Not what I wrote. What I wrote was "I didn't use just Acts."You didn't use Acts?
"A wise man will listen and increase learning." Proverbs 1:5The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing?
Kerux wrote:Not what I wrote. What I wrote was "I didn't use just Acts."You didn't use Acts?
And you didn't answer my important question:
I believe he did.The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing?
Jac wrote:However, just to short-circuit the entire discussion, I do believe that Satan believes the Gospel just as well as any believer does. However, salvation is not offered to angels -- only to men (John 3:5). Therefore, even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided. His fate is sealed, as is the fate of those angels who did not follow in the rebellion
You've made an assumption, two of them in fact.Therefore, even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided. His fate is sealed, as is the fate of those angels who did not follow in the rebellion.
Most certainly would argue with that. So does Jesus Christ:notice that you put "believe" in apostraphes. Why? I suppose you would argue that there is a difference in someone who says that they believe versus someone who "really believes." I would disagree with that.
1. Has any angel ever been born of flesh? If not, then what does John 3:5 say about his ability to be saved?That "even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided." You appear to base your assumption upon one verse, John 3:5 and one belief, that salvation is not available to angels. At this point, I'm not in a position to disagree, but a couple of thoughts come to mind which makes me hesitant to agree 100%. And that is, I'm not aware of any direct statement in Scripture that says salvation is not 'offered to angels' with the possible exception of I Peter 1:12. Secondly, I have trouble with the idea, given God's forgiving nature, that if Satan did somehow repent and beg for forgiveness, that God wouldn't forgive. I also am aware of the fact that Christ's work was for man and not angels, so I'll have to study further.
In heaven, will we be able to fall away? Do you believe we can lose our salvation now?You're saying that the angels that did not follow in the rebellion have had their fate sealed, that is, that they can never fall away no matter what. I'll have to give that some more thought also. But, that idea doesn't settle well with me at this time either.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
No, I didn't ask about angels. I mentioned Satan believing in God. You brought angels into the discussion, not me.Jac3510 wrote:No, but if he has been already condemned - sentenced, if you will - then it doesn't matter. And what does that specifically relate to? Anyway, the questions still need answering.
edit: I've not changed the discussion. You asked about angels. I am answering the question. Arrogant words don't fly well, Kerux.
edit2: I am going to have to ask you to read the thread. I've already dealt with the "Lord, Lord" passage EXTENSIVELY in this very discussion with ttoews. As for the parable of the wheat/tares, Jesus Himself tells us the field is the world, not the Church. Therefore, the passage has no bearing on that question, either.
Good, then I am not the only one who brought these passages into the discussion thinking they relate. And please remember, everything we think is just our opinion. We are not inspired of God.I've already dealt with the "Lord, Lord" passage EXTENSIVELY in this very discussion with ttoews. As for the parable of the wheat/tares, Jesus Himself tells us the field is the world, not the Church. Therefore, the passage has no bearing on that question, either.
Satan is an angel. If angels cannot be redeemed, neither can Satan.No, I didn't ask about angels. I mentioned Satan believing in God. You brought angels into the discussion, not me.
You've made more than a few comments that could be taken in a negative way. Maybe it is just trying to get used to this environment and it isn't intended. We can leave it at that.Please don't accuse me of using arrogant words. my professing brother, I'm doing nothing more than asking questions and have stated plainly I still have to look more closely into certain areas we have discussed. But since you bring it up, I've noticed you haven't made such an admission, have you?
Then you don't believe John 3:16? 6:47? 5:24?IMO, the Bible teaches 'believing' is not enough. Trusting in the finished work of Christ will be accompanied by repentance and a turning to God.
No, because if the field is the world, then the tares represent unbelievers. Since unbelievers, by definition, do not believe, then the passage cannot be used to support your assertion that there is such thing as "really believing" vs. only professing belief.Of course the field is the world. The gospel doesn't have to be preached to the 'church,' the ekkelsia, the called out ones. We are already saved. So, the passage certainly does have a bearing on this dicussion.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
You said you haven't made any arrogant remarks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that those remarks that came across that way were unintended. As for being "here," since you have not been a member of the G&S community, I cannot expect you to be familiar with my exegeses. Therefore, I've provided links to where I have offered explanations. I don't see where there is a problem?You haven't given the benefit of the doubt. You've taken offense when no offense was intended. And now you put your taking offense off onto me saying that is because I haven't been 'here' that long as if being 'here' is the only place Christian discussion concerning the meaning of Biblical passages take place.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Haha, no . . . definitely not a "guru" of any kind. I've been here a really long time, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? My only point is that I've explained my understanding of the passages you've brought up. Nothing more, nothing less . . . if we are going to discuss these issues, then when you refer me to a passage, I will refer you to the relevant link. In this case, though, the majority of the passages you've brought up have been dealt with in this thread already, which was my original point.I'm am new here and maybe you're the head guru here and I'm not aware of it.
How are you using the term "exegesis"? Maybe our misunderstanding is in that I am using the term to refer to your interpretation with consideration to the context, authorial intent, language and cultural barriers, etc.Like I asked, exegesis is the standard? By your answer, I guess it is according to you. Of course I would not propose dicussing the topics herein w/o reference to Scripture. Being that I have plainly referenced Scripture, I am not sure why you would even ask that question.
The Bereans didn't have the time and culture gaps nearly to the extent that we do. Besides, I am sure that Paul expounded Scripture to them. Thus, they looked it up to see if his interpretation - exegesis - was valid. In all seriousness, how else would you suggest we approach understanding Scripture?There is more to studying Scripture than exegesis my friend. Exegesis is not the be all and end all. The Bereans did not have access to exegesis tools but were considered 'more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." I am quite capable of exegesis and do so when necessary and have done so on many of the passages refered to. However, exegesis in and of itself is only one approach to understanding Scripture and therefore the mind of God and His will for our life.
This is all true, but bear in mind that each thread is supposed to be on a topic - two or more people expressing their viewpoints. If I am reading through a discussion, if I am going to make anything like an informed decision on which party, if any, are correct, I need to see how they approach and apply Scriptures. That's all I am asking for. You hold a different position than I do, so provide your explanation of the passages you mention, as I do with mine. If I disagree with your interpretation, I will explain where I see the fault, as you do with me.My guess is that there are other interested people viewing the posts made on the many topics covered. They will have to search the Scriptures provided to determine which 'things are so' for themselves
Kerux, I've not taken offense to anything you said. I pointed out a few words that could be taken as arrogant. You said you didn't intend them to be. Fair enough. As for your "alternate" explanation, all I have asked is that you defend your position and point out where you disagree with me.You haven't given me the benefit of the doubt, which is the pont. You've right off taken offense because I've disagreed with and offered an alternative view to the topics raised. And you've even stipulated a set of rules by which those who disagree have to follow, ie pointing out where your exegesis is incorrect, as if exegesis is the only standard for the proper understanding of Scripture.
I'm not here for a fight. I'm here to discuss Biblical issues and hopefully learn more of God's unsearchable mind.
If I find that I can not pursue that goal in a friendly Chrisitan manner, then maybe I'll spend my time 'fighting' the unsaved that I discuss issues with on other forums where there is hostility instead of here. I don't need more unchristian like conflict.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
You are right in that I am very strict in my exegesis of biblical passages. I'm very strict when it comes to theological explanation. You are also right in that I am not so strict when it comes to general communication . . . I don't really see how it is feasible to do that. If every word we write to each other is subject to that kind of semantic examination, we'll never get anywhere. I work under the general principle that we are communicating ideas to one another. If, in the course of discussion, we find we've been taking a term differently, we clarify. It's no big deal. You aren't dealing with an inspired writer any more than I am, so we simply talk about our ideas.Now, you've expanded once again in reply to my statement that exegesis isn't enough. There is a standard defintion of exegesis and you've gone byond that to include 'expounded' as if expounded means exegesis. And you've mentioned exposition.
You seem to be very strict on one sense. ie exegesis and the meaning of the original languages used in Scripture, but your not so tight when it comes to the use of the English language.
Then take me at my word that I haven't. I pointed out to you that your words could be taken in a certain way. You said that was not their intention. I believe you on that. Feel free to extend me the same courtesy."I've not taken offense to anything you said."
It appears to me you have.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
So, if I bring up a point about a passage, no matter what the passage and what the point, in the majority of the time, the point and the passage 'has been dealt with in this thread already?"Jac3510 wrote:In this case, though, the majority of the passages you've brought up have been dealt with in this thread already, which was my original point.