First Doctrines First

[DHC]

Also, let it be known that those who may think they know more than a commentator are mistaken.

Hello NetChaplain.

You made a substantial claim in your last post, I will reproduce the claim below.

Also, let it be known that those who may think they know more than a commentator are mistaken.

That is a profound claim to make NetChaplain and I do wonder whether you can in fact
make such a claim? One would need a perfect knowledge of the scripture in order to
propose that claim. Also no error in interpretation in any commentary is permissable otherwise
your claim would be without foundation.

Your claiming that there cannot exist a people who may know more than any commentator
about the scripture.

If a person or persons, made a claim that they knew the scripture better than any commentator,
then they are mistaken, according to you?

Well NetChaplain, may I inform you that most commentaries possess an underlying theology.

Most commentaries are written by theologians and these theologians peddle their own pet theology.

Not all commentaries will exhibit a common interpretation of the scripture.

John Gill was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic
soteriology. (wikipedia)

This means that John Gill will interpret the scripture from the standpoint of God's sovereignty.
Whether this interpretation technique is at all justified is another question altogether.
This theology that John Gill was educated in, is a hotly disputed theology.

So is it possible to know more than someone who writes a commentary?

Well that will depend on whether any given commentary reflects accurately what the scripture declares.

Together NetChaplain, let's examine John Gill's commentary on the letter to the Romans and see
whether John Gill's interpretation is correct.

In particular NetChaplain, one line from Paul's letter to the Romans should suffice to illustrate,
that John Gill's interpretation is erroneous.

Romans 11:2
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.

As you would be aware NetChaplain, the context will determine how a verse will be understood.

Only a fool would ignore the context that surrounds and supports any given verse in the scripture.

So NetChaplain is Paul talking about all mankind in this verse (Romans 11:2), or is Paul discussing
the nation of Israel? Is the phrase 'His people' referring to the Israelites or to mankind in general?

A simple question and a question that determines your interpretation of the scripture.

John Gill in his commentary on Romans favors the idea that Paul is referring to all mankind.
Here read it for yourself NetChaplain.

"The apostle goes on with his answer to the objection, by distinguishing and explaining who he
meant by the people God had not cast away, namely, which were "foreknown" by him; for all
mankind are in a sense his people" (John Gill, commentary, Romans 11:2)

An interpretation that views 'His people' as all of mankind is incorrect NetChaplain.

Context determines the interpretation of the verse in question and not theology.

The specific context of the verse dictates that the phrase 'His people' are the Israelites.

Anyone who ignores the context of the text will fail to understand the letter.

I must say NetChaplain that Mr Gill does indeed spot the alternate contextual reading.

But due to his conditioning in Calvinism, poor Mr Gill needs to discard the context.

Here is what Mr Gill notices.

"and though the people of the Jews in general were the people of God, being in a sense chosen,
known, and distinguished by him from the rest of the world, yet they were not all a "foreknown" people"

See John Gill is aware of the context but rejects the simple contextual reading as this reading
is in conflict with Calvinism. Further, Mr Gill even distorts the meaning of the word 'foreknew'.

We will put the line in question into the context of the preceeding verse.

Romans 11:1
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul is simply saying within the provided context that God has not cast away the Israelites.
Paul is not talking about mankind at all, Paul has been discussing the Israelites since chapter
two! Paul is not using the word 'foreknew' in any other way, than what the word means
in the Greek, to formerly have known.

Your claim needs to be withdrawn NetChaplain and John Gill's commentary is erroneous!

 

[Travis]

Τετέλεσται

Do you see?

I can see quite clearly.

I can see that you are a living example of what it means to depart from the faith. You have denied the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus to save his people from their sins, and added a host other requirements other than pure faith in order to be saved. I really don't know what else to tell you... but you have essentially cut yourself off from grace...

Τετέλεσται - Tetelestai - "It is Finished" (John 19: 30)

Τετέλεσται is a legal term. It appeared on documents such as official bills or debts owed. Testelestai, written on that bill, would indicate that whatever debt owed had been fully paid. Everyone who heard Jesus say these words, at that time, would have understood this meaning.

"He paid a debt he did not owe. I owed a debt I could not pay. I needed someone, to wash my sin away...."​

"It is finished" is the same as saying, "paid in full," in this context. He paid the price for sin, the innocent in place of the guilty. It is finish, it is paid for, it is done, 100%... you can either accept it or refuse it, but either way, it's 100% finished. Those who reject it will find the same end as this man:

Matthew 22
11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 For many are called, but few are chosen."​

It's one thing to apostatize... but to try to convince others to come along with you just brings all the more condemnation. I hope you change your mind about all of this.

Travis

 

[pekoe]

I can see quite clearly.

I can see that you are a living example of what it means to depart from the faith. You have denied the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus to save his people from their sins, and added a host other requirements other than pure faith in order to be saved. I really don't know what else to tell you... but you have essentially cut yourself off from grace...

Obeying Jesus isn't cutting myself off from grace. Disobeying Jesus is to dishonor God's grace.

What you call departing from the faith I'm finding is departing from heresy. If you disagree then explain Ezekiel 18 in a way that makes sense according to the gospel as understood today. It's easy to call someone an apostate and then stick your head in the sand when you can't explain what the Bible says according to a doctrine.

Τετέλεσται - Tetelestai - "It is Finished" (John 19: 30)

Τετέλεσται is a legal term. It appeared on documents such as official bills or debts owed. Testelestai, written on that bill, would indicate that whatever debt owed had been fully paid. Everyone who heard Jesus say these words, at that time, would have understood this meaning.

Jesus said He finished the work God gave Him to do (Jn.17:4), which was to glorify God. This is what He said. He never said anything about paying our sin debt. Jesus taught that His merciful Father simply forgives the repentant:

"Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt." Mt.18:27

Pure compassion without sacrifice.

"He paid a debt he did not owe. I owed a debt I could not pay. I needed someone, to wash my sin away...."​

I think it's likely that saying God saddled Jesus with a debt He didn't owe is heresy.

"It is finished" is the same as saying, "paid in full," in this context. He paid the price for sin, the innocent in place of the guilty. It is finish, it is paid for, it is done, 100%... you can either accept it or refuse it, but either way, it's 100% finished.

It is finished is not the same as paid in full. You're injecting your own interpretation into Jesus' words.

Those who reject it will find the same end as this man:

11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 For many are called, but few are chosen."​

The Apostles taught that Jesus' blood washes our garments and this is a process of walking in obedience to Him:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 Jn.1:7

"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Re.7:14

It's one thing to apostatize... but to try to convince others to come along with you just brings all the more condemnation. I hope you change your mind about all of this.

Travis

I think we've been misled long enough. If I'm wrong then it should be very easy to answer this:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."De.24:16

Go ahead.

 

[pekoe]

Yes, but I believe the issue isn't knowing right from wrong, this has always been a capability of man. Adam and Eve knew it was disobedience before the first sin, because He forbid them concerning it. The difference after sinning was that the sin itself caused them to comprehend sin, not just know what sin is, and in doing so it increased their comprehension concerning God's holiness.

The problem with how Christianity today presents the gospel is that it claims humanity is incapable of responding to the message of Christ. If this was true, then Paul's words here make no sense:

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all*men, apt to teach, patient, n meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; " 2 Ti.2:24-25

Paul himself reasoned with his countrymen out of the scriptures. If people were completely incapable of understanding anything about God, it wouldn't matter how the gospel was presented to them.

Yes and not just concerning His Messiah-ship, but all Scriptural truths we need to comprehend for our Spiritual growth.

No brother, because even unsaved people can understand some things the Bible says.

The most confirming evidence of a believer (I would say true believer but that would be an oxymoron because one cannot be a true believer and eventually become a true unbeliever) is their continuance (perseverance) in the desire for God's pleasure (, which is the very thing He "works" in us (), through the Spirit ().

Then it would seem a believer is someone who obeys Jesus, which is all I'm really saying.

God knew the generality of Israel and the rest of the world not trust (believe) Him, which is the primary cause of disobedience, but He also knew their would be believers from both dispensations whom He will have with Him forever. I do not find it insensible to conceive that God knew it would be worth the "few" from the world to find eternal life, for the entire Heaven rejoices over "one sinner who repents."

Right....repents...turns and follows Jesus. This is why God sent His Son here. He didn't send Him to be abused.

The numbers of those perishing and those being saved will be "innumerable" (; ), but in comparison, the saved will be "few" (, ). This is why it has always been evident that most in this life have no desire to be right with God.

I agree.

 

[NetChaplain]

Hello NetChaplain.
You made a substantial claim in your last post, I will reproduce the claim below.

That is a profound claim to make NetChaplain and I do wonder whether you can in fact
make such a claim? One would need a perfect knowledge of the scripture in order to
propose that claim. Also no error in interpretation in any commentary is permissable otherwise
your claim would be without foundation.

Hi DHC - Your reply has shown me that I have wrongfully expressed what I wanted to share and should be more clear, which is that on the average, commentators know more about the Scriptures than most, because they have used most of their lives in the study of God's Word. Myself, I have yet to encounter a Bible commentator who uses it for the wrong reason, for in general they all have the same agenda (truth) and usually the same interpretations concerning the primary subject of an issue. It will often appear they are different in their overall comments but I believe they are mostly saying the same thing but in a different way (semantics).

This does not mean they know everything in the Word, for no Bible student is flawless (as you've mentioned) in all of their comprehensions concerning Scripture, and I have never found a commentator whom I always agrees with. The Spirit often shows one believer something He may not have yet shown another, and He uses every believer to share their part.

Concerning Gill's comment about "for all mankind are in a sense his people, being made, maintained, and supported in their beings by him," I do not comprehend that Gill is saying that those who God "foreknew" are all mankind. He was just making a statement that he believed all mankind was in a sense His people, because they came from Him and He provides to them sustenance for physical life, i.e. "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27).

Gill's explains in Romans 11:2 that those who God "foreknew" is in reference to those from among Israel that God already knew would be His people, which was and still is a minority ("remnant"--Rom 9:27) out of Israel. The key word is "foreknew," which I believe is also similar to Christs' proclamation, "I never knew you" (Mat 7:23).

"God not merely knew them before, by His general prescience and foreknowledge, which extends to all persons and things; or foresaw their faith, holiness, and good works, and so chose them for Himself; for faith, holiness, and good works, are fruits and effects of electing grace.

"But He so knew them before, even from all eternity, as that He approved of them, liked them, loved them, and took delight and complacency in them: now these His people He never did, nor never will cast away. Their numbers may be but very small in some periods of time, yet none of them are cast away."

Thank you for your input Brother and God's blessings to your Family!

 

[NetChaplain]

The problem with how Christianity today presents the gospel is that it claims humanity is incapable of responding to the message of Christ. If this was true, then Paul's words here make no sense:

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all*men, apt to teach, patient, n meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; " 2 Ti.2:24-25

Hi Pekoe - I believe you're making good points, but not necessarily according to my claims, unless I misunderstand you.

I believe Scripture does teach that an individual cannot come to faith in Christ without the Father's "drawing" (John 6:44), which is done solely through the Spirit of God and the Gospel of Christ. I also believe that the grace of saving faith cannot come from self but requires receiving from God.

God's blessings to your Family!

 

[pekoe]

Hi Pekoe - I believe you're making good points, but not necessarily according to my claims, unless I misunderstand you.

I believe Scripture does teach that an individual cannot come to faith in Christ without the Father's "drawing" (), which is done solely through the Spirit of God and the Gospel of Christ. I also believe that the grace of saving faith cannot come from self but requires receiving from God.

God's blessings to your Family!

Thank you for your blessing brother and may God bless you and your family also.

I think Jesus words in John 6:44 are misunderstood also.

He said no man can come to Me in response to their questioning His origin:

"The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

So Jesus says,

"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

He means, anyone who loves God or desires God in His life will come to His Son:

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

In other words, if you say you love God, you will hear Jesus. The problem was that people were giving the impression they loved God, but then disagreed with the Son of God, which is not possible.

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." Jn.8:42

People are drawn to Him "by God"....meaning by their desire for God.

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear*them not, because ye are not of God.