Jump to content

DaveW

Members
  • Posts

    5,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    253

Posts posted by DaveW

  1. 8 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

    I have personally offered the gospel to more sodomites than the people who hate Anderson for saying they are reprobate.

    So what?

    I have heard this argument used many times by his followers and it is ridiculous, because Anderson teaches that they cannot be saved. So you are effectively bragging that you wasted your time preaching to people who by Anderson's teaching are unable to be saved. This is EXACTLY what the Calvinist does when he says that he preaches the Gospel to everyone knowing that only "the elect" (according to Calvin's corrupt doctrines) can be saved. It is MEANINGLESS.

    And the majority of preachers here are concerned with two things: preaching the Gospel to the lost, and preaching doctrine to the saved, so your accusations are offensive, inaccurate, and misrepresentative. 

  2. 5 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

    Do those doctrines detract in any way to the gospel being offered at thousands of people’s doors every week? I can assure you that they are not going to those doors to preach the reprobate doctrine, or how the Jews have been broken off due to unbelief, and their covenant waxing old and vanishing away.

    Many churches are praying for revival which have no soul winning program. What are they trying to revive if the lost are not being quickened?

     

    So are you suggesting that any false doctrines can be preached as long as the Gospel is right?

  3. But your premise that many of us are rejecting logic and that we "believe because we want to" is just wrong.

    Christians should be the greatest skeptics the world knows, but you are not trying the spirits. You truly are starting at the place that Thomas was: "I will not believe, unless I see the scars and feel the wounds."

    There have been several answers given which you dismiss because you don't like them. They are not "bad answers" as you see them to be, they simply are not satisfying to you. We can't help that. If you do not want to believe, then nothing will convince you - and by all appearances you do not want to believe. You just want to ease your own conscience of the guilt you feel for rejecting the Biblical AND logical conclusions.

    You reject any and all answers you are given NOT because they are illogical or inadequate but because you WANT TO REJECT them.

    If you were serious about it would not have rejected for instance my original answers by saying:

    "To Mr. DaveW: I can't tell you how much I appreciate your long and detailed answer; your effort has greatly moved me, and I am very grateful to you for your time and thoroughness! I have heard these answers or ones similar to them over years of asking these kinds of questions, but I am still uneasy; they are ad-hoc, or like you said, 'put together' and 'not watertight', and some are still strictly speaking errant (even if rounded in the inconsistent way suggested, the numbers of soldiers in the army are still not the same, and couldn't bereferenced in an exact sense, like in a scientific paper or a court of law, to which standards surely God's own word should meet). This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the strict Biblical Inerrancy either, and as I'm sure you're aware there are many more contradictions in various degrees to be found through out the texts. However, like I said before, I am very, very grateful to you for your effort and dedication, and any more insight from you would be most welcome!"

     

    You would have entered into discussion about what I wrote.

    You didn't. You simply said it was not good enough for you.

    You don't appear to be interested in the discussion you say you want.

    You DO appear to be more interested in what men say about the Bible, but apparently only in men who doubt the Bible.

    Why do you not quote men like Spurgeon who believed the Bible sart to finish was inerrerant? Or men like Tozer who believed the Bible was inerrant?

    There are plenty of men who are on record as stating the Bible is without error, but you choose to enlist the words of men who throw doubt on the Bible.

    And I still maintain that if you put as much store in the Word of God as you do in words of men (even men who do state that the Bible is without error), then you will be 1000 times better off.

    If the men you choose to follow and defend are doubters of the Word of God, then where are you going to end up?

    And you have not put up one serious answer to any verse I have posted. I was not posting them for the fun of, but because each of them answers your problems.  But you choose to ignore them because they are the Word of God which you do not trust.........

    We have tried, but you refuse to accept our answers - not because they are inadequate, and not because they are insufficient, and not because they are wrong - they are none of these. You reject them because you do not like them......

    I will not beleive unless I see the scars and feel the wounds.....

    Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

    26  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

     27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

     28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

     29  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

  4. 8 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

    To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth).

    On Dan Barker:

    Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can.

    Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized.

    Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5).

    1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else.

    2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts.

    3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error.

    4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain.

    5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception.

    6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy.

    7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.

     

    The bolded part of the quote says everything that needs to be said.

    This man ahs done this on several occasions: he quotes a part of a statement and then answers something that was not actually posed.

    Here is the actual post that Alan made, to show that this guys answer is a false accusation against Alan, for Alan never posed such as this guy suggests. This is plain misrepresentation.

    12 hours ago, Alan said:

    Mr. Thomas,

    God does not write the scriptures for your, or any man's, private thoughts on how, or what, or what dates, or times of reigns, should be mentioned. What you think and what I think should b e mentioned is immaterial. As I clearly brought out, the scriptures are very clear that King Jeroiachim had two reigns.  Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there is no contradiction between

    2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.

    Alan

    He is not here to get an answer for his supposed troubles.

    If he was he would not misrepresent people, and he would not introduce side issues to cloud the discussion, such as why he introduced the discussion about divorce aimed particularly at SAB, because he knows that it is something that SAB is passionate about. Thankfully everyone has ignored this attempt at causing division.

    His misrepresentation of people, his disdain for the Word of God, his constant uplifting of man's word over God's, including the words of some men who are absolutely ungodly, and his baiting with side issues, all add together to prove that this man is not here for any purpose other than to cause trouble and division.

    He is "nicer", and he is more measured, but the evidence is there.

    If he was genuine he would stick to his first purpose - the veracity of the Word of God.

     

  5. Never happier than when defending fallible men, never sadder than when denying the truth of the Word of God.

    There's your problem right there - 

    You put more store in the words of men than in the Word of God.

    How quickly you come to the defense of men, and how quickly you dismiss the Word of God.

    STOP READING WHAT MEN SAY AND START READING THE WORD OF GOD.

    Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

  6. 28 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

    But to humor you, I'll perform a little exercise

    Nuff said..... I am out.

    28 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

    chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come

    No accusation - your starting position is the same as Thomas - I  WILL NOT BELIEVE...….

    This attitude displayed in your responses to anyone who has tried to help, and displayed further in the quotes above tells me that you are not actually after answers You are convinced that the Bible is not true, and until you move from that premise you cannot make any forward progress.

    You need to worry less about what men like CS Lewis or Peterson say and try studying the Bible in order to answer your own questions.

    You are obviously not interested in what other people have to say (because you reject it without consideration), so the ONLY course of action for you to take is to diligently study the Word of God and find the answers for yourself.

    If you are indeed in any way interested in getting the answers...….

    Have fun, but I will take no further part.

  7. Your beginning premise is wrong.

    Your beginning is that the Bible is NOT TRUE, and you are asking people to prove to you that it is true.

    This is you (and I suspect why you have chosen that name....):

    Joh 20:24-25
    (24)  But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
    (25)  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
     

    This is the clear attitude that you have displayed in your answers.

    In contrast to your dismissing of Wretched's comments, I point you to what Jesus said to Thomas:

    Joh 20:29
    (29)  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Thomas said he would not believe unless he had 100%solid proof, but the Lord said it is more blessed to believe WITHOUT THAT 100% solid proof.

    I can show you verse after verse after verse after verse that are absolutely 100% true and accurate, and you are sweeping aside any explanation that you do not like for three passages that YOU find doubtful. 

    You are beginning from the premise that the Bible is in error, and asking people to prove to you that what you have already decided is false, is true.

    From that starting point, you cannot come to real faith in either the Lord or in His Word.

    I am not asking you to believe in "blind faith", but to start from a position of faith, not a position of opposition.

     

  8. Longer answer than I intended, so sorry about that, but if you are really interested you will read it all. ?

     

     

    As Wretched said, if you are looking for a 100% kind of thing, then you are looking to do without faith.

    Heb 11:6

    (6)  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

     

     

    However, to address the three examples you cite:

    First of all, we must confirm that you are talking about the KJV. Most of the other versions have some pretty gross errors in them, and the rest are less obvious but still notable.

    Secondly, I am taking this as a genuine question, although these are the three most common “issues” that people bring up…….

    Thirdly, if you take single verses in isolation, then it is very easy to become “disoriented” from the account. As a result, I will quote passages in most cases rather than single verses.

     

    “Matthew 27:5 (Judas hanged himself) and Acts 1:18 (Judas died by falling down in a field)

    Mat 27:4-8

    (4)  Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

    (5)  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

    (6)  And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

    (7)  And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

    (8)  Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

     

     

    Act 1:18-19

    (18)  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

    (19)  And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

     

     

    There are actually 2 issues with this passage: the one you mentioned (the manner of his death), and the purchase of the field.

    Judas didn’t purchase the field, as Acts 1 18 says, but Matthew 27:7-8 tells us that the chief priests purchased the field – but they did so with the money they paid to Judas, so in effect they purchased it for him. Neither is in error. It was the money of Judas, and therefore he paid for it, although the transaction was not done by Judas himself, but on his behalf. I point this out, because it shows that things stated in different ways can correctly refer to the same event.

    Now in regard to your actual issue with this passage, Matthew 27 tells us that Judas hanged himself. This would be the manner of his death.

    Acts 1:18 doesn’t actually mention his death at all – you are assuming it is how he died, but the verses do not say that. If you look at the verse it says that he purchased the land, then fell over and his bowels gushed out. But if you look in Matthew 27 you see that he hanged himself, THEN the land was purchased in his name. Paupers who died in those days were thrown into a rubbish pile outside the city walls, and if he was dropped over the wall into that rubbish pile I would think that he would likely burst asunder and his bowels would gush out…… Of course, the money was used to buy “the Potter’s Field” so that practice (Bodies on the rubbish pile) should have ceased after Judas, for then there was a place to bury strangers in. But only after this event, for even in those days it would take time to find, purchase, and organise the land for this purpose.

    The order of events, and an understanding of history is enough for us to address this "problem".

     

     

    “1 Chron 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9 (number of fighting me in Isreal)”

    1Ch 21:1-7

    (1)  And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

    (2)  And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.

    (3)  And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

    (4)  Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.

    (5)  And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

    (6)  But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

    (7)  And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

     

     

    One million one hundred thousand men in Israel (Northern Kingdom), and four hundred and seventy thousand men in Judah (Southern Kingdom).

     

     

    2Sa 24:1-10

    (1)  And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

    (2)  For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.

    (3)  And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?

    (4)  Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.

    (5)  And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:

    (6)  Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon,

    (7)  And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba.

    (8)  So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

    (9)  And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

    (10)  And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

     

     

    Eight hundred thousand in Israel, and five hundred thousand in Judah.

    A seeming difference of three hundred thousand in Israel and thirty thousand in Judah.

     

     

    My first thought is that in 1 Chron 21:6 it says that Joab didn’t count the Levites nor the Benjamites, so we would expect a difference in the numbers, with the 1 Chron 21 being the lower number, because it specifically says that some were not counted. That might explain the difference from Judah, but the difference in Israel is the wrong way for that simple explanation. We must therefore cast our net a little wider.

     

     

    And we come to this passage:

    1Ch 27:1

    (1)  Now the children of Israel after their number, to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and their officers that served the king in any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year, of every course were twenty and four thousand.

     

     

    It seems that there was a system of “reserves” called up each month 24000 from each tribe, which equals a total over the year of 288000.

    For me, that is close enough to 300000 to make up the difference.

     

     

    So Joab refused to count the Levites and the Benjamites – I assume they were associated with the Temple and with Jerusalem – I can happily assume that takes care of the 30000 of Judah missing from 1 Chron 21, and if the count from 2 Sam 24 didn’t include all those who were “already on the books” as it were as soldiers of the regular rotation, then we have a close enough number on the second figure to explain it as a “rounding to the nearest….”

     

     

     

     

     

     

    “2 Chron 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (was King Jehoiachin 8 years old or 18 when he was crowned).

     

     

    This is one of the most common issues we hear – I think that there is a thread from some time ago about this on this site…..

     

    2Ch 36:8-10

    (8)  Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

    (9)  Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

    (10)  And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

     

     

    2Ki 24:6-9

    (6)  So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

    (7)  And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.

    (8)  Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

    (9)  And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

     

     

    This at first seems like a problem, but in this case we need to look at the situation and see if we can find a solution.

    In cases like this it would be easier for us if God made it super clear, but He does tell us to 2Ti 2:15

    (15)  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

     

     

    ….so we really can’t complain if we have to put some effort in……

    What was the situation in which he became “king”.

    In the first place it is interesting that in 2 Chron 36 it says he was 8 when he began to reign in Jerusalem.

    But in 2 Kings 24 it says he was 18 when he began to reign in Jerusalem.

    Both accounts mention the same length of reign – I don’t see the 10 days being an issue.

    In fact aside from the 8 vs 18 the only other difference is the mention of the mother in 2 Kings 24. The point about that is that in the passage which says he began to reign when he was 8 it doesn’t mention his father’s death, and in the passage where it mentions 18 and his mother, it specifically mentions his father’s death.

    If you look at the situation of his father’s reign, you see Babylon was all around the place causing trouble and laying on pressure.

    And in fact the last few verses 2 Kings 24 tells us that when Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon the Babylonian king put someone else as King over Jerusalem.

    This is why he reigned only three months.

    So is this an indication that Jehoiachin was appointed by his father as co-regent or heir in waiting? With the unsettled nature of the rule under Babylon (see the early part of that chapter), and the resultant replacement soon after Jehoiakim’s death, it is entirely reasonable to think that he may have appointed his son as co-regent in the hope that his claim to the throne would be established.

    Therefore, he began to reign with his father at the age of 8, but began to reign in his own right 10 years later. In any case, he reigned only 3 months before he was taken by the Babylonians and put into a prison in Babylon, and another man put into the place of  king instead of him, thereby proving his father’s wisdom in making him co-regent, but that not succeeding in its plan.

    Now, none of these is a watertight answer, but each of them gives a satisfactory answer to the problems presented.

  9. Woah there big boy......The only place I remember John saying anything to do with "low calibre" is:

    On 9/25/2019 at 12:52 PM, John Young said:

    I personally believe one of the big reasons the modern church is struggling today, and lacks power is because Bishops and churches (even in the IFB types) refuse to disqualify pastors but instead make excuses for their sin and why they are minumily qualified and keep ordaining men of lower and lower caliber in stead of seeking men who are at the strictest example of the qualifications. 

    And yet you accuse him of saying:

     

    18 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

    John,

    It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murder to free his people, or an adulterer and a murder to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word.

    You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.

    You need to be careful with your accusations, for that is not what John said, nor even what he implied. In fact, almost exactly the opposite. He didn't say they were defiling the church, and he didn't restrict the reason to only divorce - in fact he didn't even designate divorce specifically.

    And yet you go on a rant about all the other problems with churches today saying that John was ignoring those and suggesting it was ALL ABOUT DIVORCE.

    In fact, John's statement includes, not excludes all of these things, because it is a general statement.

    This is very close to a false accusation.

     

  10. I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared.

    It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says.

    Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?

  11. 1 Timothy 3

     1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

     2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

     3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

     4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

     5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

     6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

     7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

     

    I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage.

    Where does it talk about sin?

    It doesn't.  It speaks of qualifications, not sin.

    Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin.

    Sin?

    Qualifications?

    What is the difference between them?

    Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.

  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...