Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But "dividing" in 2 Timothy 2:15 doesn't mean splitting it up. It seems to mean rather, making a straight path. The bible dictionary I use says it means:
1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly
There is a right way to "divide" the truth, and you're not doing that. I suggest that you read doctrinal books of the NT like Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, 1 John, (and then the others) about 30 times, and outline them to get the major themes and how they relate to the OT scriptures, of course using proper hermeneutics like paying attention not only to the immediate context, but also the wider context of scripture. Try to put your opinion aside in order to extract the original meaning which is intended by the writer. Then you could be familiar enough with the scripture to understand the author's meaning. "Dividing" the word doesn't mean to divide the gospel into separate parts to end up with two different gospels. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" means that there is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived. Christ is not divided, so Christianity is universal, so there is no difference in soteriology between Jews and gentiles.If there is only one gospel and its eternal, why is there even a need to divide the word of truth?
Ok, you are of the faith+works camp, I see. And you apparently didn't understand what I wrote, otherwise you would see how I correctly reconcile those two verses.I'm of the scriptural camp. When you can reconcile 1 John 3:15 with John 5:24 then you'll better understand God's will for us. Paul gives us an idea what we can and are supposed to do once freely justified, united with God and led by the Spirit.
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14
I’m just of the Christian camp, the original ol’ time religion.Ok, you are of the faith+works camp, I see. And you apparently didn't understand what I wrote, otherwise you would see how I correctly reconcile those two verses.
Seems strange, eh?Strange how people disagree even then, tho.
"Rightly dividing the word of truth" means that there is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived. Christ is not divided, so Christianity is universal, so there is no difference in soteriology between Jews and gentiles.
If God had intended us to cut His word into separate gospels, He would surely have given us instruction on how to do that. Also, we would expect to see references to "gospels" yet repeatedly it is simply called "the gospel". For example:I am using definition 1.
The point was, if there is only one gospel throughout, then there is no need to make a straight cut.
Usually the ones who are wrong still see themselves as clearly right.Seems strange, eh?
Yet it must be, so the ones who are wrong may be clearly seen , or something like that as in the NT is written.
Yes, they're the works that result from being justified, from entering the family of God through faith and having love poured out into them by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). But a believer can still refuse to do those works, can thwart the Spirit, can fail to ovecome the deeds of the flesh-or can return to the flesh- can fail to love, can turn back away from God, IOW. If he's good soil, OTOH, he will persevere. John's words in 1 John 3:15 apply to everyone- and he's placing love as the criteria for our sonship. and those words need to be weighed seriously by all just as Jesus' similiar words in Matt 5 must be.The works that James is talking about is works that result from genuine faith in Christ, which are the works "done through God" (Jn. 3:21).
"Ol' time religion" is sometimes wrong, and is always wrong when it is contrary to Biblical teaching. This is what the Reformation and the Great Awakening were all about.I’m just of the Christian camp, the original ol’ time religion.
Anyone can be wrong, of course, and not all the Reformers necessarily agreed with each other over the meaning of Scripture anyway, for that matter. But they were certainly askew on the main point-of justification. Either way, I appreciate much of what John Wesley, an early leader of the Great Awakening, taught."Ol' time religion" is sometimes wrong, and is always wrong when it is contrary to Biblical teaching. This is what the Reformation and the Great Awakening were all about.
"Rightly dividing" doesn't mean dividing up truth into contrary truths for different people. What you are dividing is the Body of Christ, which Paul reprimanded the Corinthians for. "Dividing" is an antiquated way of saying "straight down the line." It doesn't mean "divide" as you are using it. To help, here are other translations of that verse:You are contradicting yourself.
If there "is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived,
then there is no need to divide anything at all in scripture.
"They went out from us... to show that they were not of us" (1 Jn. 2:19). If someone does not persevere in faith and repentance, they show they are not born of God. James explains this in Ja. 2. Jesus explains it this way, "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." If someone turns back away from God, as you say, they prove "there is no fear of God before their eyes." It's the same thing Paul wrote in Rom. 8:13, "if you live according to the flesh you will die..." and Gal. 6:8, "the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption..." And if you think this is "faith + works" salvation, I think you don't really understand the gospel. "Salvation is from the Lord" (Jonah 2:9), not from the Lord + me and my works. If you add your own works to Christ's work, you are adding self-righteous boasting.Yes, they're the works that result from being justified, from entering the family of God through faith and having love poured out into them by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). But a believer can still refuse to do those works, can thwart the Spirit, can fail to ovecome the deeds of the flesh-or can return to the flesh- can fail to love, can turn back away from God, IOW. If he's good soil, OTOH, he will persevere. John's words in 1 John 3:15 apply to everyone- and he's placing love as the criteria for our sonship. and those words need to be weighed seriously by all just as Jesus' similiar words in Matt 5 must be.
No, they were not "certainly askew on the main point-of justification." Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel, and Paul taught it clearly (but obviously not clearly enough, because many Christians just don't get it). What many don't get, and what the Council of Trent didn't get, is the saving-kind of faith that Paul was talking about.Anyone can be wrong, of course, and not all the Reformers necessarily agreed with each other over the meaning of Scripture anyway, for that matter. But they were certainly askew on the main point-of justification. Either way, I appreciate much of what John Wesley, an early leader of the Great Awakening, taught.
Of course they got it, along with the EO and ECFs. God didn't wait 1500 years for His church to get it. What the Reformers got wrong was the full understanding of the role of faith, And the notion that justice or righteousness is merely imputed or declared of a believer, as if forgiveness of sin is the only thing justification is about while there's more to it than that: righteousness is also given at that point and the will of man is not taken out of the equation. We must take up our cross and follow, we must invest what we're given as the parable of the talents highlights. We don't become either perfectly sinless automatons at justification nor do we become free from the penalty of sin all future sin but rather given the ability to overcome it by the Spirit.No, they were not "certainly askew on the main point-of justification." Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel, and Paul taught it clearly (but obviously not clearly enough, because many Christians just don't get it). What many don't get, and what the Council of Trent didn't get, is the savin
I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, we are free from the penalty of sin, past, present, and future. If you think this is teaching antinomianism, then I think you don't understand the gospel, the same as the people Paul talked about in Rom. 3:8.Of course they got it, along with the EO and ECFs. God didn't wait 1500 years for His church to get it. What the Reformers got wrong was the full understanding of the role of faith, And the notion that justice or righteousness is merely imputed or declared of a believer, as it forgiveness of sin is the only thing justification is about while there's more to it than that: righteousness is also given at that point and the will of man is not taken out of the equation. We must take up her cross and follow, we must invest what we're given as the parable of the talents highlights. We don't become either perfectly sinless automatons at justification nor do we become free from the penalty of sin all future sin but rather given the ability to overcome it by the Spirit.
Maybe, but why don't you go ahead and explain to me why it's not antinomianism?I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, we are free from the penalty of sin, past, present, and future. If you think this is teaching antinomianism, then I think you don't understand the gospel, the same as the people Paul talked about in Rom. 3:8.
Where'd you get that?And the Council of Trent did get it wrong, because they failed to understand that genuine faith in Christ is never just a theory,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?