Archive for July, 2019

John 7:17 Illustrated

July 26, 2019

John 7:17 reads “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” That text teaches God guarantees those who want to do His will, those who are doing His will, will know God’s true doctrine. It is very much like Matt 5:6 (“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled”) and Matt 7:7 (“seek, and ye shall find”) in that regard.

Let me illustrate how John 7:17 is so true. Suppose for example a person is in a physically pleasing … but adulterous marriage per Matt 19:9 and similar passages. And staying in that marriage is really more important to him that serving the Lord as first priority. That being the case, he will invent ways to twist the scriptures so he can ignore passages like Rev 21:8 that teach the sexually immoral will be lost, and so he can ignore illustrations like Mark 6:17-18 where John told Herod his marriage was “not lawful.” He will also try to finagle passages that require more than just belief to be saved so he can say “I believe in Christ so I am going to be saved; it doesn’t matter how I live.” He will therefore have to find a way to get around the plain meaning of passages like Luke 13:3 that absolutely require repentance for salvation, and passages like Heb 5:9 that clearly require one to obey in order to be saved. Bluntly put, he will find a way to get around the plain meaning of hundreds of scriptures that require more than just belief to be saved, or that condemn his ungodly living.

The negative of John 7:17 describes this person well, because that person will never know the doctrine of God, the truth, because he is bent on trying to force all passages to fit his predetermined desire to stay with his unscriptural wife and/or his worldly lifestyle. Continuing in God’s truth (John 8:31-32) is not of utmost importance to him; living how he wants to live is. He will conform the Bible to his life instead of the other way around. Since he is not intent on doing God’s will, he will not know the doctrine of Christ (II John 9).  II Thess 2:10-12 describes this person – “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:  That they all might be d-a-m-n-e-d who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Advertisements

Some For Whom Christ Died Will Be Lost, Therefore Salvation Must Be Conditional

July 18, 2019

The following passages prove some for whom Christ died will be lost:

I Cor 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Rom 14:15,23 … if thy brother be grieved … Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. … he that doubteth is d-a-m-n-e-d if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

II Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in d‑a‑m‑n‑a‑b‑l‑e heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

The Calvinist has two options:

· either Christ died for more than just the elect (the “limited atonement” theory is false)

· or some of the elect can be lost

The point is that since some of those Christ died for will be lost, that shows more have the opportunity to be saved than take advantage of that opportunity. This proves that we have a say in the final determination of our election/salvation; it is conditioned upon something we do – whether or not we trust and obey (II Thess 1:8).

Baptists Are Playing Games With The Word Of God

July 11, 2019

Aren’t Baptists playing games with the word of God? Let me give two illustrations of what I am talking about …

Baptists quote passages like John 3:16 to prove a sinner doesn’t have to be baptized to be saved. Their reasoning is that the verse talks about what a sinner must do to be saved, and it doesn’t mention baptism. But the standard Baptist position is that a sinner also has to repent (Luke 13:3, etc) and confess (Rom 10:9-10) in order to be saved, and those two conditions are not mentioned in John 3:16 either. Isn’t that being inconsistent? Why does John 3:16 rule out baptism as necessary because baptism is not mentioned there, but John 3:16 does not rule out repentance and confession as necessary because repentance and confession are not mentioned there either? If we can go to passages other than John 3:16 to find out repentance and confession are necessary, then why can’t we similarly go to passages other than John 3:16 to find out baptism is necessary – like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and I Pet 3:21? Matt 4:4 (“Man shall … by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”) is true in either case, right?

Baptists have always used Rom 6:3-5 to prove to Methodists that water baptism should be an immersion in water because the passage calls it a “burial” and teaches it is a likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ. Their point is correct – sprinkling for baptism is not a burial in water, neither does it picture a burial and resurrection. But when the Baptists are arguing that water baptism is not necessary to salvation, they will say Rom 6:3-5 is talking about Holy Spirit Baptism, because they know the text says we are baptized “into Christ” and “into His death.” How can Rom 6:3-5 be talking about water baptism when we are debating the action/mode of baptism but be talking about Holy Spirit baptism when we are debating the purpose of baptism?

See what I mean?

Is I Cor 11:3 Only Talking About Husbands And Wives?

July 4, 2019

I Corinthians 11:3 says “the head of the woman is the man.” Is that only saying a husband is the head over his wife, or is it saying that women are to be in submission to men in general (not just their husbands)?

The fact that I Cor 11:3 reads “man” and “woman” (not “husband” and “wife) should be our first clue the verse is teaching men in general are head of women in general, not husbands are over their wives in particular (which is taught in Eph 5:22-24). Why did the translators choose to render I Cor 11:3 that way? Evidently because of the context (as the Greek could go either way). Consider the following contextual points …

If I Cor 11:3 is only talking about husbands and wives, then:

· Christ is only the head of husbands, not single men (verse 3) – Note:The ESV translation has “the head of a wife is her husband” but the translators realize this problem so they inconsistently translate the earlier phrase “the head of every man is Christ.” Either both should be translated husband or both man. You can’t have it both ways.

· only husbands (not single men) must be uncovered when they pray (verses 4,7)

· only wives (not single ladies) must be covered when they pray (verses 5,6,10,13)

· it is only a shame for wives to be shorn or shaven (verse 6), not single ladies

· only husbands (not all men) are made in the image and glory of God (verse 7)

· only wives (not all women) are the glory of man (verse 7)

· husbands are born of their wife, not their mother (verse 12b)

· it is only shameful for a husband to have long hair (verse 14), not a single man

· it is only a glory for a wife to have long hair (verse 15), not a single woman

· hair is given for a covering only to wives (verse 15), not single women

The fact that I Cor 11:3 is teaching men in general have headship over women in general is confirmed by I Tim 2:11-12 which teaches the same thing … unless one thinks I Tim 2:11-12 is only talking about husbands and wives also? – in which case it would be scriptural for a woman to lead a Bible study or lead a prayer over men, as long as the audience didn’t include her husband.