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.
In my Accordance Bible Software I regularly consult Thayers, Mounce, NIDNTT and for Hebrew BDB, NIDOTTE and Kohlenberger/Mounce.There is some discussion in this thread, as in most threads, about the proper interpretation of certain scriptures. Since Strong's is readily available online free that is usual to go to source. Most posters don't know that Strong's is a concordance not a lexicon. Strong's only provides the definitions which occur in the KJV, which in some cases is incorrect.
The primary lexicons in use at the present time are Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich BDAG] Greek lexicon and Brown, Driver, Briggs [BDB] Hebrew lexicon. A 1950s edition of BDB is available online,
BDBlink
A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic : Brown, Francis, 1849-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
BDAG link. This has a draw back it does not represent the Greek correctly but is better than nothing.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker (free.fr)
God does nothing nebulously.
When a passage of Scripture doesn't make good sense to a person, it is not saying that Reason trumps Scripture, for that person to look about for another way to see that passage of Scripture.
The real problem with, "This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.", is that it just doesn't make sense. It's pretty obvious that cause-and-effect is pervasive, and that chance cannot cause anything, and that God is first cause, which means that EVERYTHING that is not him is what it is by his plan and purpose. I don't mean that God does nothing collectively, but when he does, it is individuals to whom he does it.
Even in Heaven the Bride of Christ, a collective, is made of individuals.
Should one also bring to the table, a blank mind, as far as reason is concerned? There is certainly value in reading with a mind like a child, but there is also value in maturity, which includes not only Godliness, but wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
Whether by 'doctrine' you intend such things as the tenets of Reformed Theology (or any other theology) or not, we ALL —even the unbelievers— have theology; we all have our doctrine. We also have our worldview, which is impossible to shed, though wise to bear in mind that we do have one (not at all saying that our worldview cannot change —it is constantly being revised, as we learn and mature).
(Ha! Personally, I find the attempt to read without preconceptions distracting. How does one do that? I remember taking a speedreading course, but found my mind incapable of following the method, simultaneous with paying attention to what my eyes were scanning!)
So, it's really up to chance, just who that will be...?
Those are all excellent sources. Some e.g. Thayer's, Mounce might be out-dated editions. Any Greek source older than 1972 may well be outdated.In my Accordance Bible Software I regularly consult Thayers, Mounce, NIDNTT and for Hebrew BDB, NIDOTTE and Kohlenberger/Mounce.
I have found clarity at times by looking at many rather than one.
Although I believe it is profitable to read these guys and all the brethren that have come before us, it is not required as they had the same scriptures we do and arrived at their understanding via 'scripture alone'--one of the solas.
I have often pointed out that I arrived at much of what Calvin and the Dutch Reformed church came up with--not through them, but through studying scripture.
While I don't doubt you've done extensive independent Scriptural studies, there is not truly a way to do "scripture alone." Translations infuse theological viewpoints, you've heard countless sermons that have introduced you indirectly to historical presuppositions, even your idea of what Scripture is comes from arguments over tradition. Many of the doctrine that are supposedly from tradition alone,and even the interpretive method preferred by the Reformers, were innovations of the Reformer's and those innovations have persisted among mainline Protestant denominations. Those closest to the histrical context of the Apostle's show no signs of Calvinistic thought, instead essentially uniformly asserting the importance of free will and they were working with the same Scriptures though their understanding had not been tainted by centuries of distance and entirely different cultural understandings. So you aren't engaged in "Scripture alone" but instead are introducing a distinctly Euro-centric, Latin West context onto the pages of Scripture that colors how you interpret it.Although I believe it is profitable to read these guys and all the brethren that have come before us, it is not required as they had the same scriptures we do and arrived at their understanding via 'scripture alone'--one of the solas.
I have often pointed out that I arrived at much of what Calvin and the Dutch Reformed church came up with--not through them, but through studying scripture.
Between Adam and Moses, there was no covenant nor law of God in force whose penalty was death, both physical and spiritual.
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is sin-to-death, not just sin. . .as Adam's sin was sin-to-death (Genesis 2:17), both physical and spiritual, which is the only reason Adam died.
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is why all died when no law of sin-to-death was in force, as it was with Adam.
The answer is Romans 5:18, all those born of Adam were condemned to death by Adam's transgression, just as (so also) all those born of Christ are justified (declared righteous) by Christ's obedience (the cross).
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is that sin was not to physical and spiritual death by a law of God. . .yet they all died, as did Adam who sinned against a law of God carrying the penalty of death (Genesis 2:17).
Romans 5:12-14 is not about just sin, it is about sin against law carrying a penalty of death, of which there was no such law between Adam and Moses. . .and yet they all died.
So where's the problem? What you say there is the same thing I say. It does not admit to uncaused free will. Uncaused free will depends on chance, which logically self-contradictory.
In other words, keeping the main thing, the main thing. Every issue is not a hill to die on. Many never learn this, better late than never.Well yes what you have said cannot be easily argued, but let me explain at least in part where I am coming from. I have been an elder, teacher, asst. Pastor and Pastor and yes--have studied and continue to study much and many sources---since retired, even more---BUT--I just chuckled to myself. Some years ago, I went through the process of asking myself what I believed and how I came to believe what I believed. In that process I did and continue to realize that much of it was not necessary or may I say vital. I was left with few things that I am willing to be dogmatic about and to teach. Those things are mainly laid out in something I wrote I referred to as 'Salvation is Relocation'. Essentially what is linked to the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension. Perhaps I could place that here somewhere.
That was easy--a Blog has been created with a PDF.
Salvation Is Relocation
Wasn't there something like that going on with Jonah?The problem? When I meet Mr. B, he may have a message to me from God. Then it's I by free will who decides if I will listen or not. Sure God could control the situation, making me accept the message, but He doesn't. So God may lead me to Mr. B, then it's up to my libertarian free will what I'll do with the message. So it's both God's will and our libertarian free will.
That's an important question to ask, and certainly those are indisposable and central truth. Though even there we can't separate our views from the historic understandings, and if we don't understand how such things developed in history can easily miss the subtle influences on our thinking and interpretations. For example, penal substitution is so prevalent among most protestant churches that it could easily be confused as being "the gospel" even though as a theory it only traces back to Calvin and no earlier(though it is essentially a refinement of Anselm's satisfaction theory). There simply is no "Scripture alone" because none of us comes to Scripture as blank slates, and none of us are privy to the text free of intermediate influence from text critical issues to interpretive decisions and often the biases of sources is so subtle we miss it unless we are primed against it.Well yes what you have said cannot be easily argued, but let me explain at least in part where I am coming from. I have been an elder, teacher, asst. Pastor and Pastor and yes--have studied and continue to study much and many sources---since retired, even more---BUT--I just chuckled to myself. Some years ago, I went through the process of asking myself what I believed and how I came to believe what I believed. In that process I did and continue to realize that much of it was not necessary or may I say vital. I was left with few things that I am willing to be dogmatic about and to teach. Those things are mainly laid out in something I wrote I referred to as 'Salvation is Relocation'. Essentially what is linked to the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension. Perhaps I could place that here somewhere.
That was easy--a Blog has been created with a PDF.
Salvation Is Relocation
Yes, and rejected it outright. It admits what, to my mind at least, is heresy, just as does Arminianism. It rejects omnipotence. A little non-causation is a lot.
That's an important question to ask, and certainly those are indisposable and central truth. Though even there we can't separate our views from the historic understandings, and if we don't understand how such things developed in history can easily miss the subtle influences on our thinking and interpretations. For example, penal substitution is so prevalent among most protestant churches that it could easily be confused as being "the gospel" even though as a theory it only traces back to Calvin and no earlier(though it is essentially a refinement of Anselm's satisfaction theory). There simply is no "Scripture alone" because none of us comes to Scripture as blank slates, and none of us are privy to the text free of intermediate influence from text critical issues to interpretive decisions and often the biases of sources is so subtle we miss it unless we are primed against it.
I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church in Southern California, though there are probably many things I do not see eye to eye with the denomination nor even the local congregation(especially regarding issues like the real presence and questions of atonement.)May I ask if you belong to a church, which one?
I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church in Southern California, though there are probably many things I do not see eye to eye with the denomination nor even the local congregation(especially regarding issues like the real presence and questions of atonement.)
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?