Donations for the month of September


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,818
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,268
Posts53,175
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,021
Tom 4,035
chestnutmare 3,079
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 23
Tom 14
Ruben 9
Robin 5
John_C 4
Recent Posts
Rage Against the Unvaccinated!
by tomatoetom - Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:24 AM
Strength via Weakness
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:29 AM
Good News for a Change
by Pilgrim - Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:53 PM
Doxology
by chestnutmare - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:41 AM
John 3:16 – Kosmos refers to "Believers Only"?
by Pilgrim - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:25 AM
All-inclusive Object
by NetChaplain - Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:58 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#56882 Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Here is something I read, that I know very little about, but would like to understand the issue more.

Quote
Calvin thought the fifth commandment belonged to the second table of God's Law (our duties to man). But R. J. Rushdoony puts forward the view that it belongs to the first table of the law (our duty to God). His reasoning is that our relationship to lawful authority is as unto God. What do you think? Never thought of this before.

I know Rushdoony was a Restructionist, but do not know if that effects his view.

Any thoughts?

Tom

Tom #56885 Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Exodus 20:12 (ASV) 12 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
Quote
R. J. Rushdoony puts forward the view that it belongs to the first table of the law (our duty to God). His reasoning is that our relationship to lawful authority is as unto God.
Calvin and the overwhelming of other true Christians who view the 5th Commandment as the first of the 'second table' of the law. All one need do is READ IT and it is incontrovertibly a commandment concerning familial relationships; children showing respect to their parents. The matter of authority is certainly contained in that law, but it isn't to God. This is just another salient case where someone twists Scripture with the intent to make it say what it simply does not say. Does the Bible teach that man is to honor God as the Supreme creator, ruler, sustainer, redeemer and judge of all the earth? Certainly. But not in this particular text. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write down exactly what He wanted to reveal and what was needful of man to know. The task and responsibility of man is to learn exactly what any particular text/passage MEANS; it's original intent... not to find all kinds of MEANINGS that may be ancillary in the text. As one professor rightly taught, a text has ONE meaning but may have many applications. John Frame's infamous serious heresy was his "multi-perspectivalism", which basically says that depending upon the reader's perspective a biblical text may be understood differently on various readings. Funny how this appears to be somewhat analogous to another man's heresy; Karl Barth. Although he begins from a different "perspective" concerning the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the result of it ends in the same place... a redefining and denial of the divine inspiration of the Bible, all the while affirming that it is inspired. rolleyes2 Barth taught that the Bible is inspired by God but only when the reader is moved by it and a truth is opened to him. Reading the same text later on may not bring the same experience however, and thus he taught that the Bible was not at that moment inspired. Thus the reader may not understand the text in the same way as he did previously. Okay... mumbo jumbo, right? drop Simply put, the heresy of all these types of views about Scripture amounts to a denial of absolute truth. The Bible therefore means whatever the reader wants it to say. igiveup


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #56887 Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Wow Pilgrim, great answer. In fact what you said reminded me about some notes I took from RC Sproul's book 'Knowing Scripture". It does not deal with this issue, but I believe the same principle should be used.

Quote
Interpret the implicit by the explicit.

A common verse that many get trapped in is John 3:16.
What does John 3:16 say explicitly in the text?
All who believe will not perish, but have everlasting life. It tells us what happens to those who believe, as opposed to those who don’t believe.
Many try to draw an implicit on this verse by saying it proves that everyone can by their own volition believe.
Yet, nowhere in the verse does it say that. It does not even go there.
What does the Bible teach explicitly about man’s ability to come to Jesus by their own free-will?
The Bible says no man has the moral ability to come to Jesus, unless the Father gives them to Jesus.
We see this over and over again, but let’s stick to the book of John, particularly chapter 6.
In verses like John 6:37-39; 44; 65.
By all means read the whole passage for context.
My point here in sticking with the book of John, is that all too often people try to trump verses in John 6, with John 3:16.
In doing so, they have it backwards; they are interpreting the explicit by the implicit.
Or to put it another way, they are interpreting the clear by the obscure, not the obscure, by the clear.

By the way, if you see errors in what I wrote above, it probably had to do with my understanding of what RC Sproul said, seeing I wanted to write it in my own words.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:52 PM.
Tom #56888 Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:54 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Online Content
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Sproul was, of course, correct in his understanding of interpreting Scripture which Scripture itself teaches. And as I have written here many times re: John 3:16, the main problem with people totally misunderstanding that verse+ is in the translation(s), e.g., the KJV. The Greek is crystal clear however and I cannot figure out how/why is has been so terribly rendered, at least in English. God loved the world in this manner outw by giving His Son in order that [hina purpose/intent/desire/will/to this end] that all the [believing ones/the ones who believe continually[/i] [[b]pistuon[b] present participle] should not perish but have everlasting life. John Gerstner, Sproul's beloved mentor does an excellent job of exegeting this text and bringing out the true meaning of it which is easily understood.

Quote
None of us likes this term limited atonement. If anyone ever suggests that it’s limited either in its general proclamation to everyone, or in its universal sufficiency to save an infinite number of souls—It is limited in its design, because God elected to save some persons out of sheer mercy. He sent His Son for His sheep, and only for His sheep—that we must recognize if we would be faithful to the Word of God, and in my opinion, apart from the express statements of our Lord Himself using that very language, I can’t think of a passage in Scripture which makes that specific purpose of the atonement more lucid than John 3:16. To make that a little clearer, God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that believers should be saved. Certainly it doesn’t say God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that everybody should be saved. That’s a flat violation of the text. God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that believers, should be saved. Now, we’ve already indicated, whom He foreloved, them He predestinated to be believers, so that without any wresting of the Scriptures, without any distorting of its meaning, but with a simple one-to-one substitution, we can very properly and absolutely accurately say the classic text of Christendom is declaring that God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that the elect in all the world, should not perish. Believers and the elect are one and the same. And if you think not, once again I’ll point out to you it’s because you don’t really believe in the doctrine of total depravity. But if you are, ever were once, convinced of the fact that you are a goner, and all of mankind is a goner, you know that God is the only One Who can bestow faith. And that consequently, believers are those whom God has taken the initiative according to His everlasting purpose and every time you read John 3:16, you will understand, what it means is that when God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son that the elect in all the world should not perish. See here: TULIP (section on Limited Atonement).


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 38 guests, and 12 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
September
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,282,859 Gospel truth
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.30 Page Time: 0.018s Queries: 23 (0.004s) Memory: 2.5418 MB (Peak: 3.0825 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2021-09-22 12:44:47 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS