lord are basically honest. Pastors may be blind guides, but I hope they are at least honest, blind guides.
Anger
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. Matthew 5:21-26 ESV
Judging Others
7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Mathew 7:1-5 ESV
If Your Brother Sins Against You
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17 ESV
What are believers to do when the person sinning against us, by teaching false doctrine, is the pastor of a church? Are we to say nothing or are we to go to him and tell him his fault, between just the two of us (Matthew 18:15)?
Do you think I’m wrong for doing exactly what Jesus taught?
George
I think your approach lacks gentleness (wise as serpents, gentle as doves), if I may be blunt. I’m not accusing you of being wrong, I am just trying to point out that the way someone receives something is influenced by how it is delivered. Inviting a discussion by asking questions and then expressing your viewpoint would be more effective for someone to actually engage with you.
Saying “I believe you are in error and teaching false doctrine” is a tough accusation, and comes off as arrogant and judgmental. You put the person on the defensive before you have sought to understand them and then express your views.
br.d
That would be the academic approach for sure!
I’ve been around for a few years – and I’ve seen a lot of high-testosterone men walking around imagining themselves to be the Apostle Paul – pointing out the errors and correcting everyone they come in contact with.
I worked for a number of years in a supportive role – for a ministry designed to help people like that.
Its almost like they are a tiny bit touched in the head
Not 100% stable.
But because they are a Bible believing Christian – they are the last person you would anticipate with them.
The first time you discover it – it can take you by surprise.
Kurt,
You wrote, “I think your approach lacks gentleness (wise as serpents, gentle as doves), if I may be blunt. I’m not accusing you of being wrong, I am just trying to point out that the way someone receives something is influenced by how it is delivered.”
Reply:
I think we are to do as Jesus did. How did Christ treat the Pharisees and Sadducees? I believe He called them vipers.
Furthermore, I expected to be treated exactly as Scripture says His followers will be treated.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5:11-12 ESV
What false teachers hate most is the Truth – the Word revealed to them. And they hate whoever is trying to help them understand. They have ears, but refuse to listen. They have eyes, but refuse to see.
They say they love a righteous, just, kind, loving God, but teach He imputes sin into innocent babies.
They see the Word of God says “one baptism” – then they teach two baptisms.
They see the Word of God says “one faith” and calls for unity within the Church, but they teach multiple doctrines are fine as long as a church adheres to certain “core” beliefs.
They teach marriage and divorce is okay – Jesus calls that adultery and Paul says no adulterers will enter heaven – so it is definitely not okay.
When they lacked wisdom in these doctrinal issues did they ask God in faith for wisdom? When this was nicely pointed out to them did they ask? When it was repeated again did they ask? What excuse do they have for not asking?
Ask, and It Will Be Given
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Matthew 7:7,8 ESV
They strain out gnats and swallow camels by arguing over the smallest word variations used in various translations, but ignore the really big doctrinal issues like those I just addressed.
George
George
I believe we attended the Wesleyan church two or maybe three times.
br.d
Well – two or three times….hmmm
I would guess then – that you told that pastor about your “spiritual gift” perhaps the first time you visited.
And since the 3rd time was the last time you were there – I would guess that was the time you told the pastor he was teaching false doctrines.
Does that sound about the way things went?
Br.d
You wrote, “I would guess then – that you told that pastor about your “spiritual gift” perhaps the first time you visited.
And since the 3rd time was the last time you were there – I would guess that was the time you told the pastor he was teaching false doctrines.
Does that sound about the way things went?”
Reply:
No.
I already told you I didn’t discuss my spiritual gift with him.
We went to the Wesleyan church and heard false teaching from the pastor.
In love, we approached the pastor privately to discuss the issue with him.
The pastor said he would believe what I said if I performed a miracle for him.
I’m sure the pastor realized I knew what I was talking about, but not sure of his motive for wanting me to perform a miracle.
I felt that asking for a miracle to prove myself wasn’t appropriate, so we no longer went to the Wesleyan church.
Paul wrote:
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:11 ESV
You wrote:
“I’ve been around for a few years – and I’ve seen a lot of high-testosterone men walking around imagining themselves to be the Apostle Paul – pointing out the errors and correcting everyone they come in contact with.
I worked for a number of years in a supportive role – for a ministry designed to help people like that.
Its almost like they are a tiny bit touched in the head
Not 100% stable.
But because they are a Bible believing Christian – they are the last person you would anticipate with them.
The first time you discover it – it can take you by surprise.”
Reply:
By faith, I choose to follow Paul’s advise rather than your advise.
I’m quite certain God does not deceive and cannot lie.
George
br.d
AH!
I thought you said – the pastor wanted you to perform a miracle because you told him you have a “spiritual gift”
That made sense to me.
If you remember – my original question to you
I was asking if there were any circumstances with any churches/pastors/etc over you pushing your “spiritual gift” thing on people.
With the first pastor you asserted that pastor was -quote “Jealous of your spiritual knowledge”
I would assume for you “spiritual knowledge” includes your “spiritual gift”
I was eventually going to as another question about that – but I instead wanted to know if there were any other circumstances.
I was assuming you told the 2nd pastor about your “spiritual gift” because that was my original question.
So lets go back a few steps.
I’m specifically asking about fellowships/churches/pastors/etc in regard to you pushing your “spiritual gift” and did any of them instruct you to stop – and you ended up leaving?
Br.d,
You wrote, “With the first pastor you asserted that pastor was -quote “Jealous of your spiritual knowledge”
I would assume for you “spiritual knowledge” includes your “spiritual gift” “I was assuming you told the 2nd pastor about your “spiritual gift” because that was my original question.”
“I’m specifically asking about fellowships/churches/pastors/etc in regard to you pushing your “spiritual gift” and did any of them instruct you to stop – and you ended up leaving?”
Reply:
No, I did not tell any of the pastors I had been given the spiritual gift of discernment. I was not asked to stop. My wife and I left the various churches for different reasons – none were because the pastor asked us to.
Spiritual knowledge comes from the ability to discern, but you are wrong to assume the only way to discern is with the gift of discernment. As I have said many times, the indwelling Holy Spirit gives knowledge through discernment as a result of the believer persevering through trials of faith and that is what is meant by “perfecting the saints.” James 1:4
James 1:4 is literally the first written instruction to the early church. This instruction for HOW we are taught isn’t understood by the Church. They would have students training to be pastors attend seminaries, universities, divinity schools and bible colleges for religious instruction. This is based upon Paul teaching Timothy.
While it’s true that Paul taught Timothy, it’s also true that Timothy was pastor at Ephesus and the church there soon left their first love. (Revelation 2:4) If you want to know what the meaning of Rev. 2:4, just ask.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“Discernment is defined as “the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure; an act of perceiving something; a power to see what is not evident to the average mind.” The definition also stresses accuracy, as in “the ability to see the truth.” Spiritual discernment is the ability to tell the difference between truth and error. It is basic to having wisdom.
Arguments and debates surround spiritual truth because it is obscure. Jesus, speaking to His disciples about the Pharisees, said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). Satan has “blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4), so God must shed light on the human mind to enable us to understand truth. It is impossible to attain wisdom without God. He gives discernment or takes it away (Job 12:19-21).
Some have mistakenly defined spiritual discernment as a God-given awareness of evil or good spiritual presences—the ability to tell if a demon is in the room. While some people may possess this capability, it is not the biblical meaning of discernment. Spiritual discernment ultimately has to do with wisdom and the ability to distinguish truth from error.
Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 1 and described as someone that we can “get to know” (vv. 20-33). The Bible says that Jesus Christ is “wisdom from God” (1 Corinthians 1:30). Therefore, wisdom, or spiritual discernment, is something that comes from knowing Jesus Christ. The world’s way of getting wisdom is different from God’s way. The learned of the world gain knowledge and apply reason to knowledge to solve problems, construct buildings and create philosophies. But God does not make the knowledge of Himself available by those means. First Corinthians 1:18-31 says the “wisdom of the wise” is frustrated by God who delivers wisdom to the “foolish” and the “weak” by way of a relationship with Jesus Christ. That way, “no human being can boast in His presence” (verse 29). We learn to be spiritually discerning by knowing Him.
It is not wrong to possess knowledge or have an education, and it is not wrong to use reason and logic to solve problems. However, spiritual discernment cannot be attained that way. It must be given by the revelation of Jesus Christ to the believer, and then developed by way of training in righteousness (Hebrews 5:14) and prayer (Philippians 1:9). Hebrews 5:11-14 shows how spiritual discernment is developed. The writer speaks to those who had become “dull of hearing,” meaning they had fallen out of practice discerning spiritually. The writer of Hebrews tells them that everyone who lives on “milk” (rather than the “solid food” desired by the mature) is unskilled in the word of righteousness; however, the mature Christian has been “trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” The keys, according to this passage, are becoming skilled in the Word of God (by which we define righteousness) and “constant practice” (through which we gain experience).
So, how does one increase spiritual discernment? First, recognizing that God is the only one who can increase wisdom, pray for it (James 1:5; Philippians 1:9). Then, knowing the wisdom to distinguish good from evil comes by training and practice, go to the Bible to learn the truth and, by meditation on the Word, reinforce the truth.
When a bank hires an employee, he is trained to recognize counterfeit bills. One would think that the best way to recognize a counterfeit would be to study various counterfeits. The problem is that new counterfeits are being created every day. The best way to recognize a counterfeit bill is to have an intimate knowledge of the real thing. Having studied authentic bills, bank cashiers are not fooled when a counterfeit comes along. A knowledge of the true helps them identify the false.
This is what Christians must do to develop spiritual discernment. We must know the authentic so well that, when the false appears, we can recognize it. By knowing and obeying the Word of God, we will be “trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” We will know God’s character and will. This is the heart of spiritual discernment – being able to distinguish the voice of the world from the voice of God, to have a sense that “this is right” or “this is wrong.” Spiritual discernment fends off temptation and allows us to “hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9)” gotquestions.org.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
You have assumed wrongly about me. Perhaps you should consider repenting your errors.
I deny I was “pushing my spiritual gift.” I stated here that I had been given the spiritual gift of discernment, which you have resented. When I asked why you resented my gift of discernment when you would welcome someone having the gift of service, you didn’t answer.
Do you resent me for what God has chosen to give me?
George
George
You have assumed wrongly about me. Perhaps you should consider repenting your errors.
br.d
If any may say he is without sin – he deceives himself and the truth is not in him.
But it would not be truthful to repent of a sin that is really not a sin.
I’m not going to engage with you over that – because I already know – you will simply produce an endless stream of arguments – which will quickly devolve into childish arguments. And that will be a complete waste of time and space here.
George:
I deny I was “pushing my spiritual gift.”
br.d
Perhaps you should ask the other believers here at SOT101 – if that is what they discern?
George
When I asked why you resented my gift of discernment when you would welcome someone having the gift of service, you didn’t answer.
br.d
I simply dismissed that as a totally childish statement.
What I feel for you – is understanding and compassion for your condition.
If as time goes by – you are willing to allow the Lord’s refining fire in your life – the Lord will eventually deliver you from the fleshly urgencies of self-promotion.
Br.d,
So, saying you assume something about someone else and have wrongly judged them is not a sin. But, you will not engage over that because you assume there will be an endless conversation. Then you know the discussion will become childish and become a complete waste of time and space.
Are you claiming to be mind reader, clairvoyant or both?
You wrote, “I deny I was “pushing my spiritual gift.”
br.d
Perhaps you should ask the other believers here at SOT101 – if that is what they discern?
Reply:
I deny I was “pushing my spiritual gift” to the pastors I spoke directly with years ago.
You are deliberately taking my words out of context – thereby bearing false witness – which is a grievous sin.
“Truth telling” is a higher standard than “not lying.” Lying is purposely distorting the truth. Bearing false witness, on the other hand, can be the result of inattentiveness — saying something that might be true but hasn’t been verified. Repeating a rumor isn’t necessarily lying, but it’s bearing false witness.” Internet source Apr 3, 2015
George
Br.d,
The Lord has impressed upon me to forgive you for slandering me.
I forgive you despite your not asking for forgiveness nor repenting your sin.
Your wrote, “Perhaps you should ask the other believers here at SOT101 – if that is what they discern?”
Reply:
I did ask one person at SOT101 through their private email and got the reply, “I wouldn’t say you are necessarily “pushing” your gift. You seem to be in some people’s eyes, including me, pushing the idea that since you think you have this gift you are never wrong in the interpretation that you choose to defend as correct.”
I welcome other opinions in this matter. However, if no one has ever corrected my understanding of biblical doctrine in any reasonable way, (and I have written to some of the finest theologians and bible teachers available), then how could I know I have provided a wrong interpretation of doctrine? Had I been corrected, I would have admitted my error.
That is a statement of fact not given in arrogance. If I seem to lack humility, it’s because you don’t know me.
Moses is called humble by God, but where in Scripture would you find evidence of his humility to others?
Could it be that Moses was humble before God but seen to be overly zealous by others, which may be only their perspective and not God’s. Are we to please God or men?
Walk in the Light
42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. John 12:42-43 NKJV
I ask you, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” Galatians 4:16 NKJV
George
Well, you have been meaningly corrected here, but you simply SAID it wasn’t meaningful, disagreed with it, and then posited that your spiritual gift of discernment is how you know you are correct.
You also tend to give entire dissertations as rebuttals to someone, making it difficult to refute for 2 reasons (neither of which are because your points are not arguable):
1). By giving long responses with multiple points you make it difficult to focus in on just one point, to discuss and then move on. It allows you to deflect at any given time to another point.
2). The amount of effort it requires to respond to such a long point is simply more effort than people have time for. See me of your post I didn’t even read because they were too long. It isn’t appropriate etiquette of engagement for this type of platform.
Finally, (see how much I have to respond to in even just one of your posts!) You sending an email to celebrity Pastor John MacArthur and not getting a response is NOT proof that he cannot refute you. The man has 1,000s of emails each day and can’t spend all day just answering emails. Especially ones that say “you are in error!”.
Kurt,
You wrote, “Well, you have been meaningly corrected here, but you simply SAID it wasn’t meaningful, disagreed with it, and then posited that your spiritual gift of discernment is how you know you are correct.”
Reply:
When we discussed divorce and remarriage doctrine, you admitted you “could absolutely be wrong.” I think you expected me to say the same and when I didn’t you took umbrage against me.
I suspect this is true, because I pointed out to you that you have now discredited yourself and you tried to reverse what you clearly wrote..
Since this was your opinion (merely providing a certificate of divorce is all God requires); those agreeing with you (Ed Chapman, TS00 and Br.d) are discredited also.
The Roman Catholic Church has been teaching the doctrine of marriage, divorce and remarriage correctly for nearly 2000 years. I agree with the Roman Catholic Church doctrine in this matter.
I provided other church doctrine and evidences as to why their doctrine is incorrect because they use manuscripts with omitted words (Matthew 19:9 KJV) and the correct words can be found in the footnotes of the ASV, NASV and RSV..
So, Kurt you have also tried to slander me by making false claims about what I testified to. There is a written record of all we said in this matter – you can check if you’d like.
George
George, admitting that one COULD be in error is simply an act of humility, showing an open mind, and being open to learning if good reasons were presented. I personally didn’t find the reasons you offered to be convincing. The difference is while I admit I could be in error, you assert that you could not be. Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
I have not slandered YOU personally. I simply disagree with your ideas, and the claims that you make about yourself. I don’t see these claims as coming from a place of humility, but rather from a place of self-proclaimed authority. The only authority is Christ. Any man claiming authority automatically makes me weary.
The Catholic Church believes they can perform a ritual that will clear someone from divorce and allow them to remarry. I do not think you agree with the Catholics on this matter.
Kurt,
You wrote, “George, admitting that one COULD be in error is simply an act of humility.”
Reply:
You admitted you “absolutely could be wrong” in the context about your understanding of remarriage after divorce being okay provided a divorce decree was provided.” This was not about a general act of humility, which is why you took umbrage toward me.
I suspect this has something to do with your plans to remarry and explains why you didn’t want to provide your full name here.
You wrote, “I have not slandered YOU personally.”
Reply:
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
What does the Bible say about slander?
“The old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is not true. Words can do a great deal of damage to those who have been slandered. Slander is making a false verbal statement that damages someone’s reputation. Slander differs slightly from libel in that libel is a written defamation of character; slander is only spoken. The Bible says a lot about slander, in both Old Testament and New (Proverbs 10:18; 1 Peter 2:1). Slander is so high on God’s list of wrongs that He included it in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:16). The ninth commandment says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness includes slander because of the untruths being spread. Slander is simply lying about someone with the intent of causing others to view that person in a negative light.
Slander is malicious lying, and God hates lying (Proverbs 6:16–19; 12:22). Since God is the author of truth (John 14:6; 1 John 5:6), anything untrue is in opposition to His nature and therefore repulsive to Him. Both slander and gossip are wrong, and Scripture often condemns them together (Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 16:27; 2 Corinthians 12:20), but slander takes gossip to a whole new level. Gossip collects someone’s secrets and passes them to others; slander makes up its own secrets and broadcasts them wherever they will do the most harm.
The New Testament references slander as part of our old sinful nature. Slander has no place in our lives when we become new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Colossians 3:7–8 says, “You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” Our words are to be dedicated to the glory of God, just as our bodies are (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 4:29). Those who know God have a responsibility to refrain from slander: “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be” (James 3:9–10). Slander is one practice that must be put to death if we intend to follow Jesus (see Romans 6:11–14).
In Romans 1:28–32, Paul lists many traits of a depraved mind, and slander is included in this list (verse 30). When we slander others, we are choosing to step out of the path God designed for us. He will not participate with us in our attempts to destroy someone else with our words. Slander comes from the heart, and when we are tempted to speak untruths about someone, we should first examine our own hearts to see what ugly root is producing those desires. Jesus said, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:18–19). God wants us to see that slandering someone is an indicator that our hearts are not right with Him. A desire to slander can spring from a root of bitterness (Hebrews 12:15), from unresolved hurt (1 Peter 3:14–16), from unforgiveness (2 Corinthians 2:10–11; Ephesians 4:32), from jealousy (Galatians 5:20; 2 Corinthians 12:20), or from other sins of the heart.
God’s solution for slander is to love each other (John 13:34). We don’t slander people whom we love (1 Corinthians 13:4–7). Love wants the best for others, and that means guarding their reputations as we do our own (Matthew 7:12). “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). When we focus on obeying the Lord by loving as He loves us, slander will not tempt us.” Source: gotquestions.org
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Kurt, do you always quote my words exactly and in full context? Or, do you take my words out of context to deliberately change the meaning – thereby slandering me?
You wrote, “The Catholic Church believes they can perform a ritual that will clear someone from divorce and allow them to remarry. I do not think you agree with the Catholics on this matter.”
Reply: Yes, the Catholic Church receives money to come up with reason to annul a marriage. Such action is despicable.
George
You don’t see the contradiction here? By asserting and accusing me of slander when I have not slandered you, you are committing slander yourself.
People know what slander is, you posting verses to confirm what we already know doesn’t prove anything. You defined a word no one was questioning. What you haven’t done is demonstrate HOW I have slandered you!
br.d
I would humbly ask us to drop dialog concerning slander.
If believers were doing dialog between each other via email concerning that – it would not be an issue.
But on SOT101 – my concern is for how causal readers who happen by are going to interpret it
No problem. Was responding to the accusation.
br.d
Thank you Kurt!
And your genuineness is appreciated!
SOT101 is sort of interesting though…by it’s very nature it is sort of a place for interdenominational dispute amongst Christians. I get that this is sort of limited to Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism though!
br.d
I think the differences of opinions you’ve witnessed between different denominations is very recent activity.
For the most part – SOT101 is dedicated to providing content on the subject of Calvinism – and providing a platform for dialog surrounding that content.
The submission of new articles was fairly regular for a few years.
But of recent SOT101 has become less active in that regard because of increasing demands for content on other platforms such as youtube.
But the article library here is still very relevant and we occasionally get someone new who will start posting because they’ve read one of the articles here.
We would really not prefere SOT101 become a platform for interdenominational disputes because it tends to make Christianity appear petty rather than life-giving. And the testimony of the Lord is blemished in the process.
Genuinely asking though, isn’t discussing if Calvinism is true or not, and SOT101 holds the position that it is not, itself an interdenominational dispute?
I say that because up until the recent random discussions about divorce, baptism and spiritual gifts, the majority of the discussions I saw were a Calvinist or 2 arguing with the non-Calvinists here. (These discussions were great, btw, gave me a lot of good defenses).
I can see how more topics further display division among Christians, but is not the whole topic of Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism highlighting a division amongst Christians and that in and of itself also presenting a less than favorable representation of Christianity to outside observers?
Again, I do get that this is the purpose of SOT101 to a degree, it is exposing the errors of Calvinism.
Kurt
isn’t discussing if Calvinism is true or not, and SOT101 holds the position that it is not, itself an interdenominational dispute?
br.d
You have an astute mind!
However – Calvinism is founded on a philosophical position – i.e. Determinism
So the debate regarding Determinism within Christianity is predominantly philosophical in nature.
Take for example – the “Four Views” books which are readily sold on Amazon.
These books are focused on the debate of Determinism as a philosophy within Christianity
But will you find books on Amazon where one Christian denomination accuses another denomination of teachings false doctrines?
Most Christians are going to keep those debates “in house” rather than out in the public – because of a concern that they will produce an appearance of Christianity which those denominations will consider detrimental to all Christianity.
At SOT101 we will have debates between Calvinists and NON-Calvinists.
And I can pretty much guarantee you that if any participant in those debates starts to get petty – they will be warned – and if they do not head that warning – all of their posts will be permanently deleted.
If they want to discuss the issue – they must do so in a manner that does not produce the appearance of pettiness.
We have had a few Calvinists who have tested that warning – and had their posts deleted.
But most of them do not want to be saddled with the reputation of inappropriate behavior.
So they will behave.
So in that case – when the casual reading passes by SOT101 and reads posts – what he/she is going to see are Christians debating philosophical issues – rather than pointing self-righteous fingers of accusation against each other.
Br.d,
You wrote, “But will you find books on Amazon where one Christian denomination accuses another denomination of teachings false doctrines?
Most Christians are going to keep those debates “in house” rather than out in the public – because of a concern that they will produce an appearance of Christianity which those denominations will consider detrimental to all Christianity.
At SOT101 we will have debates between Calvinists and NON-Calvinists.
And I can pretty much guarantee you that if any participant in those debates starts to get petty – they will be warned – and if they do not head that warning – all of their posts will be permanently deleted.
If they want to discuss the issue – they must do so in a manner that does not produce the appearance of pettiness.”
Reply: In light of the devastation in Florida caused by hurricane Ian, I’ll put aside my comments on your post.
This is a time for unity within our country divided by political views and facing an important election in forty days.
This is also a time for all Christians to unify in prayer to the Lord for mercy and show our love for one another by helping those in need of assistance.
George
br.d
Wonderfully said George!
I will heartily agree with you in all of what you stated – and in prayer for the people of Florida!
And thank you!
Kurt,
Trust me, I get you, regarding the massive division that Christianity has.
Many still believe that the Catholics have a legit past, but I never did. Anyone who claims that Peter was a Pope in Rome, when Peter was not a Pope in Rome…I kinda gotta problem with that. They begin with a lie.
In any case, those who still bought off on the lie, in time, became just as corrupt as their dogma, and so we had some break-away’s. Most notably, Luther and Calvin, and some lessor known names, who were declared heretics, and unorthodox.
So, these dudes had a meeting with the men, and specifically told them not to touch Santiago…oops, wrong story.
And they wrote their own books, called…I think one of them is called the WESTMINSTER CONFESSIONS, and the other, Calvin’s INSTITUTES. Weird names for meetings, I say.
To me, it’s like their own Bibles. I have a saying, which resembles the Bereans, and what Fox News used to be…
In a denomination, they search the commentaries to see if the Bible is right.
In a non-denomination, we search the scriptures daily to see if the commentaries are right.
In all denominations, somebody is always going to be wrong about something. i.e. no instruments in church, divorce is not allowed, but if it is allowed, then remarriage is out of the question, gifts are over…Holiday’s are forbidden, except the Passover, stay away from the bacon! And don’t drink grape juice that’s been sitting around for a century! And I had better not see you in the Casino, especially when I’m there drinking and gambling.
Every denomination has its ills. And from my tenure on this blog, I notice that the former Calvinists still have a tinge of Calvinism in them. They didn’t give up everything. Confusing Matthew 18 with 1 Cor 5 is a great example. That is part of the problem with what the SBC is going thru now…they like to RESTORE a BROTHER, instead of kicking that brother out.
Ed Chapman
I hear you Ed. I’m sort of an odd cat! Probably think too much. Denominationally, I would most likely say I identify as an evangelical, Fundamental, Independent Baptist. However, I can go to two different Churches who say that, and they can be pretty different Churches! I may prefer one over the other. So in that sense, can I really claim a denomination when the denominations themselves don’t always agree? For example some Independent Baptist churches are Reformed, and others are not. The SBC itself has this too.
Then you go Presbyterian. Some are more progressive and others more fundamentalist, all are Reformed though.
I see every measure of the spectrum in non-denominational Churches. In fact, there is a Church I attend at times that says it is non-denominational, and yet is 5 point Calvinist.
In the end, I like to just say I am a Bible believing Christian, but so do other Churches I disagree with!
So really, I look for the fruit when it comes to Church. I like my Church now because they have a very active soul-winning program, a large bus-ministry, a Christian K-12 school, scripture based plain reading sermons from the KJV as the standard Bible in the Church and a myriad of ministries and different focused Sunday schools and Bible studies. They also have an open door Pastor who encourages you to come to him if you disagree with something He taught and have an open discussion, with open Bibles of course.
One funny thought for me on non-denominational…I find it funny that there is a need to define the denomination at all! I liken it to non-conformists who unanimously conform to the ideology of not conforming. They tend to dress alike and have the same talking points too! I don’t mean it as a sleight at all, just always a thought I had!
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “Trust me, I get you, regarding the massive division that Christianity has.
Many still believe that the Catholics have a legit past, but I never did.”
Reply: A call for unity within Christianity – then comes the knife in the back to one of the Christian churches..
Think about this;
In Revelation 2,3 John writes to seven churches in Asia.
Note that he does not write to the church in Rome or any in Greece.
Could it be that they (including the church in Rome) didn’t need correction, praise or encouragement?
The order of the seven churches in Revelation are:
Ephesus
Smyrna
Pergamos
Thyatira
Sardis
Philadelphia
Laodicea
According to Milton V. Backman, Jr., author of “Christian Churches of America”, there are seven major denominations.
He lists them as:
Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Episcopal
Methodist
Baptist
Theologians debate over the meaning of Rev. 2,3 and how it applies to churches today, if indeed it applies at all. Could there be a connection between the Revelation church order and Milton Backman’s church order?
Jesus said to the church in Philadelphia, ” Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 3:10 NKJV
My wife and I have been seeking the church in Philadelphia and haven’t found it. We believe all churches teach some false doctrine and some true doctrine; we also find pastors are unwilling to repent their false doctrine when lovingly corrected.
Additionally, we find few churches willing to persevere through persecution reacting against their biblical doctrine they know to be true.
Many eventually cave-in to outside forces; like being told by government to close or restrict worship due to the Covid19 pandemic or because they fear “hate crime” lawsuits, they don’t preach on certain topics.
Mainstream Christian churches have caved-in to social pressure ordaining women to teach, become pastors and even bishops and some will even marry same sex couples. Yes, there are those that haven’t caved; notably Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, the Reformed Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Preach the Word
4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Timothy 4:1-4 NKJV
George
George,
I just did a quick look at who Milton Backman was, and it looks as tho he was Mormon. That’s not my cup of tea.
Since John is an apostle to the Jews, I contend that NONE OF the book of Revelation was written for Gentile Christians at all.
Notice that Paul didn’t write the book of Revelation.
Not only that, I also believe that when a Jew becomes a Christian, the Jews didn’t CO-MINGLE with the Gentile Christians in a church building.
Many I have spoken to in the last ten years disagrees with me in that regard, thinking that there was ONLY ONE church building for every city, and that both Jews and Gentiles went to the same church building, where a GENTILE PREACHER would be teaching Jews what a Jewish book states.
I have a problem with that.
You made a very great observation that Rome isn’t mentioned.
Acts 18:2
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Claudius had commanded that all Jews depart from Rome.
But, somehow we are supposed to believe that a Jew was a Pope in Rome, and his name was Peter?
No, Rome was Paul’s territory. For not only was he a citizen of Rome, but his place of evangelizing was in Rome, and, he was the apostle to the Gentiles in Rome.
So, You had said:
“Note that he does not write to the church in Rome or any in Greece.
Could it be that they (including the church in Rome) didn’t need correction, praise or encouragement?”
My conclusion and response would be, NO, because I would conclude that there are no Jews in Rome, as someone kicked them out of the country. Claudius, I think his name was.
And since Milton Backman is coming at this from a Mormon perspective, he is basically denouncing ALL protestant church’s…except for Mormonism.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “I just did a quick look at who Milton Backman was, and it looks as tho he was Mormon. That’s not my cup of tea.”
Reply:
Talk about “guilt by association.”
Albert Einstein was a Jew. Should we not praise his knowledge of physics, because he wasn’t Christian?
You wrote, “Since John is an apostle to the Jews, I contend that NONE OF the book of Revelation was written for Gentile Christians at all.
Notice that Paul didn’t write the book of Revelation.”
Reply:
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Rev 22:18-19 NIV
Since Revelation applies only to Jews according to you, you’re saying any Gentile can add or take away whatever they want from Scripture. Is that what you think?
George
George,
You had said:
“Since Revelation applies only to Jews according to you, you’re saying any Gentile can add or take away whatever they want from Scripture. Is that what you think?”
My response:
What is being taken away by me? What is being taken away by anyone, for that matter?
I’m just declaring that it doesn’t apply to me. If you want, Revelation can apply to you. But it doesn’t apply to me. I won’t be here.
Notice the wording in the following:
Romans 16:4
Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Why did Paul find it necessary to say, “GENTILES”?
I don’t know about you, but as for me, that means that there are “churches of the Jews”, too, which, to me, indicates that Jews do NOT mingle with the Gentiles in a single church building. Other than Jesus, what do we have in common with the Jews? NOT MUCH.
And to say that Gentile preachers are going to teach Jews what a Jewish book states…no, I have a problem with that.
So, what am I taking away from Revelation? John isn’t speaking to me. He’s speaking to the Jewish community. To be blunt, he was speaking to Einstein! But not me.
You really must know who the audience is, before proclaiming that YOU are the audience that John is speaking to. We call that ASSUME. If John is the Apostle to the Jews, then it doesn’t apply to us Gentiles.
There are COMMON things that apply, but not when it comes to the Jews only subjects. Were you under the law of Moses? If not, why not? It doesn’t apply to Christians. It didn’t apply to Abraham either.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “Looks to me that many of those 7 church’s were from Greece. Some from Turkey. Thessalonica is also in Greece.”
Reply:
4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Revelation 1:4 NKJV
If some of the seven churches were in Greece, why does the Bible say they were in Asia?
Is it now your contention that Greece is in Asia?
I Googled “Is Greece in Europe or Asia and got this:
“Greece is a country in south eastern Europe on the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula, bordering the Mediterranean Sea in south and the Ionian Sea in west.”
George
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “Could it be that they (including the church in Rome) didn’t need correction, praise or encouragement?”
My conclusion and response would be, NO, because I would conclude that there are no Jews in Rome, as someone kicked them out of the country. Claudius, I think his name was.”
Reply: What about the churches in Greece? Was every Jew kicked out of Corinth and Thessaloniki too?
George
1.
Ephesus was a city in ancient Greece on the coast of Ionia, 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) southwest of present-day Selçuk in İzmir Province, Turkey.
2.
According to Wikipedia, SMYRNA is: Smyrna was a Greek city located at a strategic point on the Aegean coast of Anatolia.
So, Smyrna, as the 2nd church mentioned in Revelation 2:8, is in Greece.
3.
Pergamon, as mentioned in Revelation 2:12 or Pergamum also referred to by its modern Greek form Pergamos (Πέργαμος), was a rich and powerful ancient Greek city in Mysia.
4.
Thyateira (also Thyatira) (Ancient Greek: Θυάτειρα) was the name of an ancient Greek city in Asia Minor, now the modern Turkish city of Akhisar
5.
Sardis was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia, an important city of the Persian Empire
6.
Philidelphia:
Alaşehir in Antiquity and the Middle Ages known as Philadelphia is a town and district of Manisa Province in the Aegean region of Turkey.
7.
Laodicea is an ancient city located in the Lycus River Valley of Anatolia, near Hierapolis and Colossae, in Denizli province.
You had said:
What about the churches in Greece? Was every Jew kicked out of Corinth and Thessaloniki too?
Looks to me that many of those 7 church’s were from Greece. Some from Turkey. Thessalonica is also in Greece.
My conclusion…JEWS ONLY, not Gentiles.
Where would Apostles of Jews preach the gospel?
Where would the Apostle to the Gentiles preach the gospel?
Paul, on his way to Rome, as a prisoner, preached to Jews ON HIS WAY ot Rome, but not anywhere else where Jews would reside and be born from.
Even you mention Acts 2, the location of the residence of every Jew that had to be at Pentecost. Paul did not preach in Turkey.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “Where would the Apostle to the Gentiles preach the gospel?
Paul, on his way to Rome, as a prisoner, preached to Jews ON HIS WAY ot Rome, but not anywhere else where Jews would reside and be born from.”
Reply:
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia: Galatians 1:1-2 NKJV
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“Galatia (/ɡəˈleɪʃə/; Ancient Greek: Γαλατία, Galatía, “Gaul”) was an ancient area in the highlands of central Anatolia, roughly corresponding to the provinces of Ankara and Eskişehir, in modern Turkey.” Internet source
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
With Galatians 2, 3 Paul preached to the Galatians that they had returned to the law of Moses (Jewish teaching).
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Galatians 2:11-13 NKJV
Barnabas was with Paul at this time -they would split later (Acts 15:36-41).
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
‘Who were the Galatians in the Bible? The apostle Paul addressed one of his now-canonical letters to the “churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2), but where exactly were these churches located?
Galatia refers to a region in north central Turkey; Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey, was once a major Galatian city (Ancyra). The name of Galatia is derived from the 20,000 Gauls who settled in the region in 278 B.C.E. More than two centuries later, in 25 B.C.E., the area became a Roman province and was extended to the south. In Paul’s day, the new province included the regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. Scholars often refer to these new, southern regions as “south Galatia” and to geographic Galatia as “north Galatia.”’ BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“Proselytizing among Jews
According to Acts, Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytes of the gate and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws.[47][48]
In Galatians 1:17-18, Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas”. In Acts, no mention is made of Paul’s journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul’s preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and Paul.
Rabbi Jacob Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to Seder Olam Rabbah,[49] gives as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law, which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.”
Persecution of Paul by Jews in Acts
Main article: Persecution of Christians in the New Testament
Several passages in Acts describe Paul’s missions to Asia Minor and the encounters he had with Diaspora Jews and with local gentile populations. In Acts 13–15, the Jews from Antioch and Iconium go so far as to follow Paul to other cities and to incite the crowds there to violence against him. Paul had already been stoned and left for dead once.[Acts 14:19] In Philippi, a Roman colony, Roman magistrates beat and jailed Paul and his companions on behalf of the Gentiles.[Acts 16:19–40] Clearly at this point, Paul and his companions were still considered to be Jews by those in Philippi who raised protests against them, despite Paul’s attempts to tailor his teachings to his audience.[1 Cor. 9:20–23] Later, in nearby Thessalonica, the Jews again incited the crowds and pitted the Christians against the Roman authority.[Acts 17:6–8]” en.wikipedia.org
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
George
George
The Lord has impressed upon me to forgive you for slandering me.
br.d
Dear George
The Lord would not impress upon anyone a falsehood.
But the flesh would most certainly do so.
How can it be a falsehood? George SAID it isn’t a falsehood! Who are we to question it?
br.d
Bulls-eye Kurt! 😀
Br.d,
You wrote, “George
The Lord has impressed upon me to forgive you for slandering me.
br.d
Dear George
The Lord would not impress upon anyone a falsehood.
But the flesh would most certainly do so.”
Reply:
Everyone here should be able to see through your attempt to deflect.
“What does it mean when someone is deflecting?
to attack or blame another person rather than accepting criticism or blame for your own actions: When someone deflects, they are trying to feel less guilty, avoid negative consequences, and put the blame on others. The guilty person deflects their guilt onto the person who is accusing them or onto another person.” Internet Sep 21, 2022
You don’t actually deny slandering me (by taking out of context what I wrote), which you know would be a lie if you did.
Nor, do you deny that the Lord impressed anything on me.
Therefore, you hope people here will get your intended, implied meaning without you having to say anything directly.
George
When br.d said that the Lord would not impose a falsehood on somebody, this was a denial of the accusation that he slandered you. By saying it is a FALSEHOOD that he slandered you, he is saying that claim is NOT TRUE, which equates to a denial.
This is VERY apparent in what he communicated, and I am sure he will indeed confirm that what I am saying was indeed what he was communicating. Your inability to discern this basic communication and reading comprehension does cast doubt on your claims of perfect discernment.
br.d
Yes I will confirm that Kurt.
Once again – your discernment was right-on!
And what I previously stated about an endless stream of arguments – is once again manifesting itself.
Amazing that there can be an argument. Someone made a statement (you). Person A read the statement and said “it means x” and Person B read it and said “it means y”. The source of the statement then clarifies what they meant by saying “Yes, I meant y!”.
Somehow Person A has the gift of perfect discernment and Person B lacks credibility.
George
You seem to be in some people’s eyes, including me, pushing the idea that since you think you have this gift you are never wrong
George
However, if no one has ever corrected my understanding of biblical doctrine in any *REASONABLE* way………
br.d
In that situation – the next question a wise man would ask – is if any believer at SOT101 would ever anticipate (considering the disposition which you consistently manifest ) that you would *EVER* concede to anything.
Ask them if they think you would be more likely to insist they were simply jealous of your spiritual knowledge – or that they resent your divine gift.
In such case – the pattern is – its always “Them” and never “Me”
When a believer is stuck in that disposition – they can be stuck in it all their lives
And never grow out of it into maturity
My suggestion to you – is to put yourself on the alter of God as a burnt offering
What gets burnt – will be wood hay and stubble.
That is what the Lord’s refining fire is all about.
Its not about glorifying our flesh.
Its about a loving and wonderful father who love us.
And its about his wonderful son Jesus – manifesting himself through us.
br.d
BTW – we all need the Lord’s refining fire.
You are certainly not alone!
But the Lord does not force it on us.
He will let us cling to various parts of our flesh for the whole of our Christian lives – if that is what we insist.
A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice.
Again, I’m not sure what settling legal disputes with another Christian within the body of the Church instead of going to a government court has to do with spiritual gifts, so this whole post you made is confusing to me.
I’ll add the Phillipian Jailer who directly asked the question and got a direct answer
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Notice what they didn’t say? Get baptized.
Look at the order.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
They were baptized because they believed. They were saved because they believed. Romans 10 gives us even more Clarity
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Believing the Gospel in faith, which comes by hearing! HEARING! Not a work, or an action, or baptism. Hearing and believing. You get baptized after you believe, because you believe, if you are able to.
Aidan,
1 Co 1:14 “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1 Co 1:15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.”
One baptism.
a) Paul was not sent to baptize v17, because he wasn’t called until after Pentecost.
b) Phillip was asked by the eunuch to be baptized (Acts 8:34) and Phillip did so (v38) as a gesture of kindness – NOT because it was required.
c) Note: The eunuch was baptized AFTER he had received the Holy Spirit v37.
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:46-48 NKJV
Note: Cornelius, his relatives and close friends were baptized AFTER they all had received the Holy Spirit v44.
“Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many in the Protestant denominations baptize infants. Baptists, Anabaptists, and Pentecostal Churches baptize only adults or children old enough to profess their faith. The methods vary from sprinkling and pouring of water to full immersion.” Internet source
“Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, Anglican, Lutheran and many Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it.” wikipedia
“The Methodist understanding of Holy Baptism is a “Wesleyan blend of sacramental and evangelical aspects.” The Methodist Articles of Religion in Article XVII — Of Baptism, therefore states that “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.” wikipedia
“Because of the belief that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, some hold that the Churches of Christ endorse the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. However, members of the Churches of Christ reject this, arguing that since faith and repentance are necessary, and that the cleansing of sins is by the blood of Christ through the grace of God, baptism is not an inherently redeeming ritual. Rather, their inclination is to point to the biblical passage in which Peter, analogizing baptism to Noah’s flood, posits that “likewise baptism doth also now save us” but parenthetically clarifies that baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the response of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21). One author from the Churches of Christ describes the relationship between faith and baptism this way, “Faith is the reason why a person is a child of God; baptism is the time at which one is incorporated into Christ and so becomes a child of God” (italics are in the source). Baptism is understood as a confessional expression of faith and repentance rather than a “work” that earns salvation. Douglas A. Foster denies this contention regarding the Restoration Movement as a whole, a contention denied also by other representatives of the movement.” wikipedia
“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) believe in baptismal regeneration. Baptism is understood as the means by which people enter the Body of Christ and receive a remission of their sins. Through baptism people enter a covenant by which they promise to come into the fold of God, to take upon themselves the name of Christ, to stand as a witness for God, to keep his commandments, and to bear one another’s burdens, manifesting a determination to serve him to the end, and to prepare to receive the spirit of Christ for the remission of sins.” wikipedia
Circumcision, dietary restrictions and refraining from work on the Sabbath have been generally recognized as “personal choices” within Christian churches. The above churches should add water baptism to that list.
George
I just read that as it is written. It doesn’t say “discerning proper interpretations of the Word” it says distinguishing between spirits. While that could loosely apply to interpretation of scripture, I don’t think it is exclusive to that. The Devil masquerades as an angel of light. Many Christian’s and Churches shut down service due to Covid. This wasn’t a scriptural interpretation, but rather hearing the message of the World, and deciding if it was moral to continue worship or not.
That was an example of distinguishing spirits. Was that spirit a spirit of protection or of fear? Each Church made a decision on it.
Kurt,
“The gift of discerning spirits, or “distinguishing” spirits, is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Like all these gifts, the gift of discerning spirits is given by the Holy Spirit, who disperses these gifts to believers for service in the body of Christ. Every believer has a spiritual enablement for a specific service, but there is no room for self-choosing. The Spirit distributes spiritual gifts according to the sovereignty of God and in accordance with His plan to edify the body of Christ. He gives His gifts “just as he determines” (1 Corinthians 12:11).
When it comes to the gift of discerning spirits, every born-again believer has a certain amount of discernment, which increases as the believer matures in the Spirit. In Hebrews 5:13-14 we read that a believer who has matured beyond using the milk of the Word as a babe in Christ is able to discern both good and evil. The maturing believer is empowered by the Spirit of God through the Scriptures to tell the difference between good and evil, and, beyond that, he can also distinguish between what is good and what is better. In other words, any born-again believer who chooses to focus on the Word of God is spiritually discerning.
There are certain believers, however, who have the spiritual gift of discerning spirits—that is, the God-given ability to distinguish between the truth of the Word and the deceptive doctrines propagated by demons. We are all exhorted to be spiritually discerning (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1), but some in the body of Christ have been given the unique ability to spot the doctrinal “forgeries” that have plagued the church since the first century. This discernment does not involve mystical, extra-biblical revelations or a voice from God. Rather, the spiritually discerning are so familiar with the Word of God that they instantly recognize what is contrary to it. They do not receive special messages from God; they use the Word of God to “test the spirits” to see which line up with God and which are in opposition to Him. The spiritually discerning are diligent to “rightly divide” (2 Timothy 2:15) the Word of God.
There are diversities of gifts in equipping the body of Christ, but those diversities are meant for the edification and building of that body as a whole (Ephesians 4:12). And the success of that body is dependent upon all parts of the body faithfully fulfilling their tasks as God has enabled them.” Internet source
Test the spirits OR ask God for wisdom in this matter without doubting He will answer (James 1:4-6). Those are your choices.
George
Very well. I have the gift of discernment and am able to discern the claims you are making are false!
But wait, you made that claim, but disagree with me! Uh-oh! Who is right? Do we go by George’s self-professed authority or Kurt’s?
Also, why do you imply that anyone who disagrees with you didn’t earnestly ask God in faith to reveal the truth to them? How could you know such a thing? What if they did, and still disagree with you?
Kurt,
I suspect you know from what you’ve observed here so far – the degree to which a “so called” spirit of discernment is at work in this case. There has been more than enough evidence here for everyone here to get a good understanding of what’s going on.
I don’t take issue that we have different interpretations, or even that we disagree with each other. It is when we claim that our interpretation is in fact, fact!
It is one thing to vehemently defend our beliefs with reasons why, it is another to assert it is definitely true!
br.d
It is something I get quite frequently from Calvinists in my consistent dialogs with them.
Anyone who disagrees with them is disagreeing with “the divine mind”.
The fact that they have fallen into a ditch of self-contradiction and double-mindedness goes right over their heads.
Self-contradiction and double-mindedness must somehow magically be “the mind of God”
I often feel sorry for them – because their minds are captured in a snare
Aidan,
You wrote, “But in your previous post you wrote:
“But it can also be translated as “because of” or “on the basis of.”
Reply:
That doesn’t sound like anything I would say. Are you sure it was me and not Ed Chapman?
You wrote, “Maybe you think the thousands of Churches today should repent for teaching and practicing water baptism!!!!”
Reply:
Not wishing to offend anyone, I’m hesitant to continue answering you here, since baptism is a hot-button topic according to Br.d
May I answer you privately?
George
George, you wrote:
“That doesn’t sound like anything I would say. Are you sure it was me and not Ed Chapman?”
Response:
No, it definitely was you in your really long post to me on September 21st. You put forward an argument that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 could also be translated “because of” or “on the basis of.” Thus contradicting yourself in regard to the purpose of repentance.
Aidan,
You wrote, “Thank you for at least making an effort to answer my points. But I have to say that it is nothing more than eisegesis of the worst kind.” “Only the apostles make a defense for not being drunk because of speaking in tongues in 2:14. All of which were Galileans btw.”
Reply:
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! Acts 2:14, 15 NIV
IF Peter was referring to the Galileans speaking in tongues, he would have said, “WE are not drunk, as you suppose.”
By saying, “These people…” he is not including himself and therefore cannot be referring to the Galileans.
The Galileans spoke a dialect of Aramaic, but everyone understood them because each heard the translated words in their own language. Otherwise, each of the twelve disciples would have had to repeat their words in perhaps a dozen different languages.
Also, when Peter stood up with Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd, he would have had to repeat his words in a dozen different languages or they would not have understood him when he spoke to them.
Is this explanation to your satisfaction or do I need to go through each of your other points again?
George
George, you wrote:
“IF Peter was referring to the Galileans speaking in tongues, he would have said, “WE are not drunk, as you suppose.”
By saying, “These people…” he is not including himself and therefore cannot be referring to the Galileans.”
Response:
AGAIN, what Peter actually says is, “For THESE are not drunk, as you suppose…” where he is NOT referring to the “people” but rather, to the eleven apostles beside him — which keeps perfectly with the context that ONLY the apostles are PROMISED to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).
Aidan,
You wrote, “AGAIN, what Peter actually says is, “For THESE are not drunk, as you suppose…” where he is NOT referring to the “people” but rather, to the eleven apostles beside him — which keeps perfectly with the context that ONLY the apostles are PROMISED to be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).
Reply:
Are you claiming Peter was not Galilean or that he didn’t speak prior to when he stood up and raised his voice?
I’ve been to Peter’s home in Copernicus next to the Sea of Galilee, so he definitely was Galilean. If he did not speak prior to when he stood, then how can it be said “he raised his voice”? I’d say he raised his voice from what he said previously.
Furthermore, you have nothing to say about those speaking in tongues having to repeat themselves in perhaps a dozen different languages. It would be extremely inefficient and time consuming to do so. Also, would Peter say his entire speech a dozen times in different languages?
The pronoun THESE is not the pronoun WE. Peter isn’t including himself and therefore he’s not referring to the Galileans, since he is a Galilean.
In summation, your argument fails on the pronoun “these” in Acts 2:15, unless you can show proof that Peter was only speaking of the eleven disciples while he remained silent until he stood up.
George
Aidan,
You had said:
“6. The apostles were all Galileans. It was only Galileans who were speaking in tongues in 2:7. That’s just a fact, and the people knew what Galileans sounded like. What you said is just total nonsense to try and explain it away.”
My response:
I agree that the only ones speaking in tongues is indeed like you say. The APOSTLES who were all from Galilee.
What I disagree with, is your INSISTANT terminology of Baptism.
Those Apostle had already received the Holy Spirit when Jesus BREATHED on them. You cannot DELETE that from the Bible. That, in and of itself was BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. And everyone in Christianity was indeed baptized with the Holy Spirit. NOT JUST 12 LUCKY INDIVIDUALS.
What they were told was to wait for the POWER…the FIRE, so to speak. The CLOVEN tongues. However you wish to describe it.
And it seems that you EQUATE “THIS” instance of speaking in tongues as with the GIFTS mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Here is a huge thing that you miss, in THAT alone. In Acts 2, Jews in Jerusalem (every male Jew, no matter where his residence is, had to be there for the feast), Apostle Galileans speaking in tongues. No problem…BUT…
In 1 Corinthians 12-14, GENTILES, WITH A LOT MORE gifts being discussed than just speaking in tongues.
So, Acts 2, APOSTLES ONLY. Corinthians…GENTILES.
Acts 2 is not discussing the same thing as 1 Corinthians, especially where Acts 2 is JEW APOSTLES ONLY, and 1 Corinthians is GENTILES.
That shows that it is two different topics being discussed, which you wrap into ONE TOPIC.
But George makes a point, in which JEWS will replicate what was done in Acts 2 AGAIN, in the future, with the 144000 Jews.
So you have a major problem with both subjects of BAPTISM and GIFTS, because for one, you COMBINE them both into ONE TOPIC regarding the topic of “GIFTS”.
Here is MY conclusion. Acts 2 is NOT discussing speaking in tongues as a gift at all.
The gift is ETERNAL LIFE (GRACE), aka the HOLY SPIRIT (Born Again), not speaking in tongues, regarding Acts 2.
Gifts 1 Cor 12-14 is AS A RESULT of BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, having nothing to do with Acts 2.
Confusing Acts 2 with 1 Cor 12-14 is the problem. They are not equated.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
One last thing:
You had said:
“9. It is not until the apostles lay hands on others in Acts 6…
The scripture says that it was “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given”…
My response:
Acts 11:15
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
No laying on of the apostles hands here!
Ed, you wrote:
“Acts 11:15
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
No laying on of the apostles hands here!”
Response!
Ya think? I already said numerous times that Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10 (Gentiles) are the only recorded cases of Baptism in the Holy Spirit in the NT, confirmed by Peter in Acts 11. Therefore, NO NEED for laying on of apostles hands there my fwiend.
IF baptism in the Holy Spirit was Sooooo common everyday as YOU claim, why did Peter (Acts 11:15) have to go back 10 years ALLLLLL the way back to the day of Pentecost to find anything that matched it????? Because, baptism in the Holy Spirit was a once off thing with the Apostles, and Cornelius was the exception for the sake of the Jews TO SHOW THEM that God was accepting the Gentiles!
Git with the programme!
Aidan,
You really are STUCK on the APOSTLES ONLY thing, regarding BAPTISM.
I want to EXPOUND on a reference I gave earlier.
Acts 11:15-17
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO VERSE 17, the FIRST Gentile to enter the fold, got the SAME GIFT (of eternal life) of the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
First of all..NO LAYING OF HANDS.
Second, this is CORNELIUS, and he is NOT an APOSTLE, a Gentile, not a Jew.
Again, the ONLY gift here is ETERNAL LIFE, and the Holy Spirit is the SEAL of the PROMISE, it is God living IN US, and that alone is the PURPOSE of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It isn’t about speaking in tongues at all.
Speaking in tongues in Acts 2 had ONE PURPOSE, and one purpose only.
To SHOW the Jews of OTHER NATIONS. JEWS. Jerusalem being the MANDATORY LOCATION of the FEAST for all male Jews. Three feasts are mandatory attendance in Jerusalem for every male Jew. Passover, Pentecost, and…I cant remember the other.
I’m quite certain that Cornelius did NOT speak in tongues. I have no idea what 1 Cor 12-14 gift he was given, but whatever that gift is, has nothing to do with being baptized. That’s a different subject matter.
Gifts have not ceased. And the 144000 will speak in tongues, and Gentiles got the Holy Spirit without laying on of hands,
Aidan,
Your Acts 19 reference: JEWS speaking in tongues after Baptism. Not Gentiles.
I’ve never read anywhere where Gentiles spoke in tongues right after being baptized.
But, 1 Corinthians 12-14 is addressed to Gentiles, LONG AFTER they were baptized.
This should show that Jews being baptized includes a speaking in tongues side dish, and its usually going to be in the COMPANY of other Jews.
But, the GIFTS of 1 Corinthians 12-14 are a MEAL in and of themselves. Not a side dish as part of baptism.
I took a nap earlier, so I’m awake for your time zone. And I have to work today in about 6 hours. I’ll be DRAGGING all workday long! UGH!
Sorry for the many comments.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You had said:
“We must be careful to discriminate between principles which were intended for universal application…”
Now you are sounding like a Catholic. Change the word “universal” to catholic, and you have Catholic doctrine!
How much more Catholic baggage do you carry?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Yer causing me a “present distress” 1Cor. 7:26.
And, don’t you dare say anything against St. Patrick and me precious “SHAMROCK” ☘☘☘.
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“My explanation makes perfect sense for those who don’t ignore the context of these NT passages!”
My response:
No, it doesn’t, because you are being mislead by your interpretation of the NT passages. You refuse to see put away having nothing to do with divorce. You equate them.
Ed Chapman
If you have a dog, you should also have a cat.
But I say to you getting a dog is a big responsibility. Whoever gets a dog, except for if they have children, has taken an unnecessary responsibility on their house, and whoever takes that dog from someone also takes on that responsibility.
Was the second paragraph about cats?
And you, Ed, refuse to see that “put away” has everything to do with divorce in accordance with the evidence!
But, have it your own way if that’s what you want!
Aidan,
No, it doesn’t.
Ed
Aidan,
You wrote, “It should be evident that a word in Greek Lexicons may have several shades of meaning, and several applications depending on the context and the subject discussed. The root is one thing, but the application of the word may be something else. Therefore there is no use in quoting passages that have nothing to do with the subject of divorce.”
Reply:
Again; well researched, well documented and very well said.
Are you aware that one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah is because they say He was a bastard, since Mary wasn’t married to Joseph when Jesus was conceived.
They cite Deuteronomy 23:2
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. KJV
George
Thanks George,
Yes, I am aware of how they referred to Jesus! How shameful!
Aidan
Br.d,
I’m confused?? Because as far as I’m aware I used no bad language! You need to be clear where I used it.
Was it:
(a) The old use of the term for illegitimate — which I certainly didn’t use or even repeat?
OR
(b) Where I simply say I was aware of it and that it was shameful?
You have my private email if you prefer to explain it to me there. I will be quite happy to apologize publicly if I have used bad language against anybody here at anytime. I have always abhorred that type of behavior. But as far as I can see I said nothing wrong!
Regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“What Jesus forbids is divorce for ANY CAUSE, other than fornication.”
My response:
That is NOT TRUE. Jesus forbids PUT AWAY for any cause, except for ADULTERY (FORNICATION). Besides, divorce wasn’t even the question that the Pharisees brought up.
How many times do we have to cover this?
Divorce FOR ANY REASON is allowed.
Two examples are listed in Deu 24:1-4
Verse 1, if hubby doesn’t like what he sees (Genitals), which the KJV uses the word UNCLEANNESS…I’ll cover that in a moment:
And verse 3, if hubby HATES her. And the word HATE covers ANY REASON under the sun that you can think of.
Now, regarding verse 1, where it states UNCLEANNESS, where I said genitals…basically, the hubby states, “I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole”.
Explanation:
There is NO SUCH THING as replacing the word “UNCLEANNESS” here with ADULTERY OR FORNICATION, because of the fact that adulterers and fornicators don’t LIVE to see another day, let alone get REMARRIED to another dude, which Deuteronomy 24:1-2 covers.
Therefore, the word UNCLEANNESS is not about fornication or adultery.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Let me ask you something, Aidan,
If your wife hated your guts, would you FORCE her to stay if she didn’t want to stay? And if she left, you would remain unmarried?
Would she still be a Christian if she left? Or did she lose her salvation at that moment in time?
The Catholics BANISH such women, and indicate that they are no longer saved. What say you?
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
And then you say:
“in other words, he divorces her for ANY CAUSE other than fornication, and she goes off and marries another, she will be called an adulteress (cf. Rom. 7:3).”
My response:
Again, that is NOT TRUE. The divorce LEGALLY terminates the marriage, where she is NOT an adulteress if she remarries another.
Ed Chapman
By today’s standard someone is single or married.
In the category of single are those who have never been married, are divorced or are widowed. A divorced or widowed person does not have a husband or wife. Under the married Category are those in a marriage and separated (but still married).
If a divorced person or a widowed person gets married? They aren’t called divorced or widowed anymore. They are married. A person who is separated is still married. Even the legal system distinguishes between divorce and separation.
These things all applied in the first century too. The only status Jesus condemned was separation.
I really don’t understand why this is not understood.
Neither do I. It’s common sense stuff.
Ed
A2A,
Emotional arguments aside, Jesus (not me) is the one who said, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt. 19:6). It is not in anyone’s pay-grade to go beyond what the Lord says.
You wrote:
“So again, this isn’t the whole of scripture. Looking at EVERY relevant scripture and how these words are used and differentiated. Even God hates Divorce is not translated as God hates divorce.”
Response:
The law of Moses REQUIRED that a certificate of divorce be given to the wife before she could be “put away” (Deut. 24:1-4; Mt. 19:7). Therefore, in that passage (Deut. 24) it is clear that the “putting away” of the wife meant she was being DIVORCED. It was this very passage that became the focus of their conversation with Jesus in which they tried to entrap Him (Matthew 19:3-9). Therefore it is evident that when they spoke about the subject of “putting her away” using (Deut. 24:1-4) they were speaking to Jesus about the subject of divorce. In His response, it is clear that Jesus understood it the same way. Your mistake is that you are ignoring the context!
It is evident that Jesus in His answer to the Pharisees on this subject has traveled beyond Deuteronomy, and has stated the law of the kingdom of heaven which rests upon God’s will “from the beginning” (Mt. 19:8-9). The law of Moses would have allowed the divorced woman to remarry; the law of the kingdom will not.
Aidan
It isn’t clear, because there are several filters I run scripture through. 3 of them go really well together when you are closer to the truth.
Does it make scripture contradict itself?
What does it do to God’s character? Does it damage it or paint Him differently?
Does this interpretation manifest itself in reality?
Forbidding divorce for any reason save adultery creates contradictions in scripture, paints God as cruel (imagine a woman who had children with a man who was abusive, turns out to be a murderer and is put in prison for life leaving her with small children and a fatherless household. SHE can’t divorce and remarry? Really?) and doesn’t manifest itself in reality.
There are COUNTLESS, and I mean it, testimonies of Christians who had a divorce and married again and have been ABUNDANTLY blessed in their new marriage. Children, ministry together, a loving household that is Christ centered…things like that don’t manifest from sin.
Sin destroys, and separates from God. It creates destruction, not blessings. The truth of the Word manifests itself in reality BECAUSE it is true.
Some people ABUSE divorce, yes. But people abuse all sorts of things. Pain medication, sex, food, money…these things aren’t sinful in themselves, but are if not used correctly.
Filter scripture through these things, honestly, and you get closer to truth. Please remember, until I deep dived into this topic, I held exactly the belief you are explaining. I used to agree completely with you.
A2A,
You wrote:
“Filter scripture through these things, honestly, and you get closer to truth. Please remember, until I deep dived into this topic, I held exactly the belief you are explaining. I used to agree completely with you.”
“Filtering scripture” isn’t faith in inerrancy of Scripture and the concept is unbiblical.
Biblical is:
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall [a]direct your paths. Proverbs 3:5-6 NKJV
1saved
1saved,
What you really mean is, LEAN ON 1saved’s understanding!
Ed Chapman
Ed
What you really mean is, LEAN ON 1saved’s understanding!
br.d
That in fact is typical of anyone who has been influenced by Calvinism.
Calvinism practices a form of “Self-Canonization”.
When the Calvinist says “you are leaning on your own understanding” or “you are operating in human logic” – what he is HIDING – is he AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes he stands in a position of divinity.
Hence “Self-Canonizing”
Everything you mention is the reason that MANY women are joining spiritual abuse blogs, practically BEGGING to get out of their abusive marriages, but Aidan won’t allow them to, telling them that Jesus demands that they get abused, so stick it out til death do they part, when the husband murders them.
Aidan wants “til death do you part”? Well, there it is!
Aidan, Compassion much?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “Aidan wants “til death do you part”? Well, there it is!
Aidan, Compassion much?”
Reply to Ed:.
Abusive husbands should be incarcerated.
If you are ashamed of Christ’s words He will be ashamed of you Mark 8:38
Aidan, “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.” James 1:12
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“Abusive husbands should be incarcerated.”
My response:
Incarcerated, but remain married, huh? The wife can never have sex again, huh? Never remarry because she is forbidden to divorce an incarcerated husband?
Is this one of those Country and Western songs, “STAND BY YOUR MAN!”
Ed Chapman
Twisting what Jesus said into emotive arguments and ad-hominem attacks on the messenger won’t change what He said, not one iota. Jesus gave only one cause for divorcing/putting away ones’s mate, and that was for fornication. Here it is:
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give A WRITING OF DIVORCEMENT, AND PUT HER AWAY?”
“AND I SAY UNTO YOU, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:6,7,9).
“BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Mat. 5:32).
Jesus’ expressions “BUT I SAY UNTO YOU” and “AND I SAY UNTO YOU” is revealing. It tells us that His statement on divorce above with its “EXCEPTION CLAUSE” was to be the law of Christ for the gospel dispensation. I suggest if you have a problem with it, take it up with the Lord!
I’m afraid it IS clear, especially if you don’t ignore the context. Nor does it make scripture contradict itself. The only one painting God as cruel is yourself! Christians can and do suffer for doing the will of the Lord. Sometimes they are stripped of all their worldly possessions, and are imprisoned suffering terribly, even death, because of their obedience to Christ. Sometimes it is their own family who mistreat and abuse them for becoming a Christian. When someone decides to obey Jesus Christ, they could be making a decision which results in suffering from family, friends and even their mate.
But did Jesus not say in (Luke 10:26) “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” “And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple” (Luke 10:27).
“and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it”(Mt 10:36-39). “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). Hence, there are no promises that the Christian’s life is going to be a bed of roses. Are you going to say that God is cruel for allowing them to endure these things, or do we put the blame where it should be, namely, upon sinful men?
And, being blessed with children and a loving household DOESN’T necessarily mean approval from God. Even people in the world can be blessed with these things and more. Do you not think that Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are blessed with these things in their ministry? Does that mean they are approved of God? Certainly not!
Aidan
Your response to A2A was well said again, Aidan.
1saved
Thank you 1saved. It is terrible when an apologist ignores the context of scripture and has to resort to emotive argumentation to contradict what Jesus taught. These kind of emotive arguments do nothing but scratch itching ears.
Aidan
You are welcome, Aidan.
Aidan,
So, Aidan’s answer to the abused wife is…SUCK IT UP! ENDURE TIL THE END, UNTIL YOU ARE BEATEN TO A PULP AND DIE! Because that’s what Jesus commands of you!
Ed Chapman
Exactly. Or maybe, just maybe…we have been misinterpreting scripture about marriage and divorce.
The other side as you have mentioned, Ed, was the spiritual abuse boards FILLED with divorced people being ostracized and persecuted by fellow Christians and their Church. Yet again, behavior that kept me an atheist for 36 years before I learned the true character of God and accepted Jesus as my savior.
A2A,
First rule of thumb that I adhere to is, if the Catholics taught it, disregard it, and re-study it, and stop reading anything that CHURCH FATHERS ever said.
However, the only way you can DEBUNK their beliefs, is to know the TACTICS of your adversary! I heard that in a movie once! The Hunt for Red October! LOL. But it’s true!
Ed
Good rule of thumb. I would say Augustine and forward disregard, but early Church fathers did have sound teachings. Polycarp and Ignatius for example were disciples of John. Justin Martyr knew Ignatius. Iraneus against heresies was a brilliant refutation against Gnosticism. Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria as well. All of them taught free will until Augustine, who himself was a Manichean Gnostic before taking over the Catholic Church. He is the “Father” of what we know today as the Catholic Church. Before his influence, it was basically just the Church that was planted in Rome.
A2A,
I’m not so sure about early church fathers. From what I’ve learned, those writings were all forged, as there is about a three hundred year gap between John and when someone finally decided to write about “early church fathers”, making it sound like there was no gap, so as to make the Catholic church, or Rome, the teacher of the world.
I mean, look, in order to believe those people, you would also have to believe that Peter was actually a Pope in Rome, but as I see his epistles, he was in places that Jews would be, not Gentiles, because he was the aposlte to the Jews.
So of course he would be in Babylon, because after the Jews returned to Israel after the captivity, many more stayed behind in the Babylonian EMPIRE than those who returned, hence, they have the BABYLONIAN TALMUD that was completed LONG AFTER John.
So when the Catholics tell us that Babylon, in Peter’s epistle, is code for ROME…uh, no. Babylon is code for BABYLON.
Now, it is said that Peter died in Rome…but then again, consider the source.
When Jesus told Peter that “upon this I build my church”, Jesus was speaking that “Upon ME BEING THE CHRIST, I build my church”, not upon Peter.
The Catholics made Peter into something that he never was…and I’ll bet it began with a fake early church fathers!
Ed Chapman
I hear you, but here is how it follows:
The apostles went around planting churches all over the old world. The apostles themselves had disciples and leaders in Churches they themselves taught. These teachings would have been closer to the ORIGINAL teachings of Jesus as these men KNEW Jesus. Logically, EARLY Christianity (especially first and second century) would have been closer to the original teachings and understandings. Think of a game of “telephone”.
These early writings, if you read them, tend to be relatively free of doctrinal error. Prior to the 4th century, the early church fathers UNANIMOUSLY taught free will. It wasn’t until around 350-380 A.D. that predestination started making its rounds in writings…which coincided then with Augustine.
Here is a great video on the topic!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mhLF-llpFX0
A2A,
What I’m saying is, that those so called church fathers, including so called disciples of John, are fictitious characters.
John, as Peter, and James, according to Paul, on the book of galatians, were the apostles to the Jews. Paul is the one who was the apostle to the gentiles. And Paul was the one in Rome. The others were writing epistles to the Jewish congregations, and Peter was not in Rome.
Paul is the apostle to the gentiles. Not John. John concentrated on the circumcision people.
And, according to Paul, Jews were kicked out of Rome.
Acts 18:2
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Paul was the one called to Rome for the gentiles.
So Peter had no business being there. Especially in light of Acts 18:2.
The whole premise about disciples of John just doesn’t sit well with me, since his focus is the Jews.
We have a 300 year unaccounted for gap, in which someone made up history, lying, falsifying letters.
And finally, early church fathers would be proclaiming that Peter was the first pope.
The only way to make any of what early church fathers said, is to believe Peter was a pope… in Paul’s territory.
When you begin with a lie, the whole thing is a lie.
Christianity was spreading, by Paul, and Rome wanted control of it.
Whoever forged documents, creating a fictitious history, they may have some doctrines correct. But so what?
Now, of course the Catholics will deny all of this, regarding a fake history.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You wrote,
“It is evident that Jesus in His answer to the Pharisees on this subject has traveled beyond Deuteronomy, and has stated the law of the kingdom of heaven which rests upon God’s will “from the beginning” (Mt. 19:8-9). The law of Moses would have allowed the divorced woman to remarry; the law of the kingdom will not.”
Well said, Aidan.
Additionally:
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except [a]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NKJV
11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 NKJV
No exception for a man to remarry in Matthew 19:9 (if his wife was sexually immoral). The KJV scholars used incomplete manuscripts. Jesus’ words to the Pharisees (Matthew 19:9) were identical to His words for the Sermon On The Mount (Matthew 5:32).
1saved
The problem with your explanation is that verse 32 in the Greek doesn’t say “divorce”. And that is what we’ve been saying all along.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Jesus also said:
Mark 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
When did this change?
All of a sudden, no one has hardness of heart?
Ed
Aidan,
Under the Law of Moses, if anyone in a marriage is guilty of “fornication”, the penalty is DEATH. Therefore, there is NO DIVORCE.
No divorce, let alone remarriage. So how can you say that a divorce is authorized UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES for fornication?
Hello?
If spouse is guilty of fornication, PUT AWAY AND KILL HER! No divorce.
Why are you stuck on “You can only divorce if fornication/adultery”? That’s not what it states.
Ed
Ed,
Under the Law of Moses, if anyone in a marriage is guilty of “fornication”, the penalty is DEATH. Therefore, there is NO DIVORCE.
Really? I believe King David was married, he fornicated with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, and David wasn’t put to death.
God didn’t take David’s life, but did take their offspring’s life. https://www.gotquestions.org/David-Bathsheba-child.html
No divorce here because innocent Uriah was put in harms way and killed in battle.
“Biblical law mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses. These include a broad range of crimes from murder to kidnapping, adultery to incest, certain forms of rape, idolatrous worship and public incitement to apostasy, from disrespecting parents to desecrating the Sabbath.” https://rac.org/jewish-values-and-death-penalty
1saved
Nothing of what Paul taught in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 contradicts the exception clause that Jesus gave for divorcing/putting away one’s mate. In fact what Paul taught in these verses had to do with the “present distress” — verse 26.
Aidan,
Notice if you will, in your rebuttle, that the Pharisees ADDED “divorce” to the conversation, when the conversation wasn’t about divorce, but put away.
So, Jesus felt obliged to answer the “divorced” question. But they were speaking of THE LAW.
Who did the law come from? God, right? God is the one who told them that they can put away and divorce.
But the conversation was not about divorce UNTIL they brought it up.
If you put away without divorce, then adultery occurs.
But the only reason to put away is adultery.
So we have 2 different conversations here, once they asked a question that involved divorce and put away.
But as you admit here, divorce is not put away, because they are two different Greek words. You have to note the CONJUNCTION word, “and”.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You looked at the NASB and read the footnotes, but decided the text missing words is correct when the footnoted additional text is exactly the same as Jesus stated for His Sermon on the Mount.
Why would you do that?
Is it because you believe the KJV is to be trusted explicitly?
Are you aware of want was going on politically in England when the scholars were translating the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts into English published in 1611?
King Henry VIII of England (1509-1547) had divorced his queen and married another hoping to have a male heir to his throne. King Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, so he established the Church of England (Anglican).
Do you think the scholars may have been influenced to choose manuscripts seeming allowing divorce under special conditions.
1saved
1saved,
The King of England was not alive when Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was written. Besides, that’s on the Jewish side. When was the last time you heard of any of those Catholic wanna-be church’s consulting the Jewish side of scripture (Hebrew Scritpures).
I look at the law, for which the conversation with Jesus was being discussed. That negates out some King of England.
Deu 24:3 states that if the husband HATES HER, that’s good enough for a divorce. There is NO RESTRICTIONS to divorce. Hate covers a lot of areas.
And, as Reagan passed a NO FAULT divorce, it was based on that no one in that relationship can fulfill their DUTIES as a couple regarding sex. And 1 Cor 7 covers that conversation.
So what does the King of England have to do with it? The Catholics were wrong from the git-go.
And they began with the same thought that you have, that the discussion is about divorce, when it isn’t. It’s about put away, which the Catholics thought was the same thing. Catholics have ruined many a life with this.
At least the King DIVORCED his wife before he married another. NO SIN. Yes, remarriage is allowed, under Deuteronomy 24:1-2.
Ed
Ed,
I your latest reply there are more falsehoods than I care to comment upon.
1saved
Ed has backed up his claims with both reasoned explanations, scripture AND the original language. You have thrown out of context verses, and in this response, just said “you are wrong” and gave no explanation as to why. This isn’t how good faith conversations or debates work.
A2A
I’m used to it. You wouldn’t believe the amount of blogs I get kicked off from, as I challenge their beliefs.
But, I do it in the manner in which you just explained to 1saved.
“reasoned explanations, scripture AND the original language.”
That so-called “expert” woman I spoke about, her name is Barbara Roberts. We had some back and forth’s before she finally blocked me from her blog. But she entered a conversation on my friends spiritual abuse blog, advocating divorce for abuse victims only. ONLY. So, I went to her blog:
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2013/06/25/interview-with-david-instone-brewer-author-of-divorce-remarriage-in-the-bible/
She and David Instone-Brewer did a video together. I can’t find it now, tho.
In any case, she backs up her argument with the Westminster whatever going back some 600 years ago, and she won’t budge…except in this one area of abuse.
And she found an ally in David Instone-Brewer. I’ve emailed him a number of years back, and we had some back and forth’s on the subject, and he is sticking to his understanding…which is divorce under CERTAIN ABUSIVE circumstances only. No if’s, and’s, or but’s. He won’t budge. They both adhere to the WESTMINSTER…whatever they call it.
This is what got me interested in the whole thing. And I have a blog post specifically on everything we discussed.
chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/divorce-remarriage-not-a-sin-to-begin-with/
Yesterday, when I mentioned that the word “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 was about, “I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole”, well, David Instone-Brewer thinks that the word “uncleanness” has to do with some sort of INDECENCY, such as adultery or fornication.
So I challenged him on that, because if that were true, the law states that the spouse who committed adultery is to be stoned, not given a divorce so that she can marry another!
See Deuteronomy 24:1-2. Can an adulteress woman divorce and marry another if she is dead after being stoned?
And this ties in with the discussion that Jesus had with the Pharisees, in which the Catholics, and now 1saved, thinks that Jesus was saying that you can get a divorce ONLY IF the spouse commits adultery. I’m like, uh, that’s not what the law states. The law states to stone the adulteress woman, not to let her live and marry another.
So, then we have what Aidan indicated, in that Jesus was changing the rules due to the New Test. No, he was given a trick question about the law.
But, we can thank that Catholics for screwing up people’s lives. And the “protestants” brought forth a lot of Catholic baggage, and continue to defend that baggage.
Ed Chapman
br.d
In all probability – the Westminster they are referring too is a Calvinistic confession of faith which was drafted about 100+ years after John Calvin.
There are a few such confessions.
And if one becomes familiar with John Calvin’s IN YOUR FACE statements regarding a go who specifically creates/designs the vast majority of his human creatures – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
If you have dialogs with Calvinists today – you will find a very large percentage of them who have a high urgency to distance themselves from Calvin’s writings.
There were Christian thinkers in Calvin’s day – who disagree with the image of god Calvin created.
This forced Calvin to defend himself very adamantly and forcefully.
Consequently – he could not afford to be wishy-washy with his doctrines.
If he was – he wouldn’t be taken seriously.
Calvinists who came after Calvin’s death however started to have the same difficulties with Calvin’s writings that the Christian thinkers of Calvin’s day had with them.
Consequently – Calvinists became squeamish about appealing to Calvin’s writings as their source of authority.
The image of paintings Calvin drew of divine malevolence within his writings presented a god who is the AUTHOR of evil – too much for the average Calvinist to find palatable.
So various Calvinists from various organizations drew up their own confessions – which do not have the IN YOUR FACE author of evil – they found within Calvin’s writings.
Dr. Flowers – just this week addressed a Calvinist video – where this Calvinist is working very hard to create an ARMINIANIZED version of Calvinism – because it presents a softer-gentler more benevolent version of Calvin’s god.
The problem with that is – these Calvinists don’t want to acknowledge they are ARMINIANIZING their Calvinism.
Roland – who appears here occasionally – is a byproduct of some Calvinist pastor somewhere – who has created an ARMINIANIZED sugar-coated version of Calvinism which Roland and the other people in his congregation can stomach.
So essentially – these Reformed confessions – are simply attempts to distance Calvinism away from its original form.
br.d,
Yes, “confession”, the Westminster Confession. I couldn’t remember that word.
What’s interesting on your explanation is that is what I was learning from that spiritual abuse blog.
This was about 12 years ago, that I had just began looking into Calvinism, and the reason? Because a friend of mine was introducing me to foriegn phrases, such as “irresistable grace”, and “God is in control”.
I won’t name the spiritual abuse blog, but I recognized right away that it was Calvinist believers that were the victims of spiritual abuse, and that is where the blog went, when discussing specific BIG NAMES regarding pastors, etc.
It’s funny, though (not really) but all those victims STILL believed in Calvinism. They just didn’t like the abuse. But they didn’t realize that the abuse is caused by Calvinism’s doctrines.
In the end, I concluded that the reason for the abuse is the doctrines themselves. Doctrines about women, doctrines about “church discipline”, shaming the victim, etc., and a whole lot more, including, of course, divorce, where it was not just frowned upon, but NOT ALLOWED.
And this is where Barbara Roberts came into play, because she was in an abusive marriage, and did divorce, and she had to justify it, because she felt guilty about it, so she concocted a reasoning that was “divorce is ok, as long as it’s abuse”.
But I say that divorce is allowed, abuse or not, so she didn’t have to beat herself up over it. But, she’s still a Calvinist.
Ed Chapman
yes that is totally understandable!
I had a co-worker years ago whose father was a Calvinist pastor.
I met this man a few times.
His congregation followed him around like little ducklings carrying KJV bibles.
The women were taught to walk behind their husbands.
I felt bad for my co-worker friend who was this pastor’s son.
Any time the topic of his father came up – it was obvious he was dealing with very strong negative emotions.
1saved,
Dude, settle down, man!
I agree with Atheist2Apologist, regarding separation and divorce.
Based on the LAW, which is the only thing that defines what sin is, AND, I might add, just like it is in REGULAR LIFE CIVIL COURT, that if you are going to KICK YOUR WIFE OUT OF THE HOUSE, you had better give her a DIVORCE certificate, so that she can marry another.
That is what the divorce decree is really all about, so that she may marry another, because if she does so without a divorce decree, then she is STILL MARRIED and therefore, committing adultery against her CURRENT husband.
The adultery is the issue here, not BIGAMY.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
If you kick your wife out without an extremely good reason like repeated adultery on her part, then you have caused her to commit adultery. The sin is on you.
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NKJV
KJV reads differently. Also, the second “divorced” in this verse still translates to apuolo and not apostation.
That Greek word is important to note, because they didn’t translate that one word correctly. And that is what is confusing people.
One word is PUT AWAY, just like it is everywhere else, and one word is divorce. Two different words that the translators wanted you to think are both the same word, aka divorce.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
No!!!!!
If she broke the contract by committing adultery, the law states to STONE HER TO DEATH, and I’m not exactly sure you know this or not, but I can’t divorce a dead woman.
But I am to PUT HER AWAY before she is stoned.
Jesus gave MERCY to a woman caught in adultery. But then again, he’s God. The law commanded to stone her.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
If she broke the contract by committing adultery, the law states to STONE HER TO DEATH, and I’m not exactly sure you know this or not, but I can’t divorce a dead woman.
You sound like a Muslim following sharia law not a Christian following Christ..
1saved
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
God is immutable, right? He doesn’t change. We should be doing this today, by your logic.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Leviticus 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
God is immutable, right? He doesn’t change. We should be doing this today, by your logic.”
And an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
Are you a follower of Christ or a follower of Levitical law?
1saved
That is exactly the point I was making. You had given examples of OT to prove your point, and then said God is immutable. Then above I gave and example, and even clarified that it was following YOUR logic (not mine). Then you turn around and say that this is actually my logic, even though I clarified it was your logic, attributing it to me when that isn’t my point at all.
These tactics make it very difficult to have an honest back and forth conversation.
Atheist2Apologist,
Google gotquestions.org before you ask me, since you won’t accept my answer due to your bias against me.
1saved
1saved,
PUT AWAY is NOT the same as DIVORCE
Therefore, there is no need for you to be OFFENDED that God is a hypocrite.
Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away?
Matthew 5:31
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
That’s TWO separate things.
1. PUT AWAY, and
2. DIVORCE
Put away is the same as saying, “kick her out of the house!”, but politely means, SEPARATE.
Ed Chapman
Exactly. It is marrying another WITHOUT giving a divorce that is a sin, not marrying another if one has given a divorce.
Even the verse Malachi 12:16 CORRECTLY translates to putting away and not divorce. Non-KJV versions say God hates divorce, so people use that as their presupposition to analyze the rest of these verses, but that is not an accurate translation.
Regardless of version, the Hebrew words make it clear, if anyone would put in the effort to just look.
Absolutely! I’ve been wanting to respond to your initial comment on the subject, but I was way too busy to do so working, but everything you said, I agree with, in this regard.
The Catholics started the confusion, and passed that confusion onto the REFORMATION, which also includes BAPTISTS and CALVINISTS alike.
Reagan got it right! NO FAULT DIVORCE! But Baptists HATED Reagan because of that, but LOVED Jimmy Carter! It had to be his peanuts! He was a Baptist of the SBC kind.
Ed Chapman
Thank you! Due to personal issues in my life I recently did a DEEP dive into this, and thanked the Lord for finally revealing everything to me and giving me peace!
Side note, there is some skewed conflation regarding Baptists. Baptists preceded both Catholics and Protestants and were known (derogatorily) as anabaptists. They were persecuted by Protestants and Catholics. They basically just went around doing immersion baptisms. Some became Mennonites of today, others are part of the independent Baptist churches, and others joined the Reformation. Those who joined the reformation eventually became groups like the SBC. There is a HUGE difference between SBC like organized Baptists and independent Baptists.
I’d have to dig up all the resources as I studied this a while back, but I believe it was either Origen or Tertullian who had the earliest mention of Baptists in their writings. There is even some evidence that it goes all the way back to John the Baptist, but I can’t say it is overly conclusive or solid enough to boldly claim that part.
Ed
but LOVED Jimmy Carter! It had to be his peanuts!
br.d
Too funny! 😀
Good sense of humor Ed!!
To add a bit…someone (man or woman) who is divorced is NOT MARRIED. If they are NOT MARRIED, they DO NOT HAVE a husband or a wife. So the exception of if her husband dies she is free to remarry ONLY APPLIES to a MARRIED woman and NOT to a divorced woman. This is just basic reasoning using the definitions of words!
Admittedly I WAS confused about all of these passages, UNTIL the piece about putting away and divorce was revealed to me. That was the key to making it all fit together and make sense without contradictions!
I had been on a spiritual abuse blog for a few years, and this one woman, who thought she was the EXPERT on the subject, advocated for divorce for ABUSE VICTIMS, but NO ONE ELSE. That’s when I began looking into it.
I thought, hmmmm….that doesn’t sound right…abuse victims only? I don’t think so.
The way I read it…whatever reason you want to give is good enough. You can’t force someone to love you that doesn’t, and that alone is reason.
And in Deu 24:1, that word UNCLEANNESS…it’s not about sin. Not about sin at all. NO SIN in that uncleanness.
Think like this: I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole!
Ed Chapman
Exactly. Now that isn’t to say one should just frivolously put away and divorce for any reason. Couples should take effort to work it out and reconcile before separation, during separation, and before divorce. But if those honest efforts are made and fail, divorce is permitted, or if one party won’t cooperate in the reconciliation efforts.
Even the unbelieving spouse example in 1Corinthians is saying you still try to work it out, the unbelief is not an excuse to just give up without effort. It was clarifying EVEN in this instance you try, but not making it an isolated exception (this actually just came to me).
In SUCH CASES you are not under bondage…this is the only use in the Bible of in such cases, but in other Greek writings it refers to “all similar circumstances”. This, then, can be extended to situations like abuse, neglect, abandonment, addiction etc…
Agreed. That’s how 1 Cor 7 tells it. But it really is for any reason, if that decision to divorce comes about. And the #1 reason? “I don’t love you!”. That should be enough!
Ed Chapman
Well for sure. Does God really want someone in a loveless marriage? Is that merciful? Or is it being completely legalistic? Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel? Why would Jesus even say those words and level that accusation against the Pharisees? Is adherence to the law really more important than people? Did Jesus not heal on the Sabbath?
Jesus consistently rebuked the Pharisees, more than any other group by far, because they were SO legalistic. Perhaps He was trying to also tell us how NOT to be? In the end, even if our interpretation of the law in these matters is wrong, does this lesson of not being so legalistic when it causes something worse not supersede the law? Are we missing the forest for the trees? Is someone being alone for their whole life when they desire a partner and are suffering because of it really preferable to obeying the law because they made a mistake? Is that really the Character of our God who is love, and rich in mercy and forgiveness?
I used to think so, and that was why I was an atheist.
Atheist2Apologist,
One more thing – You wrote, “Deuteronomy 17:17 commanded not to multiply wives.”
Only the king of Israel can’t have multiple wives. Who do you think you’re fooling with your edited versions of Scripture?
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: Deuteronomy 17:15-18 KJV
Yes, Solomon sinned, because he had multiple wives AND was king of Israel. Being the wisest man who ever lived, he certainly knew he was sinning by having multiple wives. Perhaps he was being used as an example by the Lord 1 Kings 11 for what happens to those who disobey.
6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father. David had multiple wives – perhaps seven, yet he was in God’s favor as was Moses who had two wives. 1 Kings 11:6 KJV
1saved
Why would it be not ok for the King of Israel to have multiple wives if it is perfectly morally acceptable for any other man to do so? You are agreeing with Mormons while ignoring the practices of a majority of Christian Churches. Yes, Churches can be wrong on some doctrinal issues, but NONE OF THEM affirm polygamy. Nor did any of the apostles or any of the early church Fathers. Even the majority of the world doesn’t.
You agree with Muslims and Mormons. Maybe you should question the company you keep?
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Yes, Churches can be wrong on some doctrinal issues, but NONE OF THEM affirm polygamy. Nor did any of the apostles or any of the early church Fathers. Even the majority of the world doesn’t.
You agree with Muslims and Mormons. Maybe you should question the company you keep?”
Jews don’t outlaw polygamy.
Perhaps two reasons Jews reject Christ are BECAUSE Christians call polygamy a sin AND teach the Trinity. One God in three Persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is unacceptable to their understanding of Behold all Israel, the Lord is One (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Whoever said it was easy to be a servant of God?
1saved.
1saved,
Interesting that you discuss Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman…referencing NUMBERS.
According to the FIRST 5 BOOKS, NUMBERS comes before DEUTERONOMY, therefore, there was NO LAW about marriage and/or divorce.
For someone who is an expert at math, 4 comes before 5. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage is in DEUTERONOMY.
In addition, back in the days of Abraham, there was NO LAWS about not having sex with your sister. And Abraham was RIGHTEOUS.
Let’s break it down:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, and “TORAH”?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son. According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED. God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Again, NUMBERS is before DEUTERONOMY, and there was NO LAW in Numbers, regarding marriage/divorce/remarriage.
4 comes before 5.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
We aren’t on friendly terms, however I’ll try to be civil with you.
.
Genesis 9:23
Ham saw his drunken father Noah naked – a sin in God’s eyes – what say you?
No prior written law in the matter, so how could Ham be called wrong?.
Genesis 19:26
Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt.
Angels told her not to look back, but was the result just in your opinion?
The law came into the world with the knowledge of all good and evil when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Sin came into the world when mankind couldn’t keep the law. So, law was in the world before it was written by Moses and the prophets.
Not all law is clear and there are grey areas, some would call these legal loopholes. A biblical example is the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-10).
1saved
1saved,
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
That is my default answer.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Question: Genesis 9:23 Ham saw his drunken father Noah naked – a sin in God’s eyes – what say you? No prior written law in the matter, so how could Ham be called wrong?
Reply:
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
That is my default answer.
I’ll take that as an “I don’t have any answer” non-answer.
1saved
1saved,
I didn’t say that Ham was not wrong. I simply said:
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Adam and Eve got knowledge of good and evil. That was NOT PASSED DOWN from generation to generation.
If it did, then Abraham never would have had sex with his sister!
That’s my point. Romans 5:13
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Adam and Eve got knowledge of good and evil. That was NOT PASSED DOWN from generation to generation.
If it did, then Abraham never would have had sex with his sister!
Technically, Sarah was his half sister at best, but perhaps only a step sister..
Genesis 20:11: “Abraham said [to Abimelech], ‘Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; 13and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, “This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, ‘He is my brother.”‘”
Now, was Abraham’s father biologically Sarah’s father too?
Perhaps, Abraham’s father married Sarah’s mother and adopted Sarah is his own daughter. In that case she would be Abraham’s step sister.
1saved
So is your stance that Abraham was without sin? Completely over his whole life?
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “So is your stance that Abraham was without sin? Completely over his whole life?”
Reply: All have sinned and fallen short. Only Christ is without sin.
You are jumping to ridiculous conclusions now.
1saved
How is a question jumping to a conclusion? I didn’t make a statement, therefore did not make a claim, so I did not state a conclusion.
Atheist2Apologist,
Atheist2Apologist, You wrote, “So is your stance that Abraham was without sin? Completely over his whole life?” Reply: All have sinned and fallen short. Only Christ is without sin. You are jumping to ridiculous conclusions now. 1saved
How is a question jumping to a conclusion? I didn’t make a statement, therefore did not make a claim, so I did not state a conclusion
And now you’re wasting my time with your silliness. Google gotquestions.org – they have already provided answers to many, many questions. Don’t expect me to answer your questions any longer.
1saved,
So, this gift of discernment that you claim to have, comes by way of GOT QUESTIONS DOT ORG?
Yes, the infallible, inspired, breathed Word of God in the ancient texts know as Got Questions Dot Org! Who are you to question God, Oh man?!
Also note, another ad-hominem. Didn’t address my claim, just accused me of being silly.
Ed,
Discernment is the ability to distinguish between what is true and what is false.
gotquestions.org provides doctrinal information some of which is true and some of which is false.
They say neither Calvinism nor Arminianism doctrine explains all of soteriology and point out the conflicts between them.
By discernment, I understand and have merged the two doctrines to reveal the truth.
1saved
What you have done, in a very Calvinistic fashion, is created a false dichotomy. Calvinism and Arminianism are NOT the only 2 positions to choose from. If you give credibility to got questions, why not give credibility to Soteriology 101? If you did, you would learn how to spot things like false dichotomy and that there are viewpoints other than the 2 you listed.
br.d
Another behavioral pattern within the social structure of Calvinism
What scholars would call the “Zeitgeist” of Calvinism
Is the process of “Self-Canonization”
The Calvinist mind is conditioned to AUTO-MAGICALLY hold the Calvinist position as divine and thus unquestionable.
To question the Calvinist interpretation of scripture – is to question the authority of scripture.
The Calvinist mind cannot allow itself to differentiate between scripture and the Calvinist interpretation of scripture.
Thus the Calvinist hast 2 Canons
1) He has the Canon of scripture – which all theologies have
2) But his interpretation of scripture also functions as a Canon.
Since he has been conditioned to raise the Calvinist handling of scripture up onto a divine pedestal and make it function as Canon – it makes perfect sense to find the Calvinist telling anyone who disagrees – they are operating in “Human” reasoning – or “Human Logic” – or “Leaning to their own understanding” etc.
The Calvinist understanding is Canon.
Anyone who disagrees is human
Atheist2Apologist,
“What you have done, in a very Calvinistic fashion, is created a false dichotomy. Calvinism and Arminianism are NOT the only 2 positions to choose from. If you give credibility to got questions, why not give credibility to Soteriology 101? If you did, you would learn how to spot things like false dichotomy and that there are viewpoints other than the 2 you listed.”
Reply:
How much is two plus three times five?
What is the square root of twenty five?
Is there only one correct answer for each above question or would you argue there are more than one answer to these math problems?
1saved
You are making a category error. First, math and literary interpretation are very different things. But even if we go with it, your comparison doesn’t work. While there is only one RIGHT answer to those problems, there is an infinite amount of WRONG answers to the problems. You are asserting, without showing all your work, that a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism is the correct answer.
I am saying they are both wrong answers, and there are other equations which also show their work that comes to a more accurate conclusion.
Atheist2Apologist,
“While there is only one RIGHT answer to those problems, there is an infinite amount of WRONG answers to the problems.”
They were simple questions with only one right answer to each.
What is the correct answer to each math problem?
2 + 3 x 5 = ?
What is the square root of 25?
Our newest Supreme Court justice couldn’t provide the definition of “woman” stating she isn’t a biologist Will you decline to answer my math questions, because you are not a mathematician?
1saved
br.d
Yes!
Calvinism’s thinking patterns include “Question Begging”, “Hasty generalizations”, “Adhoc-Definitions” and “Excluded Middle”.
Calvinism’s boasts itself as the only system which provides answers to specific questions.
The problem is – for each question – it starts with its own a predesired answer
It inserts numbers (metaphorically speaking) into its formula in order to achieve that pre-desired answer – because it knows what numbers it needs to reach its desired answer.
It inserts those specific numbers (metaphorically speaking) into its interpretation of scripture by forcing biased definitions onto terms within scripture in order to make those terms to function as the numbers (metaphorically speaking) it needs to achieve its pre-desired answer.
It does not read scripture to see what scripture says.
We want the text to say [X]
So we simply redefine the terms within the text — in order to make the text say [X]
Atheist2Apologist,
Your question to 1saved is exactly the reason that I quote the following:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
That would indicate that Abraham was sinless. Or does it?
For all have sinned!
But notice one HUGE thing in all of that story, tho. God never told Abraham about the sin of sleeping with his sister at all.
He never told Abraham to sever that relationship. But he blessed brother/sister with an inbred promised son. But according to the law…he’s wicked!
This is why in most of my comments here and elsewhere, I keep harping on the NAME of that tree that Adam ate from. KNOWLEDGE is a key word. No knowledge of sin, no sin imputed. In a very biblical sense, ignorance of the law IS the excuse.
The knowledge that Adam and Eve had could have been passed down only to a limited amount of people before being forgotten by people over time. That’s only logical.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
If you had read the whole thing, I gave you all the scriptures pertaining to what the bible indicates a sister is…and that includes step sister, to wit:
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him,
to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father,
or daughter of thy mother,
whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter,
begotten of thy father,
she is thy sister,
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister,
his father’s daughter,
or his mother’s daughter,
and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister,
the daughter of his father,
or the daughter of his mother.
And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, and “TORAH”?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister;
she is the daughter of my father,
but not the daughter of my mother;
and she became my wife.
—————————–
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Sarah could have been Abraham’s step sister and his wife.
Other than that, I have nothing more to say in the matter at this time.
Perhaps you should ask God in faith without doubting and He will answer your questions as to Abraham and Sarah.
1saved
1saved,
OMG, for the one who claims he has discernment, all of the references I gave you from Leviticis and Deuteronomy indicates both sister, and step sister, which is half sister. It doesn’t matter.
The daughter of his father, but not daughter if his mother. It’s still a sin. And she became his wife.
So yes, she is both a wife and a sister, whether step sister or full sister.
You still don’t get it.
Perhaps you need to consult God for further discernment.
Ed,
You wrote, “OMG, for the one who claims he has discernment, all of the references I gave you from Leviticis and Deuteronomy indicates both sister, and step sister, which is half sister. It doesn’t matter.”
Step sisters are not half sisters.
Step sisters are not blood related to their step brothers,.
Sarah could have been Abraham’s step sister, because Abraham’s father adopted her, and not blood related to him.
It matters whether Sarah was a step sister or half sister.
I get it and apparently you don’t.
Want to know whether Sarah was a step sister or half sister of Abraham?
Ask God in faith and He will tell you.
1saved
I mean, it is pretty clear. Sin existed, which God knew and saw, but law wasn’t given yet, so Ham wasn’t yet accountable to that sin. How is this a non-answer?
Atheist2Apologist,
Ed didn’t answer, because there isn’t any good answer.
So, you answered for him.
I mean, it is pretty clear. Sin existed, which God knew and saw, but law wasn’t given yet, so Ham wasn’t yet accountable to that sin. How is this a non-answer?
Apparently Ham was held accountable for this sin, because not only did Noah curse Ham, but also Canaan, because Ham is the father of the Canaanites. Genesis 9:20-25
1saved
Big jump and assumption. The Bible doesn’t say much about Ham, but he did likely live a very long life if the lifespan of his brothers is taken as a reference. Do you think in his whole life seeing his father naked was his only sin?
Atheist2Apologist,
Big jump and assumption. The Bible doesn’t say much about Ham, but he did likely live a very long life if the lifespan of his brothers is taken as a reference. Do you think in his whole life seeing his father naked was his only sin?
No, and another ridiculous question, based upon your thinking that everything in Scripture is knowable.
Some things remain a mystery.
1saved.
It appears to me you are the one jumping to conclusions. Where have I ever stated everything in scripture is knowable? The very statement you just responded to I just said that the Bible doesn’t give a full account of Ham’s life. That statement in and of itself declares there are things we don’t know about in scripture, but somehow you came to the opposite conclusion about my beliefs.
You continue to make statements about me, in an attempt to discredit the source to draw attention away from the actual topic being discussed. This is classic ad-hominem tactics and is considered a logical fallacy in debate.
1saved,
Ed didn’t answer because Ed was tired, so Ed went to bed. Ed gets up early in the morning to drink coffee, work on budget, and entertain myself on this blog and others before I have to go to work.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Whether ANYTHING is a sin or not, sin is NOT imputed where there is no law. Period.
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
But you said something that the bible does not support.
You said:
“Apparently Ham was held accountable for this sin, because not only did Noah curse Ham, but also Canaan, because Ham is the father of the Canaanites. Genesis 9:20-25
But the bible states:
“25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”
I don’t see where Ham was cursed, but I do see where his son, Canaan was cursed.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’ll civilly give you the same reply I gave Atheist2Apologist.
Google gotquestions.org and see what they have to say before you demand answers from me.
OR, ask God in faith without doubting and He will answer your questions.
Here’s the link:
https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html
1saved
1saved,
I’m not asking questions. I’m making statements.
My only question is why do you consult for GOT QUESTIONS DOT ORG if you have this gift of discernment?
Ed Chapman
br.d
I once knew a fellow who convinced himself that he could simply “ask in faith” and whatever perception came to pass within his brain would be from God.
That fellow ended up believing the Holy Spirit would take control of his body and throw his body on the floor and make him twist and turn and crawl around on the floor like a snake.
He asked in faith alright!
The problem was – he put his faith in the wrong voice.
One indicator of the wrong voice – is that it leads one into ensnarement.
God gave man a brain – and he expects man to use it.
Ed,
My only question is why do you consult for GOT QUESTIONS DOT ORG if you have this gift of discernment?
It’s because of the volume of questions I’m asked which are easily answered on their website.
I don’t “consult” this website.
They are a useful tool like biblegateway.com
1saved
Ed,
We aren’t on friendly terms, however I’ll try to be civil with you.
br.d
Good!
Considering the amount of ad-hominem attacks I have experienced, I wonder what the definition of civility is? We get to define words to what we want them to mean, right?
Why would any of us not be on friendly terms, 1saved? We are discussing the Word of God and simply having disagreements. What does the Bible say on this?
1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
This is a valid point.
You’ve made a number of statements where you pointed out you were not attacking an individual – but rather contending with a position.
That was very appreciated!!!
1Saved would do well to follow a good example.
I can’t say I always succeed at it, but I do try my best to make an effort to do so. It can be difficult when the opposing viewpoint is not adhering to basic rules of logic, all while attacking you and not your position. Statements like “you have lost all credibility” and accusations of saying something I didn’t say (God is a hypocrite) don’t make it easy, but what is gained by making a personal attack?
Others have noted your observations
And I wouldn’t blame you for considering it the better part of wisdom to close down engagement based on that observation.
The Lord has called me to start an Apologetics ministry. When that starts, no doubt will I have to face persecution, belligerence and heated arguments from others. If I am to follow how Paul did things, then this is a good training ground!
Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
Atheist2Apologist,
Your pseudo-syllogism::
God divorced Israel
God can’t marry His Bride the Church without violating the law He gave.(divorce and remarriage is adultery).
God is not a hypocrite, so the law He gave must have been misunderstood by the Church’s leading theologians for >1500 years
The only way this can be resolved is the way Atheist2Apologist resolved the conflict – saying “If it WAS adultery to divorce and remarry, then God Himself is an adulterer for divorcing Israel and remarrying the Church. This, of course, is absurd as God cannot sin.”
God’s ways are not our ways and who are we to question Him is an unacceptable answer to Atheist2Apologist.
So, I Googled an answer. https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-divorce-Israel.html
Is that acceptable?
1saved
A few things wrong here. First of all, this isn’t “my” interpretation. I searched through several interpretations of other theologians, all with different interpretations, including the one you hold, and none of them lined up logically with the whole of the scripture than the one I believe now.
Got questions, while it does have some good content, is a Calvinist site, so I take them with a large grain of salt.
What they seemed to have missed here is the spouse cannot return to the husband IF she married another and the second husband then divorced her. Then, she could not return to the first husband nor could the first husband marry her. If she did not marry another, then it was ok to return. Israel did not take a second husband.
Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
Deuteronomy 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Again, I’m not questioning God, I am questioning man’s interpretations, and i already explained what God’s ways are higher than our ways to you.
Atheist2Apologist,
Do you think you won’t be fact checked when you say gotquestions.org is a Calvinist site?
Here’s what they say:
“So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.”
Now, returning to marriage and divorce doctrine.
9 And I say to you, whoever sends away/divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman makes her commit adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:9-12 NASB (with footnotes included in the text)
Note: Eunuchs are not necessarily celibate; eunuchs are sterile and cannot father children.
Therefore, the reason Christ gives for men to marry, despite His strong/harsh rules, is to have children.
Mark’s account confirms this:
10 And in the house the disciples again began questioning Him about this. 11 And He *said to them, “Whoever sends away/divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself sends away/divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:10-12 NASB (with footnotes)
1saved
Hint: This SEEMS contradictory to us is a Calvinist argument.
Anyway, you are using footnotes and English translations to conflate words that mean something different in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE they are written in. You have to cross compare texts and the original languages to see put away is a different word and different meaning than the translations are incorrectly conflating.
1saved,
You quoted verse 9, stating:
“9 And I say to you, whoever sends away/divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman makes her commit adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
You inserted a word that isn’t there.
Divorce is not a part of that verse at all.
Under the law of Moses, no one divorces in the case of sexual immorality.
The guilty party is stonedto death, hence, the woman caught in adultery that Jesus gave MERCY to.
No divorce.
And no, I’m not a Muslim. This was the law under the law of Moses.
Ed,
You wrote, “You quoted verse 9, stating:
“9 And I say to you, whoever sends away/divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman makes her commit adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
You inserted a word that isn’t there.”
The NASB uses the word “divorces” in the text and “sends away” in the footnotes.
That is why I used both.
1saved
1saved,
OK, I’ll buy that explanation about the NASB. Now study the Greek words used for both “put away” and “divorcement”.
Also, see the Hebrew for both.
Two different words, two different meanings.
If you kick your wife out of the house, before she can marry someone else, she has to be divorced. Kick out = put away.
So, when you kick her out, you had better provide her with a certificate of divorce, so that she can marry another, without there being any adultery.
It is my take that people were kicking their wives out of the home, without a divorce decree. And when that happens, the wife goes and marries another (bigamy). But bigamy is not the issue. She is committing adultery on the husband that kicked her out. Once she gets that divorce decree, making it official, she is no longer an adulteress.
I’d like you to see something. I’m sure you remember back in the day, “Sesame Street”, where they would have a bunch of boxes on the screen, and say something like, one of these boxes are not like the others?
Well, we have the same in here, as well in the KJV
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is DIVORCED committeth adultery.
And
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.:
Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
In Matthew 5:32 the word “divorced” is INCORRECT. Not only that, both “put away” and “divorcement” are not interchangeable words.
This is where the research enlightens us, because you should see that the translators got it wrong.
Dissect the Greek words in Matthew 5:32, and you will see that the word “divorced” is incorrect, because no other reference uses that word, and the Greek word is the same for ALL of the “put away”, proving that the word DIVORCED in Matthew 5:32 is incorrect.
The original question was:
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
It didn’t ask DIVORCE, it only asked PUT AWAY.
But as you can see, both are separate actions:
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
The question was NOT “Can you divorce for any reason”.
The question was “can you put away for any reason”.
And Jesus said, “No, only for adultery”.
Ed Chapman
Atheist2Apologist,
Civility – formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.
You’re welcome.
1saved
Thank you!
Do false accusations and discrediting someone fall into this definition?
1saved,
You had said:
“Technically, Ed, Christ comes back only three times.”
My response:
Well, my bible tells me that Jesus comes back only once (the 2nd time) by Acts 1:11 and Zechariah 14.
In the clouds is when we are raptured, so that isn’t a second coming, by Acts 1:11 standards.
And lastly, John being “IN THE SPIRIT” is not a coming, either.
Ed
br.d
Apart from the world of Calvinism which has its own private interpretations for just about everything in scripture – I find it interesting that a few Christians here or there – can come up with their own private interpretations over various doctrines.
They stand alone with their private interpretations against 99% of the rest of the consensus.
They must look at that fact and come to the conclusion that God wants them and only them to have the correct understanding and he wants 99% of the church to be wrong.
It makes sense to me now – that a person would want to convince himself – he has a superior form of spirituality. He has to justify the fact that his views stand against 99% of the church. How is that to be rationalized?
AH! Yes – all he has to do – is to make-believe god has has made him spiritually superior!
PRESTO!
He’s a super Christian
Problem solved! :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, “Apart from the world of Calvinism…They stand alone with their private interpretations against 99% of the rest of the consensus.”
Your argument for agreement in Christian doctrine might apply pre 1054 A.D.
In 1054 A.D. there was a great schism, dividing Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrine.
In 1517 A.D., Roman Catholicism was split with the Protestant Reformation.
Additionally, “Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.”
So what do 99% of Christians agree upon? Nearly every Christian thinks the following are true – none are true.
1) Water baptism is effectual, perhaps absolutely necessary for salvation, and is required for church membership.
2) The return of Christ is imminent; meaning can happen at anytime, without warning and no prophets come first.
3) The sins of Adam are passed on to all human babies whether by inheritance, imputation or ancestrally.
4) The way to know the meaning of scripture is to study the writings of theologians and the root Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words used in the Bible. Seminaries, colleges, universities, bible institutes, etc. should be considered a great source for learning the Bible.
5) God is not to be feared, since fear is too strong a word, “Fear” in scripture should be translated as “having reverence” or “awe” for.
6) Marriage is an institution of God, but marriage and dissolution of marriage doctrine is unclear in the Bible. Thus, marriage annulments, marriage to divorced women, same sex marriage, no fault divorce, etc. is subject to interpretation.
1saved
1saved
So what do 99% of Christians agree upon? Nearly every Christian thinks the following are true – none are true.
1) Water baptism is effectual, perhaps absolutely necessary for salvation, and is required for church membership.
br.d
No that is incorrect at all.
Some within the Greek Orthodox may hold to that – but not all.
Some within Catholicism probably do hold to some version of that.
But those do not represent 99% of Christians.
The vast majority of Evangelical Christianity – holds water baptism as symbolic and a representation of personal devotion.
1saved
2) (A)The return of Christ is imminent; meaning can happen at anytime, without warning (B) and no prophets come first.
br.d
2(A) is correct for the vast majority of Evangelical Christianity. 2(B) is not.
1saved:
3) The sins of Adam are passed on to all human babies whether by inheritance, imputation or ancestrally.
br.d
Not exactly
The vast majority hold to what is called the “Bondage of Corruption” – the world and its people are subject to. This entails a condition of separateness from God. And thus a need for salvation.
1saved:
4) The way to know the meaning of scripture is to study the writings of theologians and the root Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words used in the Bible. Seminaries, colleges, universities, bible institutes, etc. should be considered a great source for learning the Bible.
br.d
Yes this is correct.
The primary reason for this is because – over the years – individuals (e.g. David Koresh The reverend Jim Jones, Joseph Smith who received revelation through golden plates) have come along claiming to have *SPIRITUAL* understanding. But which of course turned out to be fallacious.
In the N.T. we have 5 ministries given to the church – one of which is “διδασκάλους” where the word “Scholar” is derived.
The world has the most accurate versions of the O.T. and the N.T. today because of scholarship.
1saved:
5) God is not to be feared, since fear is too strong a word,
br.d
This one is silly!
The Evangelical church fully accepts the warnings within the N.T. about working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling.
And the vast majority of the Evangelical church understands – he who gambles with sin is going to get burnt – thus they acknowledge it is a “fearful” thing to fall into the hands of a living God.
1saved:
6) (A) Marriage is an institution of God, but marriage and dissolution of marriage doctrine is unclear in the Bible. 6(B) Thus, marriage annulments, marriage to divorced women, and (C) same sex marriage, no fault divorce, etc. is subject to interpretation.
br.d
6(A) is a straw-man
It is not held that the Bible is “unclear” – that would be silly!
There are differences in this topic because of various texts within scripture which people interpret differently.
6(B) is true
For example – if a woman marries a man – who is already married – the second marriage is considered null a void. Some Christian abuse counselors will also say – if a husband is so violent that the wife’s life is in danger – then annulment or divorce is the Godly option.
6(C) same sex marriage is totally unique to a very few people.
The bottom line here is – that you are free to make-believe you are the divine conduit of all truth – and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Your understanding of scripture is the golden standard – and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
You are simply following in the footsteps of John Calvin – in that regard.
Br.d,
The vast majority of Evangelical Christianity – holds water baptism as symbolic and a representation of personal devotion.
Churches view water baptism differently – nearly all require water baptism for membership. Some say water baptism is effective as a sign of the believer’s faith or personal devotion. Other churches say it washes away sin. Want to join the local Baptist church – get baptized or don’t join.
“Immersion baptism, understood as demanding total submersion of the body, is required by Baptists, as enunciated in the 1689 Baptist Catechism: “Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the person in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
2) (A)The return of Christ is imminent; meaning can happen at anytime, without warning (B) and no prophets come first.
br.d
2(A) is correct for the vast majority of Evangelical Christianity. 2(B) is not
Illogical because if a prophets must come first (Amos 3:7), then the return of Christ cannot happen at any time. Watch for warnings, watch for the sign of the Son of Man – these must also come before Christ returns.
The vast majority hold to what is called the “Bondage of Corruption” – the world and its people are subject to. This entails a condition of separateness from God. And thus a need for salvation. Vast majority of churches or vast majority of Christians? The Roman Catholic church has >1 billion adherents. Your local non-denominational church may have 100. Would you say they should be counted equally?
The way to know the meaning of scripture is to study the writings of theologians and the root Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words used in the Bible. Seminaries, colleges, universities, bible institutes, etc. should be considered a great source for learning the Bible.
Yes this is correct.
The primary reason for this is because – over the years – individuals (e.g. David Koresh The reverend Jim Jones, Joseph Smith who received revelation through golden plates) have come along claiming to have *SPIRITUAL* understanding. But which of course turned out to be fallacious.
Paul taught Timothy. Timothy became pastor at Ephesus. Ephesus became corrupted shortly thereafter (Rev. 2:17), because they had left their first love. Much better to learn by persevering through trials of faith and through discernment as taught by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
The Evangelical church fully accepts the warnings within the N.T. about working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling.
The vast majority of pastors do not teach this, because their congregation does not want to hear “Sinners In The Hands Of God” sermons. It would scare their children and they would leave. Also, such speech is now considered “hate speech” and the pastor would face legal prosecution and possible incarceration
6) (A) Marriage is an institution of God, but marriage and dissolution of marriage doctrine is unclear in the Bible.
It is not held that the Bible is “unclear” – that would be silly!
There are differences in this topic because of various texts within scripture which people interpret differently.
Which is just another way of saying the Bible is unclear. If people asked God in faith the matter would be resolved.
Methodists claim they asked and God supposedly answered that divorce was permitted.
God is immutable and does not change.
Whatsoever God has joined together let not anyone divorce (Mark 10:9, Matthew 19:6).
Hosea was not permitted to divorce Gomer though he certainly had “grounds.” Wives are bound by the law to their husband for as long as he lives (1 Corinthians 7:39). These statements are very clear to me.
50% of marriages in America end in divorce.
Divorce and remarriage is adulterous and no adulterers shall enter heaven, so there is a great deal to fear for those who choose to disobey Him by divorcing their spouse and marrying another. or by marrying a divorced woman.
Christ comes to an adulterous and sinful generation (Mark 8:38). Heed His words and do not be ashamed of His teaching on divorce.
1saved
.
1saved:
Churches view water baptism differently – nearly all require water baptism for membership.
br.d
Not in the sense you are inferring.
For most churches this is simply a pragmatic issue.
They want to emphasis that Christianity is a commitment.
The Assemblies of God – for example – do not emphasis water baptism at all.
They might hold baptism events during the summer as a type of celebration event.
Churches that are dogmatic about things like water baptism are typically viewed as leaning into Legalism.
I can’t speak for the Baptist church.
I think they are all over the map quite frankly.
1saved:
Illogical because if a prophets must come first (Amos 3:7), then the return of Christ cannot happen at any time.
br.d
I don’t think you are the one to be presenting arguments based on logic!
You tend to come to a lot of “leap-frog” conclusions which rational people can see through.
1saved
Vast majority of churches or vast majority of Christians? The Roman Catholic church has >1 billion adherents. Your local non-denominational church may have 100. Would you say they should be counted equally?
br.d
This is a fair point.
On the subject of inherited sin – Catholicism gets its doctrine from Augustine.
1saved
Paul taught Timothy. Timothy became pastor at Ephesus. Ephesus became corrupted shortly thereafter (Rev. 2:17), because they had left their first love. Much better to learn by persevering through trials of faith and through discernment as taught by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
br.d
Here we have another conclusion based on “leap-frog” thinking patterns.
Who is to say the leaders of Ephesus didn’t follow your pattern and convince themselves they got their position directly from “discernment of the Holy Spirit”
Jumping to wild conclusions simply manifests a need to bypass clear thinking patterns in order to derive a desired conclusion – most probably to service an inflated ego.
1saved:
The vast majority of pastors do not teach this, because their congregation does not want to hear “Sinners In The Hands Of God” sermons.
br.d
Here is another instance in which you manifest the influences of Calvinism.
Sinners in the hand of god has its origin in Jon Edwards – aka Calvinism.
1saved:
It would scare their children and they would leave. Also, such speech is now considered “hate speech” and the pastor would face legal prosecution and possible incarceration
br.d
Since it has its origin in a CALVINISTIC deity who is a god of divine malevolence – its a perverted view of anyway!
1saved
Which is just another way of saying the Bible is unclear.
br.d
Another “leap-frog” conclusion!
You may want to read the fallacies of: “Question begging” and “Circular reasoning”
1saved:
If people asked God in faith the matter would be resolved.
br.d
This presupposes you have -quote “asked god in faith” on every issue having to do with scripture – all matters have been resolved – which simply means uour understanding of scripture is infallible.
One more good example of fallacious thinking.
And we are all aware how much you perceive yourself the divine conduit of all truth!
People can readily recognize posturing – huffing and puffing – divine declarations – and poorly thought out conclusions.
You’ll just have to forgive people who learn to take such things with a grain of salt! :-]
Br.d,
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe/baptism/
https://www.presbyterianmission.org/story/what-presbyterians-believe-the-sacrament-of-baptism/
http://ww1.antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes
https://www.ucc.org/what-we-do/justice-local-church-ministries/local-church/mesa-ministerial-excellence-support-and-authorization/ministers/ministers_local-church-leaders/worship_baptism/
You said, “The Assemblies of God – for example – do not emphasis water baptism at all.”
This site says otherwise:
https://www.learnreligions.com/assemblies-of-god-700144#:~:text=We%20believe%20in%20Water%20Baptism,for%20witnessing%20and%20effective%20service.
Did you think you would not be fact checked on water baptism?
Churches that do not baptize with water:
“Some Christian thinking regards baptism as necessary for salvation, but some writers, such as Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), have denied its necessity. Quakers and the Salvation Army do not practice water baptism at all.”
Add Christian Scientists, some Baptists, Baha’i and Unitarians as not baptizing with water. It’s a short list.
1saved
Episcopal
-quote
All people of any age are *****WELCOME***** to baptized…..
Note:
There is nothing on this page that indicates a person cannot be a member of a church without Baptism
presbyterian Mission
-quote
Can a person who is not baptized be saved? In a word, yes;
Do non-Presbyterians need to be baptized when joining the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? Not if they were previously baptized
Note:
There is an indication on this page that baptism is required for membership
United Baptist
What does Baptism *****SIGNIFY?*****
The sacrament of baptism is an ***OUTWARD AND VISIBLE SIGN**** of the grace of God.
Note:
There is nothing on this page that indicates a person cannot be a member of a church without Baptism
Assemblies of God
-quote
We believe in Water Baptism by immersion after salvation and Holy Communion as a ****SYMBOLIC***** remembrance of Christ’s suffering and death for our salvation.
Note:
There is nothing on this page that indicates a person cannot be a member of a church without Baptism
I think its time for this obsession to end.
It is starting to lean towards a spirit of belligerence.
Please be advised.
BTW:
I wonder if Ed is correct – and you are in fact someone who came here a while ago – because you got booted off the blog you were on?
And certain Calvinistic leanings within your posts make me wonder – if the sight you got booted off – was in fact a Calvinist blog-sight – which if you hadn’t gotten booted off – you would feel much more comfortable?
Me wonders if SOT101 is currently patiently enduring pontificates which another blog-sight came to the end of its ability to patiently endure? :-]
br.d
I don’t think you are the one to be presenting arguments based on logic!
You tend to come to a lot of “leap-frog” conclusions which rational people can see through.
You have lost all credibility based on your false assertions regarding various water baptism doctrines in churches.
br.d
6(A) is a straw-man
It is not held that the Bible is “unclear” – that would be silly!
There are differences in this topic because of various texts within scripture which people interpret differently.
1saved
Which is just another way of saying the Bible is unclear
br.d
Another “leap-frog” conclusion!
You may want to read the fallacies of: “Question begging” and “Circular reasoning”
Wow! Talk about confused reasoning on your part. They’d interpret differently, because they think the Bible is unclear, if clear, they’d all interpret the same text the same way.
The Bible is inerrant and infallible in its original text. The problem with Matthew 19:9 is the KJV scholars used corrupted ancient authorities. Footnotes to this verse in the NASB and RSV should be consulted. Then Matthew 19:9 reads the same as Matthew 5:32. No conflict between them.
And we are all aware how much you perceive yourself the divine conduit of all truth!
People can readily recognize posturing – huffing and puffing – divine declarations – and poorly thought out conclusions.
I believe they see right through your biased foolishness.
1saved
1saved
You have lost all credibility based on your false assertions regarding various water baptism doctrines in churches.
br.d
Here we go with the divine pontificates again! :-]
1saved:
Wow! Talk about confused reasoning on your part. They’d interpret differently, because they think the Bible is unclear,
br.d
Leap-frog conclusions are just too predictable now!!
If that were the case – it would apply to you as well.
Person_A says the bible teaches [X] on a subject
1saved says the bible teaches [NOT X] on that subject.
Therefore according to 1saved thinking – both Person_A and 1Saved hold that the Bible is unclear on that subject.
Another example of why you should not be attempting to argue based on logical thinking. That suit just doesn’t fit you. :-]
1saved:
The Bible is inerrant and infallible in its original text.
br.d
No problem!
1saved
I believe they see right through your biased foolishness.
br.d
And when everyone learns how to take the self-posturing, divine huffing and puffing, and poorly thought out conclusions with a grain of salt – those will also be classified as “biased foolishness”
Everyone knows how that works! ;-D
Br.d,
I believe we are living in the end times and this verse explains why you think the way you think.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV
Amen and good bye,
1saved
br.d
That is funny!
But its more likely the case – an inflated ego has been bruised – simply because people are readily able to recognize the signs of self-posturing, huffing and puffing, and reaching conclusions which are poorly thought out.
As time goes by here – I am anticipating – that will increasingly be the case.
And eventually someone will find he’s not getting the attention his ego wants – and will simply go looking for it somewhere else.
No one will be unhappy when that day comes! :-]
br.d,
Ya, he almost sounds like another Joseph Smith, preaching another Jesus.
Ed
OOOPS!
You just did the “biased foolishness” thing Ed!!!
How dare you!!!! :-]
Ed,
You wrote, “In the clouds is when we are raptured, so that isn’t a second coming, by Acts 1:11 standards.”
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. Acts 1:9
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
So, Ed, are you arguing “..will come back in the same way…” would also include Christ will be hidden by a cloud, because it has to be EXACTLY the same way? If yes, then there would be a contradiction, since Christ doesn’t come back hidden from sight (Rev. 1:7).
1saved
1saved,
Yes, I am saying exactly that.
Your Revelation 1:7 is discussing prophesy of WHEN ALL OF THE BLIND JEWS FINALLY GET UNBLINDED AS TO WHO JESUS REALLY IS:
Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
The Jews will be saved, just like Romans 11 tells us. And there are many prophesies in the PROPHETS that also so state.
Ed Chapman
We are all but dust, Br.d. nothing but gorilla dust.🙈
Yes – well said Aidan
We’re all made of the same thing!
We’re all quite human! :-]
Aidan,
You had said:
“We are all but dust”
My response:
Now if we can only convince Calvinists what the end result is of dust, based on 1 Cor 15.
1 Cor 15:42-47
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
*********************************
A natural dying (corruption) made of dirt came first. And that was before Adam sinned.
Genesis 3:19
for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
If Adam never ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and still never ate of the tree of life, the end result of Adam would have been the same. He still would have returned to the dust.
So, would they then call that ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE instead of ORIGINAL SIN?
Ed
Aidan,
“I don’t think James is applying this just to himself but to all who are in Christ.”
The word “first” has a specific meaning. We don’t get to change the meaning of words used in Scripture.
God called Israel His “firstfruit” when discussing nations.
James considered himself to be firstfruit along with a few others God chose before He created the foundation of the world. That is what it says in James 1:18.
Those Christian nations coming afterword to know the Lord are not firstfruit and those saved by grace, through faith, in Christ after hearing the Word and believing and not firstfruit either. – because they were not first.
1saved, you said: “James considered himself to be firstfruit along with a few others God chose before He created the foundation of the world. That is what it says in James 1:18.”
Response: Can you show me precisely where it states or infers that James is just talking about himself and a few others whom God chose before He created the foundation of the world? Here’s what the verse states “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.”
Also, I’m curious if you believe that ALL of this epistle applies only to those who were a kind of “firstfruits” – i.e. ONLY to James along with the few whom you say God chose before the foundation of the world? If not, why not?
Aidan,
Here is a hint:
James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
It doesn’t say Gentiles.
At Pentecost, the only ones who got the Holy Spirit was Jews ((which includes Gentiles who converted to Judaism, which means Jews), who converted to Christianity).
There was not a Gentile in the bunch.
Why is Pentecost on Feast of Weeks?
The name “Feast of Weeks” was given because God commanded the Jews in Leviticus 23:15-16, to count seven full weeks (or 49 days) beginning on the second day of Passover, and then present offerings of new grain to the Lord as a lasting ordinance. The term Pentecost derives from the Greek word meaning “fifty.
First Fruits was/is Pentecost.
Pentecost concluded the Feast of Weeks, which began with a day for the offering of first fruits on the first Sabbath after Passover (Lev. 23:10-11), and ended fifty days later, with what came to be known as the primary celebration of firstfruits (Num. 28:26, Lev. 23:17).
This is all about Jews being the First Fruits. It was THEIR Pentecost, not ours.
Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
That is the 144,000 Jews.
Oh, when are people going to see that there is indeed a difference between Jew and Gentile?
Ed Chapman
That’s right, Ed,
The key here is that they are Jewish CHRISTIANS! James refers to all the Jewish Christians scattered in localities outside of Palestine! He does not refer to ALL the Jews of the far-flung Diaspora throughout the Roman Empire, for James is not referring to Jews as Jews. He is as a Christian Jew writing to Jewish Christians ONLY in order to exhort them concerning their life as Christians.
Does James 1:18 say, ‘Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of the CHURCH’?? No, it doesn’t, does it! But rather, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His CREATURES! We need to be careful where WE place the emphasis in James 1:18.
You wrote:
“Oh, when are people going to see that there is indeed a difference between Jew and Gentile?”
Paul wrote:
Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Gal 3:29 “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Rom 10:12 “For there is NO distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.”
But regarding James my question remains, does the whole book only apply to a special group of Christians whom “God chose before He created the foundation of the world” or, does it simply apply to all Christians?
Aidan,
So, here is the famous “for there is no difference” reference.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Lets’ add the next verse for some context:
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
In Christ, simply means “Christian”. The “ian” tells me that is a residence. Canad-ians live in Canada. We live in Christ. Christian.
Anyway, that has a context.
Romans 9-11 is telling us that, too.
Romans 9 is telling us that the unbelieving Jews are reading in an EXPOSITORY way, not knowing the SPIRITUAL interpretation if Abraham’s promises.
Here is the EXPOSITORY promise given to Abraham that the Jews know…
They get a small piece of real estate in the middle east (which you call Palestine, but I call Israel), and that promise is thru Isaac. And because of Abraham, they think that they are the seed of Abraham thru the flesh. And they are indeed the seed of Abraham thru the flesh.
Romans 9 is explaining the SPIRITUAL interpretation, which is, we are the seed of Abraham thru Jesus, not Isaac, and Galatians 3:16 explains it.
Blind Jews believe that the INHERITANCE is a small piece of real estate. They are not seeing the spiritual promise, because they are blind to it.
When the blind can see, they finally realize it.
They are indeed the sons of Abraham thru the flesh.
But we are sons of Abraham thru the spirit.
That is the context of FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Everyone needs to read the whole chapter of Galatians 3, and not isolate one verse. It’s basically a rehash of Romans 9 and 10, put in a different way.
Now, regarding your last question:
“But regarding James my question remains, does the whole book only apply to a special group of Christians whom “God chose before He created the foundation of the world” or, does it simply apply to all Christians?”
Some principals that James discusses is universal. But the letter is to Jewish believers, specifically, because they are the ones who TRANSITIONED from the Law of Moses to the law of Christ. They were God followers already. And some Jews who are followers of Christ need education from time to time so that they don’t backslide back to the law of Moses again. Hence, the need to discuss FAITH to the Jews.
We lowly Gentiles began with the law of Christ.
People need to put the “for there is no difference” stuff in context of the chapter, instead of isolating one verse.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You asked, “But regarding James my question remains, does the whole book only apply to a special group of Christians whom “God chose before He created the foundation of the world” or, does it simply apply to all Christians?”
I have already replied in depth, but apparently need to clarify.
1) Nearly all those God chose before He created the foundation of the world were Jews.
2) Exceptions would be those who predated Israel like Noah, Job and Abraham was a Hebrew, but not a Jew..
3) Elijah, the Tishbite, was a gentile
4) The two witnesses of Revelation 11 are gentiles.
5) It is unclear whether the lady elect and her sister were firstfruit or not. While it isn’t possible to deceive the firstfruit elect with false doctrine (Matthew 24:24), 2 John warns to not allow those who teach falsely into our homes.
Hope this helps,
1saved
1saved,
Gentiles who convert to Judaism are not considered Gentiles anymore. As soon as they convert to Judaism, they are Jews.
Abraham, before he was circumcised, was a Gentile, too. Acts 15 discusses this.
Your #1 is completely out of context, regarding Ephesians. The words to the right of “TO BE” is what was chosen, Tom wasn’t chosen. No one “before the foundation of the world” was chosen, except for Jesus, chosen to be savior.
1 Cor 15:42-46 explains that we are all FORMED in a dirt body that is a WEAK dying (corruption) body, therefore, due to that weakness, we all were going to sin anyway, and Jesus was chosen to be the savior to the weak.
All of this is a story line of our free will, and is a battle between God and Satan. Satan doesn’t like it when we freely choose Christ. But angels rejoice!
Luke 15:10
Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I suspect the reason you don’t ask God for wisdom in faith is because you doubt He will answer you.
James said, “2 My brethren, count it all joy when YOU fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of YOUR faith produces [a]patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that YOU may be [b]perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 If any of YOU lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” James 1:2-5 NKJV
Note: The pronoun “you” and “your” does not include James. If James included himself, he would have used the pronouns “we” and “our.” Why would James not need to ask God in faith for wisdom in writing his epistle?
James, being firstfruit elect would have effectual faith to trust he was perfectly writing as God willed – inerrant and infallible.
Non-firstfruit elect would not have been given effectual faith and thus they doubt. If only they trusted His Word implicitly, they would be blessed with His wisdom.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved,
Again, the first verse settles it for me.
James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Besides, you sound like a preterist. I have two blog posts regarding end of time prophesy. I have no idea where you get the idea that Jesus was going to come back before John dies.
The anti-Christ must be a Jew, who walks into a temple and proclaims to be God. The Jews are the only ones looking for a Christ. And God will send those Jews strong delusion to believe that this Jew is Christ. Remember, he must perform miracles. Whoever your preterist anti-Christ was, he didn’t perform miracles.
Revelation 13:14
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Check out my blog. I have two posts concerning the end of days. John is the apostle to the Jews. It’s all about them.
Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David…
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Besides, you sound like a preterist. I have two blog posts regarding end of time prophesy. I have no idea where you get the idea that Jesus was going to come back before John dies.
Read John 21:20-23
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I [h]will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” NKJV
Ed, two blog posts on end of time prophecy, but no idea about what the Bible clearly says at end of the gospels.
I think you need to rethink what you are teaching others, because teachers will be held to a stricter standard.
1saved
1saved,
Your reference of John 21:20-23 is not evidence that Jesus told John that he would not die until Jesus comes back.
Jesus was saying, “What if I said…what’s it to you?”
And the Jews took it the wrong way.
However, BORN AGAIN people will NOT DIE ever. The body will die but we have eternal life already.
Psalm 118:17
I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord.
John 6:50
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
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.
1saved said:
“Ed, two blog posts on end of time prophecy, but no idea about what the Bible clearly says at end of the gospels.
I think you need to rethink what you are teaching others, because teachers will be held to a stricter standard.”
Again, I must lean on YOUR understanding? Not a chance, buddy! Not a chance.
Ed Chapman
1saved asks:
“What about 2 John 1:1,10-11,13?”
My response:
Galatians 2:7-9
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Ed,
You deflect like a democratic strategist when asked about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Getting back to whether all elect are Jews.
Are you saying the lady elect and her sister elect in 2 John were circumcised Jews?
If not, why cite Galatians 2:7-9?
Pretty weak defense of your position if you ask me.
1saved
1saved,
I’m in the GOP side of the house, and you sound like someone who has not read the Declaration of Independence regarding the words, “Self Evident”.
Galatians 2:7-9 is self evident that John is discussing Jews to Jews for Jews by the Jews. I don’t know how much plainer to make that statement.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
“Galatians 2:7-9 is self evident that John is discussing Jews to Jews for Jews by the Jews. I don’t know how much plainer to make that statement.”
Self evident is that John wrote 2 John at least 20 years after Paul wrote Galatians (48 AD). What was true in 48 AD may have changed by 70-100 AD.
In 48 AD John was in Jerusalem but by 70 AD he was in Ephesus with Mary the mother of Christ. Pretty clear to me he wrote to gentile women calling them elect. Your position is therefore untenable and without merit.
1saved
1saved,
I’m not buying into your logic that ANY epistle was ever written after 70 AD.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
No epistle written after 70 AD?
“This is how Apostle John came to Patmos, exiled by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianus in 95 AC. In Patmos, Apostle John conveyed the inhabitants to Christianity and wrote the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse.”
“Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the Book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished. (Pliny, Natural History 4.69–70; Tacitus, Annals 4.30)[5]”
Looks like you’re wrong again.
1saved
1saved,
Nope, I’m not wrong regarding this. The proof is WHO IS THE ANTI-CHRIST of the preterist belief system?
When Jesus asks WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST, WHOSE SON IS HE, and they answered THE SON OF DAVID.
That’s a Jew.
And we know that this Jew will enter a temple proclaiming to be God, and perform miracles. What miracles did your anti-Christ perform?
How many followers did this anti-Christ have?
You know, the Jews are the only ones who are looking for a Christ. They have to believe that their savior had come.
That anti-Christ will trick them into believing that he is their savior.
Why do you think that that it is stated that God will send them strong delusion to believe the lie?
In 70 AD, the Jews did not FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS…they fled the country. They were scattered throughout the nations. Russia has a lot of Jews. So does America. But they will still be GATHERED BACK to Israel.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
One other thing about the Jews, as Paul constantly makes note of, especially in Acts 17. Converts of Jews to Christianity have some real enemies with the Jews who are not converts to Christianity.
The Jews who are not converts considers them to be enemies of God. They don’t care what Gentiles believe. They only care what Jews believe. And they wanted Paul to be killed because of preaching Jesus to the Jews.
The Jews who converted to Christianity needs encouragement from Jews who are apostles to the Jews.
Hence the epistles of James, Peter, and John…and Paul’s letters to the Jews in 1 and 2 Thessalonians (from Acts 17).
Gentiles don’t need that kind of encouragement, because the unbelieving Jews don’t give a rats bland what we believe.
Now read James again, keeping that in mind.
Ed Chapman
Aidan and Ed,
Just ask God for wisdom in this matter and other matters. He will answer, if you do not doubt He will.
Rightly divide the Word in FAITH not research. The ancient Bereans searched the Scriptures, we Christians have the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. researches and where has it gotten him?
Do you think you have read more books or written more books or researched more than he has?
He claims he is “unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time” and we all know he’s wrong.
Don’t make the mistake Dr. MacArthur made by not trusting God to teach him the things of God by discernment after persevering through trials of faith.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved,
RIGHHHHHHHHHT….the ole “Lean not on your own understanding”, but lean on yours, huh?
Ed Chapman
1saved,
I don’t read anything from JMac. I don’t even like the guy.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
When discussing the elect, the meaning of pronouns “we” and “us” throughout the NT are spiritually discerned like all other things of God. If you lack wisdom in understanding any Bible passage or pronoun you are to ask God in faith and He will answer your questions (James 1:5), but you must not doubt He will answer or you will receive nothing (James 1:6-7).
Ephesians 1:4-12 NKJV
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a]made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and [a]prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, [b]both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
v4 “us” refers to the few elected before the foundation of the world, but “we” refers to all believers
v5 the first “us” refers to the few elected, but the second “us” refers to to all believers
v7 “we” refers to all believers
v8 Do all believers abound in all wisdom and prudence? No, then it must refer to the few chosen.
v9 Have all believers been made known the mystery of His will? No, then it must refer to the few chosen.
v11 “we” refers to all believers and the inheritance was predestined according to the purpose of Jesus who works all things according to the will of the Father.
v12 Can all believers claim they first trusted? No, it must refer to those first chosen before He created the foundation of the world.
In James 1:18, the word “elect” isn’t used – instead the word “firstfruit” is used which can only refer to those chosen first.
James isn’t writing to only the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. His epistle was circulated among all those seeking Christ and should be believed by all Christians. Sadly, Lutherans are told to disregard this book, because James said we are not saved by faith alone, which contradicts Lutheran doctrine.
I explained to Ed Chapman several months ago that there are four different Greek words for “elect” in Scripture.
Lady elect and Christ elect have one each.
However, for other elect there are two. One is for those few chosen before God created the foundation of the world and the other is for those who have heard the Word, believed and are saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Ed told me he would look deeply into the natter and I reminded him after a month, but to my knowledge he never did make a thorough study of the four different Greek words for “elect.”
I hope this answers your questions.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved,
The Isaiah passage that states, “Israel, mine elect” settles it for me. And we are not Jacob (Israel).
Therefore, each and every indication of the word “elect” is about the Jews only.
James letter is directed to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Some principals that James discusses are universal, however, things pertaining to the Jews pertain only to Jews. They had the law. We never did. They were already God followers thru the Law of Moses, and had been “chosen” to follow God thru Jesus.
James, Peter, and John are apostles to the Jews. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, but Paul went to the Jews FIRST, therefore, when Paul mentions “elect”, he is discussing Jews, not Gentiles.
All this talk about predestination, elect, chosen, etc., applying to gentiles is hogwash. There is a completely separate story regarding the salvation of the Jews, than there is for the Gentiles. And why is that? Because the UNSAVED Jews are still God followers thru the law of Moses. And they are blind, so they can’t see Jesus RIGHT NOW as the savior, UNTIL Jesus unblinds them.
It is due to this blindness that they are in a completely different category than we Gentiles.
And for anyone who states that they are blind due to disobedience is wrong. They are disobedient because they are blind.
The problem with explaining that is that Calvinists think the same thing about EVERYONE, that they are disobedient because they are blind.
But Romans 15:21 negates out that idea.
Therefore, Deuteronomy 29:4/Romans 8 is distinguished from Romans 15:21, and the conclusion is, Romans 9-11 isn’t about Gentiles, but the Jews.
Elect is not us, and Jame’s letter is to the Jews. So what if it was circulated. That doesn’t concern me. What concerns me is the opening statement of the letter. It didn’t say, “To all Christians worldwide”.
Luther didn’t like James all because of the word WORKS. He got confused at the USAGE of the word. He didn’t realize that if you believe (have faith), that you gotta WORK THAT FAITH, or in other words, LIVE IT, PROVE IT. And that is the context of the word works for James. Luther couldn’t comprehend what he was reading.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote, “Therefore, each and every indication of the word “elect” is about the Jews only.”
What about 2 John 1:1,10-11,13?
1 The Elder,
To the [a]elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth,
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen. NKJV
Were this lady and her sister both Jews or were they Christian, gentile women warned to not receive evil guests?
Note: 2 John was probably written between 70 and 100 A.D. in Ephesus.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved,
The following verses have always fascinated me:
Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
I am a Zionist.
John, being the apostle to the Jews, I conclude that the book of Revelation is to the Jews, not Gentiles. They are the ones looking for a Christ. We are looking for a 2nd coming, but the rapture is not the second coming.
In Acts, it is stated that Jesus comes back the same way he left.
Zecharia 14:1-5
1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
To me, that is the 2nd coming that Acts is talking about, when he touches his feet on this planet.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Jesus’ 2nd coming was to John on the Isle of Patmos fulfilling the prophecy that John wouldn’t die until Christ returns.
The Rapture is pre-wrath (Day of the Lord) and Jesus is seen walking on the clouds – not ascending to touch earth..
Jesus only comes to save Israel from the armies of the antichrist after Israel acknowledges Him as their Messiah.
The Day of the Lord is a series of catastrophic events beginning with a earthquake and ending Christ’s return to conquer the armies of the antichrist. Revelation descries these events as occurring throughout the world – not just to Israel.
“The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” Parable of the Workers
This parable explains in what order God will return judgement on the nations in the Day of the Lord.
As workers in the world, Israel was first, then Greece and Italy, then Spain and France, then South America, then Germany & Great Britain and last the USA.
So, judgement comes to the USA, then Great Britain & Germany, then catholic South America, France, Spain and Italy, then Greece and finally Israel.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved,
The rapture is not the 2nd coming.
And, I am a Zionist.
In Matthew 24 Mark 13, and Luke 21, Jesus mentions the 6th Seal…then he mentions the rapture right after that. That is in Revelation Chapters 6 and 7. Believers are not a part of Seal #7, except for the 144000 Jews.
Peter, in Acts, also mentions the 6th Seal, then he mentions the 144000 Jews (speaking in tongues, having visions, etc.).
In Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jesus never mentions anything about the 7th Seal. And the reason, believers won’t be here for it. We are not going to be here for the infamous “Mark of the Beast”, either.
I have no idea where you get the idea that “Jesus’ 2nd coming was to John on the Isle of Patmos fulfilling the prophecy that John wouldn’t die until Christ returns.”
You sound like a Preterist.
See my blog about this:
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2021/11/25/preterism-debunked-with-one-reference-conntect-the-dots/
and
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/70-weeks/
Ed Chapman
1saved,
Regarding your false conclusion about John not dying before Jesus returns, this is what Jesus actually said to John:
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
And why?
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.
Jesus was telling him that John was gonna die in captivity.
Peter is the one who instigated things by assuming that John was going to betray Jesus:
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Peter was jealous of John, because BOTH Peter and James leaned on the breast of Jesus during supper. And Peter thought that Jesus was telling James that he would betray Jesus in that verse 18 statement.
This is one of those, “This is an A and B conversation, so C your way out of it” moment.
So, Jesus rebuked Peter by saying:
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
And John, since this book of John was written by John, seems to have made mention of this because this conversation was NONE OF PETER’S BUSINESS.
Ed Chapman
No, Ed.
Jesus told Peter how he (Peter) would die.
Peter asked what about John.
Jesus replied what is that to you if I say he (John) will not die until I return.
The rumor went out that John would not die and John corrected the rumor – basically saying don’t jump to false conclusions.
Read the passage again and you’ll see.
1saved
1saved,
Oops. My bad. You are right about Peter’s death here.
However, Verse 23 still states:
” yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”
That was regarding John.
It’s interesting that John refers to himself here as:
20 the disciple whom Jesus loved
7 that disciple whom Jesus loved
John 13:23
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 19:26
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I appreciate you confirmed Jesus would return before John would die; fulfilling John 21:23.
So, Christ’s 2nd coming has already happened. Do you agree?
1saved
1saved asks:
” appreciate you confirmed Jesus would return before John would die; fulfilling John 21:23.
So, Christ’s 2nd coming has already happened. Do you agree?”
My response:
First of all, I did not confirm that at all.
I proclaimed that Jesus never said any such thing as you proclaim.
Dissect the following:
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Peter thought that John was going to BETRAY Jesus (Verse 20).
And Jesus REBUKES Peter by saying, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (verse 22). NOTE THE WORD “IF”.
Then see John’s re-clarification in verse 23:
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
NOTE the word IF? That word is not a confirmation statement that John shall not die UNTIL Jesus returns. It’s rhetorical. It’s a rebuking statement to Peter.
And no, I do not believe that Jesus has already come back a 2nd time.
Rapture happens in Revelation 7, the latter part. Jesus mentions this rapture RIGHT AFTER he mentions the 6th Seal of Revelation 6 in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
Matthew 24
Sixth Seal:
Matthew 24:29
Rapture:
Matthew 24:30-31
Mark 13
Sixth Seal:
Mark 13:24-25
Rapture:
Mark 13:26-27
Luke 21
Sixth Seal:
Luke 21:25-26
Rapture:
Luke 21:27
Please note that Jesus never mentions one word about the 7th seal at all. And it is because of THAT ALONE that your preterist “movement” is wrong.
The 7th Seal begins in Revelation 8, whereas the 6th Seal is in Revelation 6, and the rapture is in Revelation 7, after the sealing of the 144000.
Peter also references the 6th Seal…but his side by side is dealing with the sealing of the 144000, whereas Jesus’ side by side is dealing with BELIEVERS who are raptured out right after the 6th seal, after the 144000 (Revelation 7).
In the clouds is not the 2nd coming. When Jesus sets foot on this planet, that is the 2nd coming, and we come back with him.
Zecharia 14:1-5
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Ed Chapman
br.d
it appears that 1saved is presupposing the “IF” in Jesus’ statement as conclusive.
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This statement is a subjunctive conditional – in the form of a question.
A subjunctive conditional is not the same thing as an explicit declaration
1saved appears to be treating it as an explicit declaration even though it isn’t
That’s exactly right, brd. One can get the sense of what Jesus is saying from the context. Peter, mind your own business, if I wanted him to remain alive until I returned what would that have to do with you? Obviously the rest expected Jesus not to return for a very long time, at the end of the world (Mat. 24:1-24).
Aidan,
You wrote, “Obviously the rest expected Jesus not to return for a very long time, at the end of the world (Mat. 24:1-24).”
Wrong. The early church was expecting Christ to return shortly based upon this verse in John.
That is the entire argument for those who believe in the imminent return of Christ.
Imminent Return theory was first proposed by Arthur Pink around 1903, in which he stated Christ will come without warning and without any prophet or prophecy first, BECAUSE the early church believe He would come in their lifetimes.
This is why theologians say Elijah doesn’t come first in dispute with Jewish beliefs and contradicting Matthew 17:10-13.
I’m not talking here about John the Baptist coming before Jesus’ first ministry. I’m talking about Elijah coming before the Day of the Lord which precedes Jesus’ return to rapture the Church (Malachi 4:5,6).
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “The early church was expecting Christ to return shortly based upon this verse in John.”
Response: Lets take a look at some verses and context:
Jhn 21:22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”
Jhn 21:23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”
First of all, I do agree that Christ’s actual return could happen at any time (Mat. 24:36-44). But there is nothing in John 21 that would even suggest they thought Christ was going to return imminently or anytime soon. The fact that Jesus said Peter would be old before he died (verses 18-19) kind of confirms it would not be anytime soon. Jesus did come in judgment against Jerusalem in the lifetime of that generation (which He spoke to them about in Mat. 24:4-35). But that was not anytime soon either, almost 40 years later in 70 A.D. That certainly did happen in John’s lifetime, but it wasn’t Christ’s (parousia), His second coming if that’s what you were thinking about.
Regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.” Revelation 22:12 ESV
Coupling John 21:23 with Revelation 22:12 would give evidence that the early church was justified in believing Jesus would return in their lifetimes.
However, Peter wrote, “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:8,9 NKJV
Since 1 day to the Lord is as 1000 years, soon to Jesus is 2000+ years to our perspective.
1saved
1saved can’t make up his mind. First it was that John was alive when Jesus came back (PRETERIST), and now it’s 1000 years is a day.
He keeps changing his position, then calls me a fool. Interesting perspective.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
I believe successive generations believed that it was possible for Jesus to return in their lifetime, but that He hasn’t literally returned yet. If He had we wouldn’t be asking you, we would all know!
Matthew 24:26-28 NKJV
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”
Br.d,
“it appears that 1saved is presupposing the “IF” in Jesus’ statement as conclusive.
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”
In reply it should be noted the early church believed John would never die and undrestood the “if” as conclusive.
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple (John) would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him (Peter) that he (John) would not die, but, “If I (Jesus) will that he (John) remain till I (Jesus) come, what is that to you (Peter)?” NKJV
I added the identities of the pronouns to assist your understanding and to underscore that pronouns can modify different individuals or groups within the same sentence or passage of scripture – most notably in Ephesians 1. If you do not identify the correct individuals or groups by the various pronouns used, you will not be able to understand the passage or verse you’re reading.
So, I believe the “if” was indeed conclusive in this case and the prophecy was fulfilled.
1saved
it should be noted the early church believed John would never die and undrestood the “if” as conclusive.
br.d
Which was in fact an error – and the next verse tells you that.
23 ……Yet Jesus did not say to him (Peter) that he (John) would not die,
Therefore the early church’s false assumption was corrected by the text itself.
1saved
So, I believe the “if” was indeed conclusive
br.d
So if I understand the process here – we are firstly acknowledging falling into the same error the early church fell into – and secondly determining to not accept the verse which corrects that error.
Br.d
“So if I understand the process here – we are firstly acknowledging falling into the same error the early church fell into – and secondly determining to not accept the verse which corrects that error.”
The early church would have been told of this dialog between Jesus, Peter and John.
Many early church members then jumped to a wrong conclusion, which John corrected in ~85 to 100 A.D.
So now that you have the process, do you see I do understand this verse? Or do I need to explain myself further?
1saved
1saved
Many early church members then jumped to a wrong conclusion, which John corrected in ~85 to 100 A.D.
So now that you have the process, do you see I do understand this verse? Or do I need to explain myself further?
br.d
Yes I understand
You are telling me you are following the same wrong conclusion – and dismissing the verse which corrects it.
Br.d,
“You are telling me you are following the same wrong conclusion – and dismissing the verse which corrects it.”
I’ll try again. Here’s the NIV translation, which I seldom use.
21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” John 21:21-23 NIV
Got it?
No? Here’s the ERV – Easy To Read translation.
21 When Peter saw him behind them, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “Maybe I want him to live until I come. That should not matter to you. You follow me!”
23 So a story spread among the followers of Jesus. They were saying that this follower would not die. But Jesus did not say he would not die. He only said, “Maybe I want him to live until I come. That should not matter to you.”
Still having a problem understanding?
Ask someone else, because I can’t make it more clear than that without insulting your intelligence.
1saved
br.d
Lets do this in a way that makes it totally clear
1) Jesus made a subjunctive conditional statement in the form of a question.
2-A) The early church erroneously assumed the “IF” within Jesus’s statement was – (in your terminology) “Conclusive”.
2-B) In other words – the early church erroneously interpreted a subjunctive conditional as an explicit declaration.
3-A) You’ve stated you believe the “IF” within Jesus’ statement is (in your terminology) “Conclusive”
3-B) In other words – you take the same erroneous position as the early church
4-A) However – you also acknowledge the verse which correct the early church’s erroneous conclusion.
4-B) In other words – you dismiss the verse which provides the correction – and assume the erroneous position which the early church had of Jesus’ subjunctive conditional.
Feel free to let me know which number above does not entail your position
Br.d,
If I say I prefer pumpkin pie to pecan pie, what does that matter to you?
If Jesus told John he (John) will remain until Jesus returns, what does that matter to Peter?
The meaning of “if” is the same for each sentence above.
Whether “if” is subjective or conclusive doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter to you whether I actually prefer pumpkin over pecan, just as it shouldn’t matter to Peter whether or not Jesus actually wants John to remain alive until He returns.
Jesus was implying that Peter had no right to know what would be John’s fate.
The early church falsely assumed John would never die, which John corrected in his epistle.
Discernment tells us Jesus was strongly implying John would not die until He returned and that indeed happened.
1saved
1saved,
Here is what “discernment” tells me:
Jesus asks Peter THREE TIMES if Peter loves Jesus. THREE TIMES.
Then Peter seems to have a form of ADHD, and wants to CHANGE THE SUBJECT to John.
And Jesus said, “Hey, Peter, you freaking idiot, I’m talking to YOU! If you love me, then BY GOD FOLLOW ME. Forget about John. This conversation isn’t about John. It’s about YOU.
That is what discernment looks like to me.
Ed Chapman
br.d
I’m not interested in pecan or any other pie.
Please simply provide the number (or numbers) of statements I provided in summery of what you’ve states so far – which do not explain your position.
Br.d,
I don’t respond to unreasonable demands made by you or anyone else.
Ask someone else like Ed Chapman.
1saved
br.d
Ok no problem.
We can leave it as this:
IF Jesus wants me to be the smartest man in all human history what is that to you?
I won’t be upset if you take the “IF” in that statement as “conclusive” :-]
1saved
Discernment tells us Jesus was strongly implying John would not die until He returned and that indeed happened.
br.d
Pretty much every strange doctrine within the history of the church has been argued for by some kind of “discernment’
I wouldn’t touch that one with a ten foot pole! :-]
Brd, if Jesus did come in some way, it certainly wasn’t His parousia.
That’s worth thinking about.
I knew I recognized this guy!
George Fitt is 1saved, and we’ve been through this rodeo before with him. It’s funny, because he considers JMAC as being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but highly recommends that we buy his books! They are a must read!
That would be like listening to the devil cuz he gives such great advice!
But let’s LEAN on George’s understanding!
—————————————————-
George Fitt
November 10, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Ed Chapman,
I’m done responding to your foolishness.
Matthew 7:6 now.
————–
chapmaned24
November 10, 2019 at 5:02 pm
Oh… you are a quitter. That means…I WON. You have no pearls.
—————-
chapmaned24
November 10, 2019 at 5:10 pm
Hey, George, were you known as the call sign, 1Saved back in 2004? I found a blog that you frequented dividing Calvin and Servantis (spelling could be off), and they kinda kicked ya to the curb. Was that you?
—————-
heather
December 4, 2019 at 11:04 am
Ed Chapman in reply to George Fitt: “You seem a bit prideful.”
Heather: I second that! Except for the “a bit” part.
Here is some of what George Fitt says: “Yes, I have received the spiritual gift of discernment…. Are you calling this servant of God a liar? … I have been writing to the finest bible teachers for more than twenty years and never received a reply disputing what I said … stop claiming I’m wrong when you don’t know ANYTHING about me… God chose to give me a spiritual gift and chose to give you ____________…. Apparently, you think you were short changed by God and so you will take out your resentment on me. Who do you think you are? … I’m done responding to your foolishness.”
Heather: Ed and Br.d., I applaud your efforts to reason with George, but there’s no point in arguing with a know-it-all “prophet.” Clearly, all of the “finest bible teachers” and even God Himself affirm that this man is a specially-gifted, super-spiritually-discerning, never-wrong prophet. (Although I did find the whole exchange amusing, as well as disturbing. I’ve never quite seen anyone as prideful as George before. He’s one-of-a-kind. But then again, I guess you’d have to be one-of-a-kind to be that uniquely gifted and special!)
Some quotes I like:
“Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish.” – Euripides
“Is it difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” – Voltaire
“The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.” – Josh Billings
Source:
https://soteriology101.com/2019/11/05/is-man-centered-theology-bad-theology/
Hmmm!
If that is the case Ed – you have a KEEEEN eye!!! :-]
br.d,
In that same blog, 1saved asked you if you knew anyone that received gifts.
Then later states that he was given the gift of discernment.
Ed
br.d
OH! Yes I remember that!
The super-spiritual self-ingratiating “discernment” thing!
Now I remember!
Thanks Ed!
br.d,
Yep, that’s the guy.
I found this amusing:
George states:
November 10, 2019 at 12:07 am
” I have been writing to the finest bible teachers for more than twenty years and never received a reply disputing what I said”
Then states:
February 24, 2022 at 4:29 pm
“I told you before I have written to Dr. MacArthur to explain his doctrinal errors and he doesn’t reply.”
My response:
NO ONE is writing back to George.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
What if I told you that I am God.
Maybe I am God.
Does that mean that I am God?
The one thing that you are leaving out is the CONTEXT that Peter was looking at John, THINKING that John was going to BETRAY Jesus.
So, Peter, looking at John, asks Jesus:
“Is John going to betray you?”
And then Jesus states the WHAT IF, or MAYBE.
How does that equate to answering Peter’s question?
How is it that you can’t see the RHETORICAL answer that Jesus gave?
But again, I ask, WHO WAS YOUR ANTI-CHRIST? I know the answer is Nero. But how can that be if the Jews are looking for a Jew?
Not only that, Jesus never mentioned anything about the LIFE AND TIMES of this anti-Christ in the 7th Seal, because Jesus never mentions anything of the 7th seal in his OLIVETTE DISCOURSE.
After he mentions the 6th seal, the rapture is the LAST EVENT he mentions.
Your Preterist doctrine falls flat.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’m not a preterist and I’m finished replying to your foolishness (Proverbs 26:4,5).
1saved
1saved,
Yes, you are Preterist, if you believe that John was alive when Jesus came back.
You contradict your own belief. That, my friend, is foolishness.
Who was your anti-Christ?
Matthew 22:41-42
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Matthew 1:1
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David
The Jews are looking for a Christ, and that Christ will be THE Anti-Christ, and he must be a Jew. So that negates out Rome. That negates out anyone but a Jew. That negates out a Pope. It negates out the UN, and the US and the EU.
We are not Israel. God promised Abraham that his seed would inherit Canaan. And that promise was sealed by THE covenant of circumcision. And it does not hinge on the obedience, or disobedience of the Jewish people. It only hinged on the faith of Abraham. A Jewish person can be “cut off” from the promise, but CORPORATE (I hate that word), cannot be cut off from that promise.
To date, the SPECIFIC borders of Israel has not come to pass.
Preterists have cut off all of THE “IN THE FLESH” Israel. You can’t do that. Romans 11 tells us this and gives us a warning to not be high minded against the Jews.
Jeremiah 31:10, 35-37
10 Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.
Jeremiah 33:
20 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
23 Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying,
24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
25 Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.
——————————————————
Did Jesus mention anything about the 7th Seal in Matthew 24, Mark 13, or Luke 21?
No, he didn’t. He mentions the 6th seal, then the rapture. And that is it.
I challenge ANYONE to show me where Jesus mentions anything of the 7th Seal (and that would include the infamous Mark of the Beast) in his, what is it that they call it? Olive discourse? At least it wasn’t the ANCHOVY discourse!
Can you identify the 6th seal that Jesus mentions? Can you identify the 6th seal that Peter mentions in Acts? Can you identify the 6th Seal that Revelation mentions? Can you identify the 6th seal that Joel mentions?
We do indeed fly away in a secret rapture in Revelation chapter 7, and Jesus mentions it!
Preterism can be proven wrong by a lot of ways.
Therefore, your claim that John did not die until the return of Jesus is hogwash. IF IF IF was a REBUKING statement, because Peter thought that John was going to BETRAY Jesus. Peter was almost GIDDY about it, it seems to me.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
Now, regarding the usage of the word “chosen” in Ephesians, NO ONE was “chosen”. What was chosen is the words after the words, “to be”. The “US” is those to whom Paul is speaking, who are already Christians.
Christians were chosen TO BE Holy and Blameless…
Tom wasn’t chosen. But if Tom is a Christian, he was chosen to be holy and blameless.
Ed Chapman
Thank you for your reply, 1saved.
Ephesians 1:4-12 begins from vs. 3: But if you read Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) you will notice how verses 3-14 reads like one continuous sentence. Follow the pronouns “US,OUR, and WE” and it will become clear that all of it includes BOTH Paul [who is a Jew] and his readers [who are predominantly Gentile].
Eph. 1:3-14 YLT
3 Blessed [is] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless US in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 according as He did choose US in him before the foundation of the world, for OUR being holy and unblemished before Him, in love,
5 having foreordained US to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He did make US accepted in the beloved,
7 in whom WE have the redemption through his blood, the remission of the trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
8 in which He did abound toward US in all wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to US the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure, that He purposed in Himself,
10 in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth — in him;
11 in whom also WE did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will,
12 for OUR being to the praise of His glory, [even] those who did first hope in the Christ,
13 in whom YE also, having heard the word of the truth — the good news of YOUR salvation — in whom also having believed, YE were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
14 which is an earnest of OUR inheritance, to the redemption of the acquired possession, to the praise of His glory.
Therefore, the WE, the US, and the OUR are all included as one and NOT distinctive in the way you have distinguished them.
I am glad you have acknowledged that the the book of James applies to ALL of God’s people and not simply to Jewish Christians. Therefore you have no good reason to exclude James 1:18 which says, “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” This verse is talking about the new-birth. The tool by which this new-birth is accomplished is “the word of truth,” or the gospel (cf. James 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:23). Is this not how ALL Christians are brought forth and born into God’s family? For what purpose? James says, “SO THAT we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures” NASB95. The “so that” in this verse states both purpose and result here: God brought us forth “so that we are a kind of firstfruits,” etc.
In the Bible both first-fruits and first-born belonged to God in a peculiar way. Of all His creatures reborn children of God are His peculiar possession, sacred to Him, not only created by Him but also brought forth in a spiritual birth by means of the word of truth.
Aidan,
“Follow the pronouns “US,OUR, and WE” and it will become clear that all of it includes BOTH Paul [who is a Jew] and his readers [who are predominantly Gentile].
If what you say is true for “our”, “we” and “us” in Ephesians what about “you” and “your?” In other words, why are there pronoun changes if not separate groups being referred to?
13 In Him YOU also trusted, after YOU heard the word of truth, the gospel of YOUR salvation; in whom also, having believed, YOU were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[d] is the [e]guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
“You” and “your” doesn’t include Paul.
1) Paul did not hear the word of truth. He was called on the road to Damascus, but saved before God created the foundation of the world.
2) The gospel didn’t save Paul, he was foreknown and predestined for salvation.
3) Paul believed and was sealed – the Ephesians also were – as are all believing Christians.
4) Paul receives an inheritance as well as the Ephesians and all believers.
Paul was saved and then called.
The Ephesians and all hearing the Word were/are called and then may be saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Hope this helps,
1saved
1 Saved, you wrote:
“If what you say is true for “our”, “we” and “us” in Ephesians what about “you” and “your?” In other words, why are there pronoun changes if not separate groups being referred to?” “You” and “your” doesn’t include Paul.”
Response:
“You” and “your” does ALSO include Paul! I will use Young’s literal translation again. Notice how the pronouns, “ye” “your” and “our” are connected with each other to include both Paul and the Ephesians with the same blessing of the Holy Spirit in verses 13 and 14.
Paul writes:
13 in whom YE also, having heard the word of the truth — the good news of YOUR salvation — in whom also having believed, YE were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, 14 which is an earnest of OUR inheritance, to the redemption of the acquired possession, to the praise of His glory.
Note how the word “also” which is employed twice plays an important role in uniting “ye” and “our” together with this same blessing “in Christ”! In other words, Paul says to the Ephesians ‘in Christ ye ALSO having believed were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of OUR inheritance.
You wrote:
“Paul did not hear the word of truth. He was called on the road to Damascus, but saved before God created the foundation of the world. The gospel didn’t save Paul, he was foreknown and predestined for salvation.”
Response:
It is not true that Paul didn’t hear the gospel, for he heard Stephen preach Christ and probably saw the miracles Stephen performed (Acts 6:8-7:60) yet Paul was involved in putting him to death for it. Also, Paul met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul not only heard the word of truth, he came face to face with the Word of truth. And you are greatly mistaken, Paul was not saved UNTIL he had his sins washed away by the blood of Christ in baptism (Acts 22:16)!
Acts 22:14-16 NKJV
14 Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. 15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’
Aidan,
You wrote, “Paul was not saved UNTIL he had his sins washed away by the blood of Christ in baptism (Acts 22:16)!”
There is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), which is the baptism of fire when we receive the in-dwelling Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11).
Our sins are not washed away by water, whether sprinkled or immersed.
At salvation our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ.
1saved
1saved,
YOU WROTE: “There is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), which is the baptism of fire when we receive the in-dwelling Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). Our sins are not washed away by water, whether sprinkled or immersed. At salvation our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ.”
RESPONSE: That’s right, by the time Paul wrote Ephesians he said that there was only one baptism (Eph. 4:5).That means there can only be one baptism today. So which one is it, water baptism or baptism of fire? It can’t be both, for that would mean that there are two baptisms not one! So, which one is it?
Lets have a look at your passage: The context is John baptizing in the Jordan River, and the religious leaders coming out to be baptized yet unwilling to repent! Therefore John says:
Matthew 3:10-12 NKJV
10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
In Matthew 3 NKJV there are three baptisms under consideration, a baptism with water, a baptism with the Holy Spirit, and a baptism with fire. John is baptizing with water, and only Jesus is the one who would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. The context shows that the baptism of fire is one of judgment, and we know only Jesus can administer that baptism. Likewise, John makes clear that Jesus is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire are not baptisms that humans can administer, only Jesus can administer them.
In the Great Commission MEN ARE TO ADMINISTER THAT BAPTISM which we know is water and will continue until the end of the world. Note the following:
Mark 16:15-16 NKJV
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
SUMMARY:
1. Matthew 3 makes clear that ONLY Jesus would administer Holy Spirit baptism and the baptism with fire.
2. Matthew 28 makes clear that MEN are to administer the baptism of the Great commission until the end of the age.
CONCLUSION: Therefore the ONE baptism being administered today cannot be Holy Spirit baptism or baptism with fire, for no man can administer them except Jesus. The only baptism administered today is the baptism of the Great Commission. And it is administered by men not Jesus. It is also clear from a simple reading of the book of Acts that this baptism is in water.
But going back to our original point: either way Paul was not saved until Acts 22:16 when he had his sins washed away!
Regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote much, but said little.
And your conclusion is disproven by a few words from Christ – “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Two different statements separated by “and lo”.
1) Go forth and baptize with water
2) I’m with you always, even to the end of the age
John the Baptist only had water to baptize, the disciples only had water to baptize and Jesus didn’t baptize anyone.
If “holy” water washes away sin, what need do we have for Christ’s sacrifice?
If a priest can absolve our sins, why do we need to make a commitment to follow Christ?
If there is something called “original sin” which needs to be washed off infants, why do Jews not know this and why is there not a single instance of a baby being baptized in all of Scripture?
CONCLUSION:
One baptism which is by fire through receiving the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
1saved
1saved,
In this, regarding Baptism, we fully agree.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Jews have BAR/BAT Mitzvah. 12 years old for girls (BAT), 13 years old for boys (BAR). Until then, they have no knowledge of good and evil.
And that is their spiritual death date:
Romans 7:7-9
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 3:20
…by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
“In this, regarding Baptism, we fully agree.”
Thank you for sharing.
1saved
1saved,
I said much but you understood little because you’re not listening! First of all, let me clear up some of your misunderstandings:
1. I never said that ““holy” water washes away sin.” I clearly said that the blood of Christ washes away sin in baptism.
2. I never said “a priest can absolve our sins.” I don’t know where you got that idea from???
3. I don’t believe in “original sin” or “infant baptism.” Again, I don’t know where you got that idea from???
4. Please don’t repeat any of these again, it’s not what I believe!
You wrote:
“And your conclusion is disproven by a few words from Christ – “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
“Two different statements separated by “and lo”.
1) Go forth and baptize with water
2) I’m with you always, even to the end of the age”
Response:
No, but instead, you’ve just proven my case because you’ve just acknowledged that it is “Go forth and baptize with water…even to the end of the age.” Which means that the only baptism there is today is water baptism.
Aidan,
One baptism – that of fire by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
Water baptism is inconsequential; a ritual only.
Paul was chosen (elected/saved) before the creation of the foundation of the world and called on the road to Damascus.
His calling was irresistible.
I can’t speak about what you believe regarding baptism and washing away sin, but there are >1,000,000,000 Catholics who think holy water, infant baptism and priest absolutions are legitimate.
Who’s to say whether others may benefit from the truth I’m revealing on this website.
It’s not just about you, Aidan.
1saved
1saved,
You say you are revealing the truth. If you were revealing the truth you wouldn’t contradict the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit says there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) — but you say there’s two.
The Holy Spirit says “baptism now saves you (1 Pet. 3:21) — but you say “Water baptism is inconsequential.”
The Holy Spirit says Paul was still in his sins in (Acts 22:16) — but you say Paul was “saved before the creation.”
The Holy Spirit reveals it’s the “unquenchable fire” of judgment in (Mat. 3:10-12) — but you reject His revelation.
The Holy Spirit said nothing about an “irresistible call” — but you say “His calling was irresistible.”
You acknowledge that the baptism to the end of the age (Mat. 28:19) is water baptism — but then reject it as the “one baptism” of today. You say that “Jesus didn’t baptize anyone” — and yet He baptized the apostles with the Holy Spirit in (Acts 2) and the Cornelius’ household in (Acts 10) — with no other such instances to report after that.
You are right, it’s not about ME but about revealing the truth! And the truth is is that you consistently contradict the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit!
Regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “You say you are revealing the truth. If you were revealing the truth you wouldn’t contradict the Holy Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit says there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) — but you say there’s two. Reply: No, I say one baptism and it is by fire of the Holy Spirit and not water.
The Holy Spirit says “baptism now saves you (1 Pet. 3:21) — but you say “Water baptism is inconsequential.” Reply: Yes, both are true since only baptism by fire by the Holy Spirit matters.
The Holy Spirit says Paul was still in his sins in (Acts 22:16) — but you say Paul was “saved before the creation.” Reply: As firstfruit, Paul was saved, then called, then sealed and then will be glorified. His calling was irresistible. Those non-firstfruit are called then may be saved by grace through faith in Christ. Their calling is resistible. After being saved they are sealed and will be glorified.
The Holy Spirit reveals it’s the “unquenchable fire” of judgment in (Mat. 3:10-12) — but you reject His revelation. Reply: No I don’t. Whatever gave you that idea?
The Holy Spirit said nothing about an “irresistible call” — but you say “His calling was irresistible.” Reply: Resistible and irresistible calling are both common terms used in theology. Look up the definitions of words you don’t understand.
You acknowledge that the baptism to the end of the age (Mat. 28:19) is water baptism — but then reject it as the “one baptism” of today. Reply: I rejected your notion that the two statements in Matthew 28:19 are conjoined. They are two separate statements.
You say that “Jesus didn’t baptize anyone” — and yet He baptized the apostles with the Holy Spirit in (Acts 2) and the Cornelius’ household in (Acts 10) — with no other such instances to report after that. Reply: Jesus didn’t baptize anyone with water. I apologize for not clarifying myself earlier.
You are right, it’s not about ME but about revealing the truth! And the truth is is that you consistently contradict the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit! Reply: Again, I’m not contradicting the truth and what is giving you the misguided thoughts you have? Are you being led by the Holy Spirit or something else?
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “No, I say one baptism and it is by fire of the Holy Spirit and not water.”
Response: Not true, you acknowledge two baptisms in your next statement, for you wrote: “Water baptism is inconsequential. Yes, both are true since only baptism by fire by the Holy Spirit matters.”
You wrote: “As firstfruit, Paul was saved, then called, then sealed and then will be glorified. His calling was irresistible.”
Response: It would be handy if you could provide scripture for a “firstfruit’s” so-called “irresistible” calling.
Regarding the “unquenchable fire” of judgment in (Mat. 3:10-12) — you reject this. You wrote: “No I don’t. Whatever gave you that idea?”
Response: The fact that you reject the context concerning what the “fire” is.
You wrote: “Resistible and irresistible calling are both common terms used in theology. Look up the definitions of words you don’t understand.”
Response: Again, you need to provide scripture where the Holy Spirit speaks about firstfruits being “irresistibly called.”
You wrote: “I rejected your notion that the two statements in Matthew 28:19 are conjoined. They are two separate statements.”
Response: You can’t separate them. The second statement is a promise to be always with the disciples “even to the end of the age” AS THEY — “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”
You wrote: “Jesus didn’t baptize anyone with water.”
Response: That’s irrelevant to the discussion.
You wrote: “Are you being led by the Holy Spirit or something else?”
Response: If you want to be led by the Spirit follow the word!
Regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote: “No, I say one baptism and it is by fire of the Holy Spirit and not water.”
Response: Not true, you acknowledge two baptisms in your next statement, for you wrote: “Water baptism is inconsequential. Yes, both are true since only baptism by fire by the Holy Spirit matters.”
Reply to your response: 1 + 0 = 1
1 consequential baptism by fire and 1 inconsequential water baptism equals 1 baptism
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are one God, which is not explained in Scripture.
Do you deny the Trinity?
As to everything else you have responded to. I haven’t the time nor inclination to discuss them further, since you demand scriptural proof for things of God which are spiritually discerned.
However there is nothing keeping you from asking God in faith for answers to your questions.
1saved
1 saved,
You wrote: “Water baptism is inconsequential.”
Response: So you think being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,…is inconsequential? Right, got it! And yet it is the One Baptism that can be scripturally proven to still exist — today.
Reply to your response: 1 + 0 = 1
1 unproven baptism by fire and 1 proven water baptism equals 1 baptism.
You wrote: “I haven’t the time nor inclination to discuss them further, since you demand scriptural proof for things of God which are spiritually discerned.”
Response: A man who is unwilling to give scripture for what he claims is from the word of God is not to be trusted!
Regards,
Aidan
1saved
If you cared to read the context and discern it properly, you would see that the “fire” in Matthew 3 is the “unquenchable fire” of the day of judgment.
But as the saying goes:
“There are none so blind as those who don’t want to see!”
Matthew 3:7-12 NKJV
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
The baptism of fire is one thing, but the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is a miraculous event that is completely different, that only a few received “directly” from heaven (Acts 2:1-4; Acts 10:44-48). You should not confuse this with the “indwelling of the Spirit” which is something every single Christian receives, but in a non-miraculous way as per (Acts 2:38-39).
Regards,
Aidan
1saved
If you cared to read the context and DISCERN it properly
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Leaning upon MY understanding = DISCERN it properly
This practice is called “Self-Canonization”
It is a derivative of Catholicism.
Yes, Brd, I think he believes he has the gift of *discernment* and it has quite a similar tone to the Catholic hierarchy who used it to control the masses in old Catholic Ireland – and everywhere else for that matter.
Many Christians in the charismatic world – walk around with their heads in the clouds – having all sorts of self-ingratiating imaginations of all sorts of spiritual things.
Some of them posture as having a prophetic gift.
And if you examine the prophesies carefully – you can recognize an operating principle that is very common within the practice of palm-reading and fortune telling.
Declarations are heavily cloaked within inferential language strategically designed such that it can be taken any number of ways and therefore can’t be proven wrong.
If you agree with me – then you obviously have a divine gift of discernment “wink wink” ;-]
Brd, you wrote: “Declarations are heavily cloaked within inferential language strategically designed such that it can be taken any number of ways and therefore can’t be proven wrong.”
Response: We had a fella several years ago create a following after himself and then split the church using that precise strategy! They speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. It’s a way for them to keep moving the goal posts every time you try to pin them down.
Yes!
I think these are people who are very intuitive – and have a pretty good idea of what their audience is going to want to hear. And they tailor their declarations to allow people to interpret those things. I think Paul called that phenomenon “itching ears”
Aidan,
You wrote, “If you cared to read the context and discern it properly, you would see that the “fire” in Matthew 3 is the “unquenchable fire” of the day of judgment.”
Here’s a link you might like to review.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-Holy-Spirit-Described-As-Fire
Acts 2:3 describes the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire, which being clearly stated does not require discernment.
At best, water baptism is a call for repentance – it does not wash away sin..
1saved
1saved, I don’t think James is applying this just to himself but to all who are in Christ. To be “brought forth,” is the same verb that is used in v.15. Sin brings forth death, that is its nature. But with His word of truth God brings forth a holy first fruits that are consecrated, freed from sin and death. This undoubtedly means new-birth/regeneration. Therefore, I believe that James did indeed become a disciple as did his mother and brothers (Acts 1:14).
Thanks for all your responses. I think it was Eric who said that the bible needed to be the last word not people’s opinions. (Apologies if it was someone else.) I totally agree but therein lies a lot of my problem. I find when I read the bible I very easily get filled with fear and even when I read more comforting passages, I read on and get to the stuff that puts me back in a place of anxiety. I’ve just started Leighton’s book on God’s Provision For All. One of the verses he quotes in support of God’s rule over mankind is Proverbs 16 vs 4 where it says “God has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for destruction.” I honestly don’t want the calvinistic interpretation to be right but how do you get over verses like this where it seems God has specifically made people for destruction? 🤔
Sorry Sian for missing your post in “pending”. Here is something to think about for – Proverbs 16:4 NKJV — The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Calvinistic leaning translations don’t clarify what “for Himself” really means.
It literally means – God makes everything to literally – לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הו – “to answer to Him”. This is especially true for the wicked who will answer to God in a day of doom with which He will judge them. See Job 21:30, Jer 17:18. But the verse doesn’t teach they were made/born wicked to be destroyed later. The word “has made” is – פָּעַל – “works”. It has to do with working with something already made. It is not about creating something, and especially not inferring ordaining something before creation.
The LXX has this as verse 9 and translates it this way – “All of the works of the Lord [are done] with righteousness; and the ungodly [man] is kept for the evil day.”
The NIV has the right idea – [Pro 16:4 NIV] The LORD works out everything to its proper end–even the wicked for a day of disaster.
Thanks for the replies. I totally agree Eric, that the bible has to trump man. My problem comes with reading it and not ending up just feeling very anxious about what it seems to be saying. For example, I’ve just started reading Leighton’s book ‘God’s Provision For All’ and one verse cited is Proverbs 16 vs 4…that sort of verse throws me in a spin because not wanting to believe God would create wicked people to do evil things doesn’t make it not true. It’s only not true if it really isn’t true but verses like that come across as very emphatic and hard to get around. I’m not sure how to discern with conviction what the bible is saying when the Clements, Augustins, Calvins, Lewis’s, Tozers et al have gone before me and surpassed my intelligence and spirituality yet don’t agree on this most fundamental aspect of God’s character. 😱
Sian: “one verse cited is Proverbs 16 vs 4…that sort of verse throws me in a spin because not wanting to believe God would create wicked people to do evil things doesn’t make it not true.”
Proverbs 16:4 says “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
In no way does this say or mean that God created wicked people to do evil things. All it means is that God has a day of judgment/doom in store for wicked people.
Jeremiah 17:18 also refers to a “day of evil,” when God will pour out destruction on those who persecute Jeremiah.
Job 21:30 confirms this, that “the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction” and “shall be brought forth to the day of wrath”.
Romans 2:5 says “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgments will be revealed.”
Proverbs 16:4 is just saying that wicked people will face a day of judgment someday, that God has a day of judgment and wrath planned, not that God made wicked people be wicked or do evil things. That is something Calvinists read into the verse.
I hope this helps.
I think you are right to not want to believe that God would create wicked people to do evil things – because you know that is not God’s character. Don’t let Calvinists manipulate/shame you into accepting something you know is wrong, that violates God’s character. The reason the things they teach sound wrong … is because they ARE wrong.
Keep digging for answers; you’ll find them. God bless you and guide you on your search for His truth.
I think you are absolutely right not to throw any bit of the Bible in the trash heap. Lord save me from pride, but all the seeming Biblical contradictions have disappeared on me. Whereas the Determinists gain lots of theological freedom to maneuver, I seem to have none. It all makes too much sense. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer is the best answer (William of Occam was an Arminian, and one of the founders of modern science), and Determinism is too mind-numbingly complex for my brain. I can barely comprehend John 3:16.
Jesus seems to flat contradict Himself in Mark 9:40 and Matt 12:30, but of course there is are many many deep truths hidden between those two verses. Do you see them? Same with all the supposed contradictions. This is double-edged sword stuff. Hugely powerful.
Loosely quoted, AW Pink (yes, a Determinist) said ‘It is never right to do wrong.’ I believe that, but I see God “allowing” (yes I know some don’t like that concept) evil to occur for His greater purpose. It’s the problem of pain, and I think CS Lewis covers that pretty well.
Job helps a bit. Consider it a legal thing. God progressively allows Satan to breach the hedge. But check out the end man. The good stuff begins with Elihu (ch 32 ff). There are no flies on God’s back. God is Good. God is Love.
So to accept the Determinist view of Pro 16:4 is to reject Ps 5:4, 1 John 1:5 etc but esp Eze 36:9. Solomon is simply saying that God allows evil, because it has it’s purpose (in the Age of Grace – perhaps in the Millenium, as J rules with a rod of iron, people will not be able to get away with so much sin). Determinism makes no sense if wickedness is an abomination in 16:5. And how about The Fear of the Lord (Pro 1:7) as referenced in 16:6?
Regarding all those famous theologians, ya just need to know the Word for yourself. As a practical matter, I listen to the Bible (a lot). My favorite is Alexander Scourby (yeah Determinist KJV, but still pretty credible). It still took decades (and I haven’t arrived yet) but after awhile the last pieces of the puzzle all look like they fit.
I appreciate Leighton’s Duck/Rabbit analogy, but it presupposes the “Both Sides” view discussed above (right?). The Duck is just Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
Happy to discuss other Determinist-sounding verses. Iron sharpens iron. My email is on the About page at WordLight.net if you want to take the discussion off this thread.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” The verb “shall” followed by an infinitive (profit) indicates future tense – that the Lord is communicating to someone who, through wrong priorities, may never receive the gift of eternal life by faith and wind up losing his own soul. In present tense, the destiny of this soul is “in play” as is the case when the Lord says, “Enter ye in at the strait gate…”
These verses are applicable to lost people in hearing distance of God’s word – lost people, dead in trespasses and sins. These verses conflict with the idea that a person’s destiny, heaven or hell, was already established before that person was even born.
br.d
Yes!
And since Calvinism is a system of DOUBLE-SPEAK – we shouldn’t be surprised to find the Calvinist has to find a way for scripture to be DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Its called making something after one’s image! :-]
Hey Eric, thanks so much for your reply. Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. Just read through the verses you quoted. You’re right in that there is a double edged sword angle… I guess I struggle with which sword is the right one. That probably makes no sense but it does to me. 😂 That’s very kind of you re. discussing further… I may well take you up on that although you may end up wanting to gnaw your own elbows off with frustration! I really would like to just lay this whole issue to rest but know that unless I am convinced one way or the either I’ll be unable to. One thing I really don’t get is how calvinists can sound so upbeat and retain a sense of humour and energy to persuade others about their perspective. If I truly believed it was right I would find it very hard to want to promote my theology. I mean how could you be frustrated with arminians or provisionists in the face of their potentially impending doom? I’d feel awful for all the potentially damned not annoyed they couldn’t understand determinism. And sad God had chosen to determine them to believe error. 🤔
Just throwing this out there because it popped in my head, but how would Calvinists answer this question:
At what point exactly did Adam become “dead” (dead as a dead body who can’t hear God or think about spiritual things or make any decision on his own, as Calvinists describe spiritual death)?
If they say it was at the point he ate the fruit, then Adam heard God calling him in the garden and understood what God was saying to him while he was supposedly too dead to hear/understand/respond to God.
If they say it was any point after that, such as upon being expelled from the garden, then Adam sinned but didn’t die when God said he would (“in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”).
So when did Adam “die” in the way Calvinists define spiritual death?
Spiritual death cannot be – and is not – equivalent to the Calvinist’s idea of totally-depraved physical death. Calvinists define “spiritual death” wrong (and “sovereignty”), and then base their whole theology upon it.
Heather,
You asked:
“Just throwing this out there because it popped in my head, but how would Calvinists answer this question:
At what point exactly did Adam become “dead” (dead as a dead body who can’t hear God or think about spiritual things or make any decision on his own, as Calvinists describe spiritual death)?
If they say it was at the point he ate the fruit, then Adam heard God calling him in the garden and understood what God was saying to him while he was supposedly too dead to hear/understand/respond to God.
If they say it was any point after that, such as upon being expelled from the garden, then Adam sinned but didn’t die when God said he would (“in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”).
So when did Adam “die” in the way Calvinists define spiritual death?
Spiritual death cannot be – and is not – equivalent to the Calvinist’s idea of totally-depraved physical death. Calvinists define “spiritual death” wrong (and “sovereignty”), and then base their whole theology upon it.”
I’m not a Calvinist and therefore can’t provide their position, but I hope I can still enlighten you.
The word “day” has several meanings”
1) God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. Genesis 1:5a NKJV
2) So the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5b NKJV
3) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. @ Peter 3:8 NKJV
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17 NKJV
The meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 2:17 is #3 above, which is 1000 years.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Genesis 5:5 NKJV
930 < 1000 Therefore, in the day Adam ate he died.
1saved
1saved,
Your explanation is just another form of ORIGINAL SIN, which is discussing NATURAL DEATH of the BODY, which those who conform to ORIGINAL SIN references Romans 5, NATURAL DEATH of the BODY.
You concentrate on Adam’s AGE of when he died NATURALLY.
This has NOTHING to do with SPIRITUAL DEATH, for which Genesis 2:17 is discussing.
The major malfunction of many is thinking that Genesis 2:17 is discussing NATURAL DEATH of the BODY. It isn’t.
Genesis 2:17 is discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH, i.e. SEPARATION FROM GOD, not NATURAL DEATH of the BODY.
Adam SPIRITUALLY DIED at the FIRST BITE of that fruit. His age of natural death has nothing to do with Genesis 2:17.
And that separation from God was only TEMPORARY, because God sacrificed an animal. That killing of an animal sufficed TWO THINGS.
1. Skins covered their NAKEDNESS of their genitals (FLESH)
2. BLOOD “COVERED” their NAKEDNESS (sin)
Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
The relationship CONTINUED…until…more sin. More sin, more sacrifices.
Jesus is the last sacrifice ever needed.
What do you want to bet that the animal that God killed in Genesis was a LAMB, as Jesus is the LAMB OF GOD.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
“Adam SPIRITUALLY DIED at the FIRST BITE of that fruit. His age of natural death has nothing to do with Genesis 2:17.”
How would Adam have understood the meaning of “spiritual” death?
Answer is he wouldn’t.
God told Adam not Eve (Eve hadn’t been created yet). So, Adam must have told Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit.
The serpent deceived Eve, but Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).
So, why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
1 saved
1saved,
You had said:
“So, why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?”
My response:
First of all, I don’t think you grasp the idea that he spiritually died the moment of the first bite.
However, why would he eat, when he knew?
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
The following is in regards to your DIRT BODY (Pay attention to the “SOWN” part, and the difference between NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL, and which came first.
1 Corinthians 15:42-46 gives the answer:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
Adam was going to DIE a natural death NO MATTER WHAT, unless he ate of THAT OTHER TREE.
The body that Adam began with is no different than ours.
A natural dying (corrupt) body, that is WEAK and DISHONORABLE.
And I’m quite certain that YOU STILL SIN. We all do, so don’t act as if you don’t.
Now, why would you STILL sin if you know it’s wrong?
That’s a dumb question, huh?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’ll answer the last first.
You wrote:
“And I’m quite certain that YOU STILL SIN. We all do, so don’t act as if you don’t.
Now, why would you STILL sin if you know it’s wrong?
That’s a dumb question, huh?”
My reply:
Those who are born again are dead to sin, so no need to worry about the effects of sin (Romans 6:2).
Our hearts are sprinkled with the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22) and our sin debt has been fully paid. https://realfaith.com/daily-devotions/jesus-paid-our-debt/
Non-born again Christians sin because it is unavoidable. Driving even one mile an hour over the speed limit is technically a violation of the law and every violation of the law is sin (1 John 3:4).
Your text again:
“You had said:
“So, why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?”
My response:
First of all, I don’t think you grasp the idea that he spiritually died the moment of the first bite.
However, why would he eat, when he knew?
…Adam was going to DIE a natural death NO MATTER WHAT, unless he ate of THAT OTHER TREE.”
My reply:
Adam was going to die a natural death at some point in time, just not within 1000 years, unless he ate from the tree of life.
So again, why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
You didn’t answer my question. When will you answer my question or admit you don’t have a clue?
1 saved
Ed,
Do you need help to answer my question, “Why did Adam eat the fruit when he wasn’t deceived?”
Here’s a link: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Adam-eat-the-fruit-when-he-wasnt-deceived
One person called it a Catch-22. Some would call it a conundrum or a paradox. Can you discern the correct answer?
1saved
Heather,
Ooooooh, I love your question!!
Ed Chapman
Heather
At what point exactly did Adam become “dead”
br.d
“Total Depravity” in Calvinism is a subterfuge
It is designed to OBFUSCATE the doctrine of decrees which stipulates that the state of nature (including man’s nature) at every nano-second in time is 100% meticulously predestined.
John Calvin
-quote
men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
John Calvin
-quote
Since this [Adam’s inclination to eat the fruit] CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the……god (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Calvinism’s TULIP was developed a little over 100 years after Calvin’s death.
It was published in the form of a marketing booklet.
The “T” in the TULIP effectively OBFUSCATES the fact that in Calvinism – the state of man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined – and man has NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of that which is predestined.
Calvinists use the “T” in the TULIP to FALSELY attribute man’s eternal destiny to the state of man’s condition – *AS-IF* the state of man’s condition determines what man’s eternal destiny will be.
The truth is – in Calvinism – the infallible decree – at the foundation of the world – before the earth and man are created – determines every nano-second of every man’s existence – as well as determining the state of man condition.
Total Depravity in Calvinism functions as a lie of omission.
The Calvinist is trying to make Calvinism APPEAR to be what NORMAL Christians read in scripture.
In order to so that – the Calvinist has to OBFUSCATE the doctrine of decrees.
ON GOT QUESTIONS.ORG
Recently a young and vulnerable believer approached me concerning materials he was reading at Got-Questions
The materials he was reading were without a doubt Calvinist materials.
I therefore went to take a look at the site myself – and in the search field simply entered “Calvinism”
This resulted from that search yielded possibly up to 100 pages of Calvinist content.
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS SITE TO ANYONE!!
As I have said repeatedly – Calvinist language is a highly misleading language.
Anyone who is not familiar with the risk involved in subjecting themselves to misleading language is going to be deceived by it
Please let anyone who asks you concerning this
This site is more than likely a Calvinist site presenting itself as something other than a Calvinist site.
br.d
I have been aware of Got Questions and also called out how they are Calvinistic. Of course, I was “fact checked” and the ministry of truth determined that got questions was not Calvinistic, because got questions says so. They say they are non-denominational. Clearly we should trust them.
br.d
Thank you Kurt – yes!
You’re discernment was right-on!
We have some very stark and clear indicators
1) We have Calvinist pastors who are not honest with their congregations and will not divulge they are teaching Calvinism to their congregations.
2) We have Calvinist pastors who have no problem justifying outright lying to pastoral search committees looking for a replacement for a pastor who has retired etc.
3) In regard to (2) we have pastors from the denominations effected by this pattern who are literally begging Calvinist pastors to be honest about their Calvinism when they apply for a pastoral position at a non-Calvinist church.
4) We have Calvinists who infiltrate non-Calvinist churches and volunteer to teach Sunday-school – with the strategy of surreptitiously bringing Calvinism into that church
5) I consistently bump into Calvinists online who will not acknowledge they are Calvinists
6) Calvinist published materials saturate the Christian marketplace – the vast majority of which are strategically not advertised as Calvinist materials – because they know that a percentage of consumers would not buy them if they knew they were Calvinist materials.
All of these indicators point to an ongoing pattern of behavior.
So it makes perfect sense to find a Calvinist web-site which refuses to acknowledge it is a Calvinist web-site
The thing I can’t get over is the deception. Presbyterians at least openly admit their Calvinism. I can respect that. Even before I had studied much I knew what Calvinism (by that name) basically was (though not TULIP etc, just the predetermined thing).
I didn’t know what “Reformed” (I figured it was just Protestant, or any Christian who wasn’t Catholic) and certainly didn’t know “The Doctrines of Grace” was anything. Had I had seen “TULIP” mentioned anywhere, I would have looked it up (as I did when I did find out about it).
Reformed and doctrines of grace sound innocent enough to gloss over. So they use those terms INSTEAD of the others.
The sneakier ones will not even use those terms, but hid it carefully in their statement of faith. You have to know the doctrine well to be able to spot it!
Some are so careful you can only tell by looking at a few red flags in their faith statement and they recommend a book study of R.C. Sprohl or something.
Why hide it? Why the deception? Why say you are not seeker friendly, you will preach hell and hard truths, but then hide your theology?
br.d
IMHO there are a couple of reasons why this is the case with Calvinsm
Firstly – we have the human psychological response to a belief in Determinism.
We must understand that determinism is a radical belief system.
Another belief system that is similarly radical is Solipsism
Imagine the consequence to a married man who embraced the belief of Solipsism.
Imagine how is wife would feel – when he treats her as a figment of his imagination during intimate relations.
Imagine how his boss or supervisor will feel when he treats his boss or supervisor as a figment of his imagination.
He is liable to face serious consequences in both his marriage and in his work carrier.
To stave off adverse consequences – the Solipsist typically treats people *AS-IF* they are real.
So he has a belief system which he holds as TRUE – but treats *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to avoid consequences which would come with being logically consistent with his belief system.
The same is true of the Determinist.
Stephen Hawking (Q&A session at Oxford, Lady Mitchel Hall)
-quote
I believe Determinism is true. But I’ve come to realize I have to live *AS-IF* Determinism is false.
And as a joke – Hawking made this remark
-quote
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it – will look before they cross the street. (Black Holes, Baby Universes and Other Essays)
Sean Carroll (Atheist Determinist – Theoretical Physicist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
The determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.
(Eternal Predestination pg 171)
So you can see there is a trend here
The Solipsist – because of the radical nature of his belief system – soon becomes conditioned to assert his belief system as TRUE. And at the same time treat his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE – in order to evade consequences of being logically coherent with it.
The Determinist follows the same pattern because Determinism is just as radical a belief system.
So that is one of the reasons we are going to observe DOUBLE-SPEAK as inherent within Calvinist language.
The pattern we are going observe from every Calvinist – is he will assert the doctrine as TRUE
And at the same time – he will treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Most Calvinists follow this pattern so consistently that they are not cognizant of it.
However – I have found that some Calvinists are.
The other reason we find a lack of honesty within Calvinist language- is due to the fact that Calvinist doctrine incorporates a form of DUALISM.
You will eventually notice that things tend to appear in the form of “Good-Evil” pairs within the doctrine.
Calvinists are not comfortable with the “Evil” component within the doctrine.
For example – they want to call Calvinism a “Doctrine of Grace”.
But in order to do that – they have re-define the definition of “Grace”
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – creating/designing the vast majority of the human population – expressly for eternal torment in a lake of fire – is a core essential element within the doctrine.
Therefore creating/designing humans specifically for eternal torment – for his good pleasure – becomes part of Calvinism’s definition of “Grace”.
So – two characteristics within Calvinist language stand out to me.
1) Lies of Omission
2) Altruistic Dishonesty
Lies of omission – and Altruistic dishonesty are part of Calvinist language – in order to obfuscate dark implications of the doctrine.
Let’s not forget that the Arminian side also has a Doctrine of Grace. They call it Preveniant Grace. Closely relates to Calvinism’s Irresistible Grace.
Both Preveniant and Irresistible Grace is formulated on original sin.
Ditch original sin, and both doctrines of grace fall apart to nothing.
Study what original sin entails, and debunk each point one by one.
It’s easy.
Major contention is their confusion between Romans 5 (natural death) and Genesis 217 (spiritual death).
Another major contention is their interpretation of David being conceived in sin.
There is a Jewish story about this, where David’s mother was sinning, when David’s father got her pregnant. Daddy didn’t know he slept with her. And that is the major reason that his whole family hated David. They thought of David as illegitimate. They thought momma was fooling around.
So, Cals and Arms think that we are born spiritually dead, and Adams sin gets imputed to everyone.
They seem to forget THAT OTHER TREE, as well as 1: Cor 15:42-46, proving Adam was gonna die no matter what he did or didn’t do.
The only thing that would have mattered is THAT OTHER TREE.
And yes, he could have still obtained eternal life, being spiritually dead, if God didn’t block access to it after he spiritually died.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Yes Ed – I believe the historical evidence shows that Jacobus Arminius spent a great deal of time and ink – trying to persuade the Calvinists who were in authority in his day – that he had not strayed from Calvin. At least that he had not significantly strayed from Calvin. So it makes sense that the two systems have similarities.
I think their main contention was just predeterminism, but Arminius still affirmed it in some way. To be honest I have studied less on Arminianism.
Kurt,
I think you are missing my point, tho.
You can’t have predeterminism without the doctrines of grace (both sides), and you can’t have either doctrine of grace without original sin.
You have to tear down each brick.
As br.d pointed out, there really isn’t much difference between the two sects.
But if you tear down Original Sin, NONE OF THEIR DOCTRINES hold water at all.
And what’s really funny, is that in MOST debates, if you are not a Calvinist, then they assume you are an Armenian. There is no other sect choice in the matter.
Or, they will also accuse you of being a Palagian, or semi-palagian. That, to Calvinists,is an insult TO YOU, as they will say that he was an unorthodox HERETIC.
So, then I’m like, WHAT’S YOUR OTHER CHOICES BESIDES THOSE? Seems that they don’t have any other choice in the debate.
Ed Chapman
Yes, tear down that wall Mr. Chapman!
Debunk original sin doctrine and you remove their excuse for these extremes in grace doctrine.
Show the Calvinists that all that baggage around original sin was never predetermined in the first place. And the Arminians won’t have a leg to stand on either.
All the extremes concerning grace are probably based on original sin. What people don’t realize is that there was grace under the law of Moses, and there is law under the gospel of grace ( aka the law of Christ).
Aidan,
Tearing down that wall is easy when you use college ruled paper and a pen to outline the original sin structure of beliefs required to formulate it.
However, grace is not under the law.
The Law is working for your salvation, hence the word works.
Grace is the gift of salvation, without works.
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
The word, “Grace” is used in the law, to people, but it’s use of the word is under a different context, as they were still under “works”.
When you work, you expect a wage.
But the wages of sin is death. But the free gift of grace is life.
Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;
Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Law and grace are opposed to each other.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you quoted:
“Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”
Response:
“Works” in Romans does not refer to every sort of human activity, but to the sinless life which would eliminate the need of grace and forgiveness, and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record (see, Rom. 3:27; 4:2, 4-8, 16; 11:6).
Since these “works” eliminate the need of forgiveness, they certainly cannot include anything set forth in the scriptures as a condition of forgiveness, for example repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). Such conditions are included in the term “faith” — not in the term “works.” Psalms 32, quoted in Romans 4:7-8, shows in verses 3-11 that “grace” does not rule out conditions of pardon.
The reason God put the blessing on the basis of faith is “that it might be according to grace” (Romans 4:16). In the gospel God deals with man “according to grace,” forgiving his sins in consideration of his faith. But it ought to be clear in Romans that faith is not put in opposition to law in an absolute sense, but only in opposition to law as a means of justification.
Therefore when Paul says, “You are not under law” (Rom. 6:14), he is simply saying that a Christian is not under law as a means of justification. For if a Christian is not under law, how could Paul say elsewhere that he was “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:20-21)?
Aidan,
I just got called out to an emergency job, so I’m on my way out the door, and I saw this.
But in the moment, I will say that you referenced Romans 4. Romans 4 is discussing Abraham WITHOUT THE LAW.
They had sacrifices to render for sins. Jesus is the passover lamb, sacrificed for sins once and for all time for all sins, therefore, Jesus is the last sacrifice ever needed.
Under the law of Moses, there was NO SUCH THING AS GRACE.
Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
NO MERCY (NO GRACE).
You are saved by grace thru faith.
The law is not of faith.
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith:
Sorry short, but I gotta go.
Ed
Ed,
I referenced Romans 4 because you brought it up to make a point about “works” of the law.
Again, “works” in Romans does not refer to every sort of human activity, but to the sinless life which would eliminate the need of grace and forgiveness, and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record (see, Rom. 3:27; 4:2, 4-8, 16; 11:6).
In that case the person would have no need of mercy, no need of grace, and no need of forgiveness! That’s why the law could never be a means of justification for the person who sinned. For ALL HAVE SINNED, and fall short of the glory of God.
YOU WROTE:
“Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:”
“NO MERCY (NO GRACE).”
Response:
This passage is not talking about someone who simply commits a sin. It doesn’t say, “He that committed a sin died without mercy under the law of Moses.” If that were the case EVERYONE WOULD HAVE DIED WITHOUT MERCY!
Were there not animal sacrifices under the law of Moses? What was that all about if it wasn’t about mercy? Yes, these sacrifices could not ultimately take away sin until Christ came along. The scripture also says “in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” If that’s not mercy I don’t know what is.
Ezek. 18:21
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”
Ezek. 18:30
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.”
Ezek. 18:31
“Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?”
Ezek. 18:32
“For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”
AGAIN, IF THESE PASSAGES ARE NOT ABOUT MERCY for those under the law, I don’t know what is.
Also, the gospel of GRACE is not without law, for Christians are under “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27) AND “the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). You can’t get any clearer than that!
Aidan,
I’m confused by your use of the word, Grace.
You had said:
“Again, “works” in Romans does not refer to every sort of human activity, but to the sinless life which would eliminate the need of grace and forgiveness, and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record (see, Rom. 3:27; 4:2, 4-8, 16; 11:6).”
My response:
I have no problem with that statement. The two words that I think are irrelevant in all of Christendom that uses the term, is “HUMAN ACTIVITY”, or “GOOD WORKS”, or “MERIT”, etc., they don’t nail down the meaning of those terms, which confuses the congregation.
We need to nail down the MEANING of the USE of the word works here, and you got it. BUT, I like simpler ways to say it.
Works, as in Romans 4 (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE BOOK OF JAMES), is simply this:
Obedience to all of the Law of Moses. That’s it.
However, there is ONE WORD that seems to always get missed in the mix, in that Abraham was declared RIGHTEOUS. Before the law. Without the law. And that’s the word we need to be examining. That’s the ultimate goal for every human on the planet, is to be declared righteous, because the encompasses ALL THE OTHER WORDS, i.e., justification, grace, faith, etc. Righteousness is the top dog word. The UNRIGHTEOUS will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
So, let’s look at that word for a moment, and the difference between Abraham, and those under the law.
Side note:
We are children of Abraham in this regard, by the way.
*The following is in regards to Abraham:
Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
*The following is in regards to the Children of Jacob (Israel (struggles with God)), and is the MAIN verse of MY sermon today (Just call me PREACHER ED for today…and why? Because you don’t think that I can debunk Original Sin!)
——————————————————————
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
——————————————————————
And the following is in regards to “CHRIST – IANS”
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,
Just like in Abraham’s day…
*Romans 1:17
*For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Now, a little explanation on the word “WORKS”.
According to dictionary.com, one definition of “work” is: a deed or performance, the word “deed” is defined as: something that is done, performed, or accomplished; an act, and the word “do” is defined as: To perform, to accomplish, to execute.
We should all know that the Old Testament, aka, Old Covenant, First Covenant, begins in Exodus 20. This is where God spoke to ALL of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. After God Spoke the Ten Commandments to ALL of the children of Israel, they were afraid that if God continued to speak to them, that they would die, so they asked if Moses would speak to them about what God wants of them, instead of God himself.
Exodus 20:19
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. So, Moses continued to listen to God, and Moses gave the word of the Lord to ALL of the children of Israel.
Exodus 24:3
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
Notice the last word in that verse, “do”. Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses once again reiterates what was spoken in Exodus 20 – 24. After that review, the children of Israel responds:
————————————————————
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
————————————————————
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
“I’m confused by your use of the word, Grace.”
“You had said:
“Again, “works” in Romans does not refer to every sort of human activity, but to the sinless life which would eliminate the need of grace and forgiveness, and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record (see, Rom. 3:27; 4:2, 4-8, 16; 11:6).”
“I have no problem with that statement. The two words that I think are irrelevant in all of Christendom that uses the term, is “HUMAN ACTIVITY”, or “GOOD WORKS”, or “MERIT”, etc., they don’t nail down the meaning of those terms, which confuses the congregation.”
Response:
Faith is not at odds with ALL works (Gal. 5:6), but in Romans it is put in contrast with a CERTAIN KIND OF WORKS!
Galatians 5:6
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith WORKING through love.”
On the other hand, the term “WORKS” in Romans simply refers to the sinless life which would eliminate the need of grace and forgiveness, and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record. And since all have sinned, no man could be justified on the basis of the works of the law. Hence, the reason why all need the gospel (Romans 3:20-28).
Aidan,
Next, you state:
“Response:
This passage is not talking about someone who simply commits a sin. It doesn’t say, “He that committed a sin died without mercy under the law of Moses.” If that were the case EVERYONE WOULD HAVE DIED WITHOUT MERCY!
My response:
Yes, it is discussing someone who “simply commits a sin”, but that there is at least 2 or 3 witnesses. But the punishment for the sin must be one that is already in the law as a capital offense.
Remember, Jesus was going to be stoned on several occasions, and the woman caught in adultery. The law indicates NO MERCY. Kill ’em.
Jesus gave mercy…a concept that isn’t in the law.
Now, considering this, where at least 2 witnesses needed, David and Bathsheba…they didn’t have witnesses against them, so they lived. But God knew…so, God took his first born. But King Solomon came from that later.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
John 8:3-5
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
So here we have a woman who is SUPPOSED to die, according to the law, which GOD told Moses to do to such.
But now Jesus comes along and gives mercy to her.
And this is where, “YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID…”. Well, wait a minute. Where was it said, and who said it? Answer, GOD DID in Leviticus 20:10.
And Jesus said, “BUT I SAY…”.
Mercy.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
“But the punishment for the sin must be one that is already in the law as a capital offense.”
Response:
Then there WAS mercy shown under the law of Moses if the sin was punishable by death. Hence, Hebrews 10:28 could not apply to every person under the law!
I left out an important word in my second response. I meant to say:
Then there WAS mercy shown under the law of Moses where the sin was NOT punishable by death. Hence, Hebrews 10:28 could not apply to every person under the law!
Aidan,
Lastly, you reference a few Ezekiel 18 verses, one of which is:
Ezek. 18:21
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”
My response:
Based on experience of my own sins, that’s NOT AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS.
A few verses on that comes to mind:
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
And Romans 7 with Paul
Romans 7:8-16
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
In simpler terms, tell me, by the law, what not to do, and that is exactly what I gravitate to. Tell a child not to play with matches, then that child WILL play with matches. Tell Adam not to eat of a particular tree, and he eats of a particular tree. Tell me that the speed limit is 60 MPH, and I’ll go 70 MPH.
The law was a SET UP for fail from the beginning.
Romans 5:20 (first half)
The law was given so that sin would increase.
If that isn’t a set-up, then I don’t know what is:
But, there is a remedy, and it ISN’T your Ezekiel references, because that is impossible to attain.
Romans 5:20 (last half)
But where sin increased, God’s grace increased even more.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Yes, Ezekiel 18 simply shows that there was mercy shown to those who repented of sin under the law of Moses.
Luke 18:13-14
“And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
If there was no mercy or forgiveness shown to people who lived under the law of Moses, then no one would have stood a chance!
And, Yes, Romans 5:20: the law did not abolish evil in the world, but its coming resulted in the multiplication of many sins.
br.d
Calvinism is the only Christian belief system founded on Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
All Non-Calvinist systems embrace the concept of creaturely freedom classified as “Libertarian” in nature.
Calvinists – in order to appear consistent with their belief system – will claim that Libertarian freedom does not exist.
But in contradiction of that – they always assume they are granted the function of “Choice” between multiple options.
And they always assume multiple options exists for them to choose from.
For example – they automatically assume they are granted the function of “choosing” between TRUE and FALSE.
That of course is an utter contradiction – because In the process of assuming that kind of “Choice” they are in fact assuming a Libertarian “Choice”.
And in a world in which every event and every human impulse is FIXED in the past by infallible decree – there is no such thing a an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed.
Only that which is infallibly decreed is granted existence.
Any ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed is never granted existence.
Consequently – there is no such thing as a Calvinist being granted more than one option for anything.
Therefore – there is no such thing as a Calvinist having a “Choice” between [A] and [NOT A] or a “Choice” between TRUE and FALSE
Multiple options exist for Calvin’s god prior to the decree
But once he has made a selection from those options – all ALTERNATIVES are rejected.
And that leaves only ONE SINGLE OPTION available to the creature – for every event and every human impulse
Therefore- there is never any “Choice” between options for man to make in Calvinism
The decree grants only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
Man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be.
And NO ability to refrain.
Consequently – per the doctrine of decrees – Calvinists are not granted a “Choice” in the matter of anything.
But again – this is a consequence the Calvinist cannot live with – and retain any sense of normalc y.
So the Calvinist treats Determinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE by assuming multiple options are granted to him
And by assuming he is granted the ability to choose one option vs the other.
Current day Arminian Christians do not embrace Determinism.
So they are not saddled with the consequences which come with Determinism.
br.d
You had said:
“All Non-Calvinist systems embrace the concept of creaturely freedom classified as “Libertarian” in nature.”
My response:
In reading about Armenianism, you can’t really have “libertarian” free will UNTIL…”Prevenient Grace” is GIVEN first.
Without that grace, there is NO FREE WILL at all.
Without Original Sin, there is no Prevenient grace.
We have free will regardless.
Ed Chapman
br,d
Are you sure about that Ed?
If in Arminianism there is no such thing as infallible decrees which make every human impulse “Fated” to occur – then a an unsaved person – can choose between one evil vs another….right?
For example – in Arminianism – prior to preventive grace – an unsaved alcoholic can choose between one bottle vs another …..right?
If so – that would be a “Libertarian” choice
I think they still have some form of soteriological determinism, and also have a strange view of foreknowledge. God peers into the future and then determines things based on what He sees, or something like that. Ed is correct they still have Original Sin as well. I think their system is preferable to Calvin’s but still has some Protestant/Catholic influence. Again, I haven’t studied enough to really say much though.
Yes,
The Arminian view of divine foreknowledge is typically called “SIMPLE” foreknowledge
It is foreknowledge by observation
Pretty much as you’ve enunciated it.
Knowledge by looking down the corridor of time and observing what a creature FOUND to will be and FOUND to do.
This must have been a type of foreknowledge that was believed by a certain number of Christian thinkers within Calvin’s day also – because he addressed it as one of the concepts of his detractors.
You are probably familiar with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 – where Calvin’s god – is the divine potter at the foundation of the world – who CONCEIVES of people he wants to create/design specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
Calvin differentiates between two terms “FOUND” vs “MADE” concerning those who are destined for destruction.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
So you can see the Arminian view of divine foreknowledge probably existed in Calvin’s day – expressed by Calvin’s detractors.
And that was before Jacobus Arminius was born.
Yes, an unsaved Armenian has free will to choose a White Russian, or a shot a tequila. But he can’t choose God until God enables thru preveniant grace.
br.d
Right!
So if he has the freedom to choose [A] vs [NOT A]
In this case – a White Russian vs a shot a tequila.
The by definition – that would be a “Libertarian” choice.
In Calvinism however – those two options only exist prior to the decree – and only exist for Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god has to choose one of those options – in order to con form to the doctrine of decrees – which stipulates WHATSOEVER comes to pass is determined at the foundation of the world.
So Calvin’s god will – for example – decree that the alcoholic will drink White Russian at TIME-T
And by decreeing that event – it follows – that event is granted existence.
And no ALTERNATIVE to that which is decreed is possible – thus no ALTERNATIVE is granted existence.
So the option of the alcoholic drinking a shot of tequila at TIME-T is not granted.
So in Calvinism – the alcoholic is not given a “Choice” in the matter
Only one option is granted existence – thus only one option is available to the alcoholic
br.d,
Ok, I get it.
But what is it called for those outside of both Calvinism and Arminianism?
And I’m not discussing Pelagianism, or Semi- Pelagianism, either, but they don’t believe in original sin, so, maybe I am discussing them?
I try to speak Christianese, but I’m not down with Reformspeakanise.
I think we just called it, free will.
In other words, what’s up with adding an adjective?
And do we need it outside of those 3 or 4 sects?
Ed
br.d
If we understand that Calvinism is simply EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) – trying to make itself APPEAR to be Biblical – then things start to make sense.
The Bible has its own terms for the fallen condition of the world and of man.
For example “The bondage of corruption”
And for example “The first Adam” vs “The second Adam”
Augustine – when he first came into the Catholic system – was taught and embraced the traditional belief – which included “The bondage of corruption” and “The first Adam” and “The second Adam”.
But Augustine fell in love with the doctrine of Plotinus – a Greek philosopher who took certain doctrines from Plato – and converted them into a religious form – known as Neo-Platonism.
Augustine – in embracing Neo-Platonism – and having been infected with Manichaeism – synchronized components from all three of those belief systems into his theology. And in history – that is where we first see the concept of “Original Sin”.
Within academia – we have scholars who have greatly studied the evolution of Augustine’s theology and how it was a synchronization of Christian, Neo-Platonism, and Manichaeism.
Kum-Lun Edwin Lee – (Augustine, Manichaeism and the good)
-quote
In his debate with Fortunatus (392), Augustine was challenged to reread the Pauline writings. From this he discovered that his current theory of “consuetudo“ (i.e. human inclination) remained incomplete so long as no serious consideration was given to the role of “concupiscentia” (i.e. sinful desire) as the intrinsic principle of rebellion against God’s law. Augustine’s notion of “concupiscentia” is also linked directly to the Manichean idea of evil…….
YES! People think of Calvin vs. Arminius, and Augustine vs. Pelagius (hence Calvinists calling everyone who disagrees with them Arminians or Pelagians) but this divide goes back even further, in Gnostics vs. Early Christians. The Bible itself condemns people who did not believe Christ was in the flesh.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
This is in the context of testing the spirits and how to tell if someone is really a believer professing truths. So who were these “believers” who didn’t believe Christ was in the flesh?
The Gnostics. They held the belief (like Augustine and Calvin after them) that the flesh itself is so evil and corrupt (origins of original sin doctrine) that Christ could NOT have been in the flesh because flesh is bad. While Augustine subverted this with a poor explanation of the Virgin birth, the origin is still from Gnostic belief.
Manichaeism was a form of Gnosticism, of whom Augustine was a practitioner of for 10 years before “converting” to Christianity.
Augustine is important because he is considered the Father of the current Catholic Church. He initiated the punishment of those who questioned his beliefs, thus in an Authoritarian manner, forcing his theology to become the primary mainstream belief (and if you question it you die!).
Calvin worshipped Augustine. Point being, Gnosticism, even a problem in the first century Church during the times of the Apostles, has preserved itself even to this day in Calvinism.
br.d
Yes!
Gnostisism – is a mixture of many systems including Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrianism contains a dualistic cosmology of good and evil.
Gautama Buddha is also said to be derived from this ancient mixture and it also contains a cosmology of good and evil
Today we have what is known as “Yin and yang” within Chinese cosmology – which is also dualistic in form.
In a dualistic cosmology “Good” and “Evil” are Co-necessary and Co-complimentary.
So with that – we can look at a quote from Calvinist Jon Edwards where he states “Evil” is a “Necessary” part of divine glory.
Jon Edwards
-quote
It is proper that the shining forth of god’s glory be complete; that is all PARTS of his glory should shine forth
But this could not be unless sin and punishment had been decreed………..the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the PARTS of divine glory would not shine forth as the other do……nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
So we essentially have here – a doctrine based on the same principle as the doctrine of “Yin and yang”
br.d,
Wow, I think all those philosophers thought too much. I think they needed to smell the coffee, tea, bacon and roses a little more, maybe even take a vacation and enjoy the scenery, catch a movie, and do some snow skiing.
My uneducated brother-in- law once said that evil is necessary for free will to be a reality.
I think he’s more correct than the educated are.
It’s not about glorifying God at all, or not glorifying God.
It just is.
I heard a preacher once say that God wants us to choose him, because he doesn’t want anyone to be forced to him that doesn’t want him.
Hence evil being a necessity for free will.
And that makes more sense than all those educated fourth plus century philosophers.
Ed Chapman
I have a slightly different philosophy about evil, just the reverse of what you said. Free will is necessary for evil to exist. The other side of that is also true. Freewill is necessary for love to exist. Love is not love, unless it is freely given. C.S. Lewis I think put it perfectly:
“If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.“
The “reward” of love is greater than the “risk” of evil.
Kurt,
You had said, “Free will is necessary for evil to exist.”
My response:
But how can you choose evil if evil doesn’t exist first?
I freely choose a chocolate cream pie. But if it isn’t on the menu… then all I can freely choose is what’s on the menu.
Evil isn’t a choice to choose from in your free will.
It’s not on the menu.
If I say that I choose to love, and evil isn’t on the menu, then my free will has no meaning.
Ed Chapman
Evil doesn’t exist in and of itself. It is a “corruption” of good. Good has to exist for evil to exist, but evil does not exist without good. Good is the standard. This goes into the “moral argument” for God’s existence. A man cannot know a line is crooked, unless he has some idea of what a straight line is.(Also C.S. Lewis)
Dr Frank Turek explains this beautifully in my opinion.
You have a rusty car. If you take the rust out of the car, you have a better car. If you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing at all.
Same with a cut in a finger. If you take the cut out of the finger, you have a better finger. If you take the finger out of the cut, you have nothing.
Shadows only exist in the light. Darkness isn’t something, it is the absence of light.
Mold only appears on something (fruit, vegetation etc..). If the fruit wasn’t there in the first place, would mold appear. Does an empty fruit bowl get mold?
Death, also isn’t something, it is the absence of life. Without first life, there is no death.
Freewill let’s us choose good, or TRANSGRESS from good.
God IS good. He cannot transgress his own nature. Us choosing good is the only thing that gives it meaning. Being forced to do good, is not good. It is only good if we can also go against it, freely. Does someone actually love you if they don’t choose to? Programming a robot wife to love you, is this the same as a real human with her own will loving you?
God created freewill so love could exist. It can only exist if there is another option, and consequently the only option other than choosing Him is going against Him. Going against Him is evil.
br.d
I heartily agree! :-]
br.d
Yes – that is understandable
Jon Edwards was is said to have brought about a “sea-change” within Calvinist thinking
Prior to Edwards -there were Calvinist thinkers who embraced limited forms of “Libertarian” freedom for the creature.
This was outlined in a book by a reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp
The name of the book is called “Deviant Calvinism”
However – Edwards was heavily influenced by philosophy
And Edwards was considered to be a powerful voice in Calvinism – especially for the philosophically minded Calvinists.
John Piper – calls himself an “Edwardian” Calvinist.
The other thing to consider with those goofy philosophers is in their mind, they think that THIS LIFE was God’s plan, but Adam screwed up that plan.
Do they not ask why we were placed on the same planet that Satan was banished to?
Does that make sense?
It does if you believe in free will.
Do they not ask why God didn’t create us to be with him in heaven from the very start?
Why create an earth for us, but daddy lives in another realm, and only visits his kids from time to time.
Kinda sounds like God got the short end of the stick from the judge on visitation rights.
We can’t even stay the night at his place.
What I’m saying in sarcasm is that this present earth was never meant for eternal life to begin with.
1 Cor 15:42-46 and…
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
This life is a test, meaning evil is necessary for free will choice, and this earth is our testing ground.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Yes – I totally agree.
God new when he put Adam and Eve in the garden with Lucifer that they were very naive and vulnerable to a fallen angel who was very intelligent and very conniving.
br.d,
But after all I’ve said, I can still see those who will say:
But what about Romans 9?
My response, Deu 29:4…da Jews
They will say that the Pharoah was not a Jew.
Ok, I’ll bite…
The Pharoah participated unwillingly in telling a story about God, and that’s what Romans 9 is about.
Pharoah played Satan, Moses played Jesus. Egypt is sin, the promised land is heaven, and the wandering the desert is wrestled with God, struggling with sin.
I totally agree when you said that we are saved by grace through faith which has been the gift of God. I want my relatives to know about that as well, and I plan to buy 3D-printed temples and have messages attached to them to share this with them. Hopefully, they will accept and also learn more about God to have a better life in the future.
Welcome Millie! Yep… Grace through our personal faith… not proxy faith of a parent or priest.
Hello Millie and welcome
I appreciated your post!
Your hearts desire for your family is the hearts desire of Father God.
I may more be the case – that God will use your steadfastness in sincerity, honesty, self-sacrifice, and Godliness – as the primary testimony to your family – so that through you – they may taste God’s wonderful love for them.
Blessings!
br.d
Here is a thought I just had. 1 John, the entire book, appears to be a refutation of Calvinism (just read it). The problem is, Calvin wasn’t alive for another 1500 years. So what then is it refuting?
Gnosticism! They went out from us, Christ was not here in the flesh is anti-Christ, explains how to tell if someone is truly of God, not of the Father but of the world, not our sins only, but the sins of the whole world.
Thoughts?
br.d
Well academia acknowledges that John is speaking against Gnosticism.
And where Calvinism is tied to Gnosticism – then to the decree in which those aspects of Gnosticism John is refuting exist within Calvinism – then it would follow – John is refuting those aspects of Calvinism.
Found it interesting. I’ve never been presented with a single argument that has moved me more towards Calvinism. All not biblical, not logical, not loving.
br.d
Isn’t that interesting!!
I find it fascinating what actually does attract people into Calvinism.
For many – I believe it is religious pride.
It services their need to be something greater than they can be in and of themselves.
There is an interesting point made by the author Kenneth Burke (1897) who identified what he called “Remapped Identity” and “Vicarious Boasting”.
Burke writes about a sociological phenomenon in which individual’s find themselves with an inconsequential identity.
But belonging to an illustrious group or guild “re-maps” their inconsequential identity with the illustrious identity of the group – from an insignificant persona, to an identity of preeminence by association with that group.
Burke indicates that one of the signs of that happening is what he calls ‘vicarious boasting’
For example – a Calvinist pastor knows that if he boasts about being spiritually superior – that will be recognized as manifestation of carnal boasting. So he will refrain from that kind of boasting. But he can stand before a congregation and boast of the -quote “Great Minds of Calvinism”. And what it means to belong to the “Great Guild” of those who re-established the true gospel and interpret scripture rightly.
This way – the Calvinist pastor can raise his own personal status from inconsequential to the status of preeminence by virtue of being a proud member of an honorable and pious guild.
Burke writes the following:
-quote
“One may note, however, the subtle ways in which identification serves as braggadocio. By it, the modest man can indulge in the most outrageous ‘corporate boasting’. He identifies himself with some corporate unit (church, guild, company, lodge, party, team, college, city, nation, etc.) –and by profuse praise of this unit, he praises himself.
For he ‘owns shares’ in the corporate unit—and by ‘rigging the market’ the value of the stock as a whole, he runs up the value of his personal holdings.
The function of ‘vicarious boasting’ leads into the matter of ‘epic heroism’ and ‘euphemistic’ vocabularies of motives.
When heroes have been shaped by legend, with the irrelevant or incongruous details of their lives obliterated, and only the most ‘divine’ attributes expressed, the individual’s ‘covert boasting’ (by identification with the hero) need not lead to extreme delusion of grandeur….the legendary hero, is by definition, a superman. He is the founder of a line.”
-end quote
Calvinism sociologically – is a TOTEM-POLE system of respected persons.
So this in all probability is one of the seducing elements – especially for young and vulnerable Christians.
That is certainly a part of it. In a way I think it is also simple. People got saved, attended a Calvinist church and by extension Bible study. They are taught Calvinistic principles, by people whom they view as kind, more mature and more knowledgeable than they are. They present these “truths” without any challenge and are indoctrinated to the belief.
Then they finally hear an opposing viewpoint, and immediately write it off as a false teaching, or someone who isn’t “biblically sound”. After all, all they have ever heard from their Pastor and Bible study leader, whom they respect and learned much from, has told them the opposite.
They already, of course, were taught that contradictions are okay, logic can’t be used to explain God, and possibly that Arminians and pelagians are heretics, especially for affirming free will.
If they don’t seek, don’t study the finer points of philosophy/logic, aren’t exposed to other teachings, they become cemented. It really takes a person they love who has demonstrated Biblical soundness to them to expose it for them to listen or question, and even then there is a danger of them discrediting that person. It is truly insidious.
br.d
Yes I can certainly see that!
Calvinism is a system of TALKING-POINTS which are designed to look as Biblical as possible.
Most Calvinists are not going to be taught about Determinism because that will open up a Pandora’s box
And that Calvinist will probably end up finding out more than they want him to know – and possibly leave.
We have an occasional Calvinist visitor here whose name is Roland.
His Calvinism is a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism.
I’m assuming that is what his pastor is teaching
So it would be like you’ve indicated.
He probably got saved or drawn into that church and has emotional ties with the people there.
He considers himself Calvinist – probably because that is what his pastor tells people.