Pastor Scott Markle

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Really??  Ok, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will alone, without any consideration of any characteristic in them or any conduct by them, for certain sinners to repent and believe, and thereby to be justified?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

God viewed all mankind as fallen and dead in sin. If God did not do anything we would all be sent into second death.

God has an eternal plan before the world was;Rev

⁸ And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

There is nothing in us to commend ourselves to God.

The natural man will not seek God. It is God that seeks and saves sinners granting repentance and faith;Acts11

 

¹⁷ Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

¹⁸ When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

So, best I can discern, your answer to my question above is -- Yes, what I have presented in my question is that which the Calvinistic system of belief teaches.

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will that all human-kind would be made lost sinners in Adam by Adam's first disobedience?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

God was not kidding at all when He said, dying thou shalt surely die. Mandkind was constitued sinners by Adams original transgression, and they sin all through their life.

In addition, within a different thread discussion -- "Calvinism or Arminianism? How do you answer?" -- you posted the following:

23 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Because of Adam’s disobedience, the many were appointed by God to be sinners. They were put down in the category of and constituted to be sinners. (red emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, best I can discern, your answer to my above question is -- Yes, the Calvinistic system of belief does indeed teach that because of Adam's disobedience, they were "appointed by God to be sinners," and thereby were constituted sinners in Adam.

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Finally, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will that any lost sinner whom He has not sovereignly determined to regenerate shall never possess any ability or possibility whatsoever to repent and believe?

Now, whereas the previous two questions in my sequence set the context, this is the KEY question in my sequence.  For the answer of the Calvinistic system of belief is (as I mentioned earlier) my PRIMARY dispute (although not my only dispute) with the Calvinistic doctrine of election.  So then, what was your answer?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

All men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe Acts17

They love sin rather than God. God savingly regenerates all the Father has given to the Son.

Those not elected are passed over, and left to themselves to repent and believe,

The door on the Ark was left open for a long time and the people did not want to enter.

from the 1689;

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

So, in this portion of your answer, you indicate that "those not elected are passed over," such that they are "left to themselves to repent and believe."  Yet we both know that no lost sinner has any ability or possibility to repent and believe apart from some "first work" of the Lord God upon their hearts (whether that "first work" be "prevenient grace" or "regenerating grace" or "drawing grace" or some other "first work of grace).

Even so, in my posting above I broke this question down into smaller parts, as follows:

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

According to the Calvinistic system of belief -

Has the Lord God sovereignly willed NOT to call them effectually?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

There is a general outward call to all men who hear the word preached.

This is often rejected.

The effectual call is inward by the Spirit giving a new heart that welcomes the truth. Ezk 36:25-27

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

Indeed, that which you placed in green teaches that "although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will NOR CAN truly come to Christ, and therefore CANNOT be saved."  So then, as best I can discern, the Calvinistic system of belief does indeed teach that the Lord God, by His sovereign will, appointed and constituted them to be sinners in and by Adam's first sin, passed them over from His "effectual calling" and from any ability or opportunity to repent and believe, and thus thereby determined that they can never come to Christ for salvation.

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

According to the Calvinistic system of belief -

Has the Lord God sovereignly willed that they cannot (have no ability or possibility) come to Christ?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

They are passed over or left, theogians speak of preterition, as highlighted in section4, bolded in green

So, the portion that you bolded in green above is your answer - Yes, the Calvinistic system of belief teachest that God passed them over, such that "they neither will NOR CAN truly come to Christ, and therefore CANNOT be saved."  Indeed, the Calvinistic system of belief teaches that the Lord God sovereignly willed that they will NEVER have any ability or possibility to come unto Christ.

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

According to the Calvinistic system of belief -

Has the Lord God sovereignly willed that they cannot (have no ability or possibility) be saved?

5 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

The promise of God is freely offered to all men, and everyone believing will be saved.

Yet you have already revealed to us the teaching in the Calvinistic system of belief that the Lord God has sovereignly willed to pass some over, such that they CANNOT come unto Christ and CANNOT be saved. 

Now, you state that the Calvinistic system of belief teaches that "the promise of God is freely offered to all men."  Yet you have already revealed that, according to the Calvinistic system of belief, in order for that offer actually to be receivable it must be accompanied by God's sovereign work of "effectual calling."  Even so, according to the Calvinistic system of belief, for those to whom the Lord God has not granted His sovereign work of "effectual calling the offer of God's promise is in empty word only, since it is not accompanied by any work of God's grace to support it.

As for myself, I firmly and boldly declare -- GOD FORBID!  This is NOT the Lord God of Holy Scripture!

On 5/16/2022 at 9:32 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Mr. Iconoclast,

Not precisely.  A representative is one who makes decisions on behalf of others.  This is not what Romans 5:12-21 describes.  Rather, Romans 5:12-21 describes two heads whose actions have spiritually affected others.  Throughout the context the others whom their actions have spiritually affected are designated and defined by the terms "all men" in verse 12 and 18 and "many" in verses 15 and 19.

This is Biblically correct according to Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-9; etc.  However, do you recognize that throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 we do not encounter the direct reference to being "in" Adam or "in" Christ at all?  Rather, throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 the operative emphasis is on the prepositions "by" and "through," that is -- "by" and "through" Adam or "by" and "through" Christ.

Yet there is a very specific statement in the second half of Romans 5:18, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."  So, what does this very specific statement mean?  What does it mean that the free gift came upon all men?  Based upon the phrasing itself, there can only be so many possibilities:

1.  One possibility is that all men receive "justification of life."  Yet we know that this possibility of meaning contradicts the rest of Scripture and thus cannot be the correct meaning.

2.  One possibility is that only all believers receive "justification of life."  Now, concerning the application of justification and regeneration only to believers, this possibility would stand consistent with the rest of Scripture.  However, this possibility also requires us to change the phrase that God the Holy Spirit specifically and direction inspired from "all men" to only "all believers."  Yet God the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the statement, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all believers unto justification of life."  Rather, God the Holy Spirit DID specifically inspire the statement, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life."  Attempting to apply this Biblical statement unto any group less than "ALL MEN" is a direct denial of that which God the Holy Spirit Himself specifically and directly inspired.  Therefore, this possibility also cannot be the correct meaning.  (Now thus far, this is the position that you have taken, which has required you to deny and/or alter the "all men" designation that God the Holy Spirit Himself has inspired.)

3.  One possibility is that, not justification of life itself, but the free gift that is unto justification of life has come upon all men as an open offer unto them.  Now, from my understanding this possibility handles the grammar of the statement accurately, without denying or changing any part thereof. 

Note: Grammatically in the Greek the subject and verb for each of the two statements in Romans 5:18 are not specifically present, which is why the King James translation includes them with italics.  Contextually and grammatically the subject and verb for each of the two statements in Romans 5:18 are supplied by the statements of Romans 5:16, wherein the grammatical parallels (which I have highlighted by color coordination) are as follows:

Romans 5:16 - "For the judgment was by one to condemnation."
Romans 5:18 - "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation."
(In Romans 5:18 the phrase "judgment came" is in italics in the King James translation because it is not directly in the Greek of the verse, but is contextually and grammatically supplied by the earlier statement of Romans 5:16.  Furthermore, the one additional truth that Romans 5:18 supplies is the phrase "upon all men.")

Romans 5:16 - "But the free gift is of many offences unto justification."
Romans 5:18 - "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
(In Romans 5:18 the phrase "the free gift came" is in italics in the King James translation because it is not directly in the Greek of the verse, but is contextually and grammatically supplied by the earlier statement of Romans 5:16.  Furthermore, Romans 5:18 provides three additional thoughts to that of Romans 5:16.  First, whereas Romans 5:16 indicates that the free gift unto justification is "[out] of many offences," Romans 5:18 indicates it is "by the righteousness of one [Christ]."  Second, Romans 5:18 adds the truth that this free gift is "upon all men."  Third, Romans 5:18 indicates that the justification in this free gift is a justification "of life.")

Thus grammatically Romans 5:18 teaches the following:

1.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists (being supplied from Romans 5:16, the verb "came" indicates state of being) by the righteousness of Christ.

2.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists (the verb "came" indicates state of being) "unto" (for the purpose of) "justification of life."

3.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists "upon all men" (herein the preposition "upon" translates the Greek preposition "eis," which means "into, unto, toward, for the sake of.")

Even so, I myself choose to follow option #3 above, because it is the one option which does not contradict the rest of Scripture and which stands true to the specific grammar of Romans 5:18. 

(However, option #3 above is certainly contrary to the doctrinal system of Calvinism, because it would mean that the Lord our God, by the righteous sacrifice of Christ, made His gracious gift of justification to exist toward/upon/for the sake of "ALL MEN;" whereas the doctrinal system of Calvinism rejects this teaching.  Thus the Calvinist will seek in some way to change the meaning of "all men" in the second half of Romans 5:18.)

15 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Thanks for taking time to clarify your position, and for being willing to search the scriptures.This is a large part of what we are to be about . We need to have as much truth as we can to present truth to those outside the Kingdom.

Certainly.  I was more than happy to provide a clear understanding of the Biblical truth from Romans 5:18, in accord with the actual grammar that God the Holy Spirit directly and specifically inspired.

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

My primary dispute (although not my only dispute) with the Calvinistic system of belief concerning the doctrine of election is the Calvinistic teaching that the Lord our God predetermined for certain sinners to repent and believe by His sovereign will and for other sinners to have no ability or possibility to repent and believe.  

22 minutes ago, Iconoclast said:

You show you do not understand any aspect of the teaching.

Really??  Ok, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will alone, without any consideration of any characteristic in them or any conduct by them, for certain sinners to repent and believe, and thereby to be justified?

Furthermore, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will that all human-kind would be made lost sinners in Adam by Adam's first disobedience?

Finally, according to the Calvinistic system of belief did the Lord our God predetermine by His sovereign will that any lost sinner whom He has not sovereignly determined to regenerate shall never possess any ability or possibility whatsoever to repent and believe?

Note your own posting:

31 minutes ago, Iconoclast said:

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

According to the Calvinistic system of belief -

Has the Lord God sovereignly willed NOT to call them effectually?
Has the Lord God sovereignly willed that they cannot (have no ability or possibility) come to Christ?
Has the Lord God sovereignly willed that they cannot (have no ability or possibility) be saved?

Mr. Iconoclast,

57 minutes ago, Iconoclast said:

The text describes two representatives.

Not precisely.  A representative is one who makes decisions on behalf of others.  This is not what Romans 5:12-21 describes.  Rather, Romans 5:12-21 describes two heads whose actions have spiritually affected others.  Throughout the context the others whom their actions have spiritually affected are designated and defined by the terms "all men" in verse 12 and 18 and "many" in verses 15 and 19.

1 hour ago, Iconoclast said:

A person is either dead in sin, or alive In Christ.

This is Biblically correct according to Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-9; etc.  However, do you recognize that throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 we do not encounter the direct reference to being "in" Adam or "in" Christ at all?  Rather, throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 the operative emphasis is on the prepositions "by" and "through," that is -- "by" and "through" Adam or "by" and "through" Christ.

1 hour ago, Iconoclast said:

There is not mention of an offer to all men anywhere here as you add to the text.

Yet there is a very specific statement in the second half of Romans 5:18, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."  So, what does this very specific statement mean?  What does it mean that the free gift came upon all men?  Based upon the phrasing itself, there can only be so many possibilities:

1.  One possibility is that all men receive "justification of life."  Yet we know that this possibility of meaning contradicts the rest of Scripture and thus cannot be the correct meaning.

2.  One possibility is that only all believers receive "justification of life."  Now, concerning the application of justification and regeneration only to believers, this possibility would stand consistent with the rest of Scripture.  However, this possibility also requires us to change the phrase that God the Holy Spirit specifically and direction inspired from "all men" to only "all believers."  Yet God the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the statement, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all believers unto justification of life."  Rather, God the Holy Spirit DID specifically inspire the statement, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life."  Attempting to apply this Biblical statement unto any group less than "ALL MEN" is a direct denial of that which God the Holy Spirit Himself specifically and directly inspired.  Therefore, this possibility also cannot be the correct meaning.  (Now thus far, this is the position that you have taken, which has required you to deny and/or alter the "all men" designation that God the Holy Spirit Himself has inspired.)

3.  One possibility is that, not justification of life itself, but the free gift that is unto justification of life has come upon all men as an open offer unto them.  Now, from my understanding this possibility handles the grammar of the statement accurately, without denying or changing any part thereof. 

Note: Grammatically in the Greek the subject and verb for each of the two statements in Romans 5:18 are not specifically present, which is why the King James translation includes them with italics.  Contextually and grammatically the subject and verb for each of the two statements in Romans 5:18 are supplied by the statements of Romans 5:16, wherein the grammatical parallels (which I have highlighted by color coordination) are as follows:

Romans 5:16 - "For the judgment was by one to condemnation."
Romans 5:18 - "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation."
(In Romans 5:18 the phrase "judgment came" is in italics in the King James translation because it is not directly in the Greek of the verse, but is contextually and grammatically supplied by the earlier statement of Romans 5:16.  Furthermore, the one additional truth that Romans 5:18 supplies is the phrase "upon all men.")

Romans 5:16 - "But the free gift is of many offences unto justification."
Romans 5:18 - "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
(In Romans 5:18 the phrase "the free gift came" is in italics in the King James translation because it is not directly in the Greek of the verse, but is contextually and grammatically supplied by the earlier statement of Romans 5:16.  Furthermore, Romans 5:18 provides three additional thoughts to that of Romans 5:16.  First, whereas Romans 5:16 indicates that the free gift unto justification is "[out] of many offences," Romans 5:18 indicates it is "by the righteousness of one [Christ]."  Second, Romans 5:18 adds the truth that this free gift is "upon all men."  Third, Romans 5:18 indicates that the justification in this free gift is a justification "of life.")

Thus grammatically Romans 5:18 teaches the following:

1.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists (being supplied from Romans 5:16, the verb "came" indicates state of being) by the righteousness of Christ.

2.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists (the verb "came" indicates state of being) "unto" (for the purpose of) "justification of life."

3.  The free gift (of Romans 5:16) exists "upon all men" (herein the preposition "upon" translates the Greek preposition "eis," which means "into, unto, toward, for the sake of.")

Even so, I myself choose to follow option #3 above, because it is the one option which does not contradict the rest of Scripture and which stands true to the specific grammar of Romans 5:18. 

(However, option #3 above is certainly contrary to the doctrinal system of Calvinism, because it would mean that the Lord our God, by the righteous sacrifice of Christ, made His gracious gift of justification to exist toward/upon/for the sake of "ALL MEN;" whereas the doctrinal system of Calvinism rejects this teaching.  Thus the Calvinist will seek in some way to change the meaning of "all men" in the second half of Romans 5:18.)

40 minutes ago, Iconoclast said:

Sorry Pastor Scott,

I do not deny Gods word as written. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Actually, Mr. Iconoclast, in a previous posting you did exactly that --

14 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Hello Pastor Scott,

You go astray in that the section is not saying the "free gift" Has been made available unto all men, or has come upon all men at all. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Whereas God's Word AS WRITTEN says in the second half of Romans 5:18, "Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."  Such is precisely what is written in God's Word.  Such is precisely what you denied in your earlier posting.  

Here is what is written:

1.  The free gift came by the righteousness of Christ.
2.  The free gift came upon all men.
3.  The free gift is unto justification of life.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Really??  Romans 12:18b - "Even so by the righteousness of one THE FREE GIFT CAME UPON ALL MEN unto justification of life."  Seems to me that such is precisely what Scripture says.

51 minutes ago, Iconoclast said:

You think all men who live are currently justified?

That is an interesting response.  I provide a direct quote of God's Holy Word, and you question the truthfulness of the Biblical quote by distorting its actual teaching.  So, to answer your question --

No sir, I think what God's Word actually says is the truth, regardless of what you say about it.  What God's Word actually says in the second half of Romans 5:18 is - "Even so by the righteousness of one THE FREE GIFT came upon all men UNTO justification of life."  It does not matter to me how much you try to deny it, God's Word says it; and that means it IS the truth.

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Rather, the second half of Romans 5:18 teaches us, NOT that "justification of life" has come upon all men, but that "THE FREE GIFT" which is "UNTO justification of life" has come upon (been made available unto) all men.  Yet a gift, by its very nature, must be received (as per Romans 5:17) in order to be applied.  The truth of Romans 5:18 does indeed teach something that is for "all men" (all of human-kind), but most certainly does NOT teach universal salvation.  And this can be seen WITHOUT changing what God the Holy Spirit directly and precisely inspired.

Seems that I have already explained this once, but I will do it again.  The second half of Romans 5:18 does NOT say, "Even so by the righteousness of one justification of life came upon all men."  IF God's Word said that, then it would mean that all men are indeed justified and regenerated.  However, again I emphasize that God's Word does NOT say such.  Rather, God's Word in the second half of Romans 5:18 says, "Even so by the righteousness of one THE FREE GIFT came upon all men UNTO justification of life."  It is NOT that justification itself came upon all men, but that the FREE GIFT which is unto justification came upon all men.  The Lord our God does NOT simply justify and regenerate all men, but He has and does offer unto all men the FREE GIFT which is unto justification and regeneration.  However, as I stated already above, a gift by its very nature must be received (as per Romans 5:17) in order to be applied.  The free gift as a gift is upon (offered unto) all men, but the justification and regeneration that it provides is applied only unto those who receive it.

I do not believe in universal justification and regeneration, just as you do not believe in universal justification and regeneration.  However, the difference between us is that I do believe that the righteousness of Christ's sacrifice on the cross provided for the free gift unto justification and regeneration for the sake of "all men," whereas I expect that as a Calvinist you believe that the righteousness of Christ's sacrifice on the cross provided for the free gift unto justification and regeneration only for the sake of the predestinated elect.

2 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Hello Pastor Scott,

You go astray in that the section is not saying the "free gift" Has been made available unto all men, or has come upon all men at all.

Really??  Romans 12:18b - "Even so by the righteousness of one THE FREE GIFT CAME UPON ALL MEN unto justification of life."  Seems to me that such is precisely what Scripture says.

3 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, basically all means all unless you don't agree with it. I see. And I also find that those on the side of Calvinism like to rush to the use of textbooks to try and back their theories. I'd rather stick with the Bible.

Yet in Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:18 God the Holy Spirit did not just say "all," but said "all MEN," very clearly and specifically defining the group that He was designating in that context.

Concerning God's love, God's Holy Word teaches:

1.  That God's First love (as per the sacrifice of Christ) is for the WORLD.
2.  That God's Family love is for BELIEVERS in Christ.
3.  That God's Fellowship love is for believers who OBEY.

On 5/14/2022 at 9:15 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Mr. Iconoclast, your answer here presents no actual consideration of or work with the grammar and context throughout Romans 5:12-21.  Thus your answer appears to be based simply upon your system of belief.  As for myself, I would prefer an answer that is actually based upon the actual grammar and context of the passage, since that is what God the Holy Spirit actually inspired.  Even so, in a future posting (when I have a little more time) I will engage that very grammar and context. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 5/14/2022 at 12:10 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Recognizing that the pronouns of Romans 5:1-11 are not at all the same as those of Romans 5:12-21, and recognizing that the primary pronouns of Romans 5:12-21 are the words "all" and "many," we now must consider to whom these words "all" and "many" actually refer within the context of Romans 5:12-21.  Throughout this passage we encounter the word "all" four times in two verses, in Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:18.  In addition, throughout this passage we encounter the word "many" in reference to individuals (not including the reference to "many offences" in Romans 5:16) also four times in two verses, in Romans 5:15 and Romans 5:19.  Since we encounter the word "all" first throughout the passage, in this posting let us consider its usage first --

Basically the word "all" means "a total completeness."  In a given context the word "all" can be limited to a designated group, such that the word "all" in that context would not necessarily include other groups; however, in that given context the word "all" would still include "a total completeness" of that contextually designated group.  So then, in the context of Romans 5:12-21, what is the designated group for the usage of the word "all"?  As we have noted above, the word "all" is employed in this context four times in two verses.  So, let us consider the Holy Spirit inspired statements of those two verses.

Romans 5:12 -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Herein we find that of the four usages for the word "all" in this context, God the Holy Spirit chose to include a specific designation for the word "all" in three of those occurrences.  That Holy Spirit inspired designation for those three occurrences is "all men."  Furthermore, the close grammatical relationship of the second usage for the word "all" in Romans 5:12 with the first usage of the word would indicate that it also references the same designation of "all men."  Thus by the Holy Spirit inspired grammar, we may recognize that the word "all" throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 refers to the particular group of "all men."  Now, this designated group would not necessarily include any angelic kind or any animal kind or any divine kind, but by grammar and definition this designated group would definitely include "all" human kind "in total completeness."  Indeed, this is the grammatical construction that God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired in this context.  God the Holy Spirit did not limit the "all" of this context to "all believers" (as opposed to unbelievers) or to "all saints" (as opposed to the lost) or to "all in Christ" (as opposed to all in the world).  Rather, God the Holy Spirit inspired the designation to be "all men" (all of human kind).  Thus anyone who attempts in any manner to lessen the total inclusion of this designated group stands in direct conflict with God the Holy Spirit Himself, and thus stands in the place of falsehood.

What then do these four usages of the word "all" in this context teach us concerning "all men" (all human kind)?

1.  That death has "passed upon all men" (upon all human kind).
2.  That "all" (all human kind) "have sinned."
3.  That "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men [upon all human kind] to condemnation."
4.  That "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men [upon all human kind] unto justification of life."

Now, these four truths may require some Biblical definition in order for us to acquire a Biblical understanding of their teaching; however, any attempt to deny the application of these four truths for the entire total completeness of human kind stands in contradiction to that which God the Holy Spirit directly inspired.

All of human kind are under the curse of death.  All of human kind have committed sin against the Lord our God.  All of human kind are under the condemnation of divine judgment, and that because of the one man Adam's first sin.  And all of human kind are under the offer of God's free gift unto justification of life, and that because of the One Savior Jesus Christ's righteousness. 

21 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Guzik observes…

James Montgomery Boice has a superb introduction to this summary section…

 

Regarding the somewhat difficult to understand phrase justification of life Kenneth Wuest writes...

Mr. Iconoclast, 

So, in a previous posting I requested was "an answer that is actually based upon the actual grammar and context of the passage, since that is what God the Holy Spirit actually inspired."  Indeed, I myself provided just such a consideration of the passage (as per the above).  However, what you provided was quotation from various human commentators.  Again, I am interested in the truth that God the Holy Spirit actually inspired, not in the rhetoric of human teachers.  So, let us examine the human teachers with the truth that God the Holy Spirit inspired.

21 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Guzik observes…

From this passage, Adam and Jesus are sometimes known as the two men. Between them they represent of all humanity, and everyone is identified in either Adam or Jesus. We are born identified with Adam; we may be born again into identification with Jesus.

The idea of Adam and Jesus as two representatives of the human race is sometimes called Federal Theology or Adam and Jesus are sometimes referred to as Federal Heads. This is because under the federal system of government, representatives are chosen and the representative speaks for the people who chose him. Adam speaks for those he represents, and Jesus speaks for His people.

Again, someone may object: “But I never chose to have Adam represent me.” Of course you did! You identified yourself with Adam with the first sin you ever committed. It is absolutely true that we were born into our identification with Adam, but we also choose it with our individual acts of sin. (Romans 5)

I have no conflict per se with the first quoted paragraph above.  On the other hand, the second and third paragraphs begin to go astray.  It is Biblically true that the first man Adam and our Lord Jesus Christ are the two men that stand as heads for their given group of humanity.  However, the idea of Federal Headship is not precisely accurate according to Scripture.  Federal Headship emphasizes the legal representation of the federal head for his given group.  However, Scripture emphasizes, not that Adam or Jesus Christ serve their given groups as legal representatives, but that those in either group are IN Adam or IN Jesus Christ with a very literal spiritual union to their given head.  Representation is NOT the Biblical emphasis.  Rather, spiritual UNION is the Biblical emphasis.  Consider 1 Corinthians 15:22 - "For as IN Adam all die, even so IN Christ shall all be made alive."  In fact, I am not aware of any Biblical passage which presents the case of Adam as our legal representative.  Even so, the first half of the last sentence in the third paragraph that you quoted from Guzik above states, "It is absolutely true that we were born into our identification with Adam."  Indeed, that IS the Biblical teaching and emphasis.  Yet that sentence from Guzik continues, "But we also choose it with our individual acts of sin. (Romans 5)."  Now, there is the problem with Guzik's teaching; for Romans 5:12-21 never makes a single reference to our choosing Adam in any way as our representative.  Indeed, it says nothing whatsoever at all about our choosing him.  Yes, Romans 5:12 indicates that we all have sinned; but it says nothing whatsoever at all about that sin being a means by which we choose Adam.  Best I can tell, Guzik just made this up; or maybe he simply presented this from his system of belief.  However, he did NOT get it from that which God the Holy Spirit actually inspired.

21 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

James Montgomery Boice has a superb introduction to this summary section…

First, Paul explained the sense in which “all sinned.” He did not mean that all have become sinners and have therefore sinned, though we would naturally think this, but rather that each of us was declared a sinner because of Adam’s original sin or transgression. It is true that we also sin and should be condemned for that, if there were nothing more to be said. But that is not Paul’s meaning. He meant that all have been accounted sinners in Adam, so that those who were going to be saved could be accounted righteous in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But then, lest we have fallen asleep in the meantime and have somehow missed the point after this long wait, Paul makes it again in verse 19, adding: “[1] For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, [2] so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Boice, J. M. Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House)

Initially, I have no disagreement with the first paragraph from James Boice that you quoted above, until we get to the very last sentence of that paragraph.  Therein Mr. Boice states, "He meant that all have been accounted sinners in Adam, so that those who were going to be saved could be accounted righteous in the Lord Jesus Christ."  My conflict is with Mr. Boice's usage of the causative phrase, "so that."  Nowhere in Romans 5:12-21 does God the Holy Spirit indicate that our being accounted as sinners in Adam serves as a reason or a means by which we could be accounted righteous in Christ.  Throughout Romans 5:12-21 we encounter the grammatical structure of "just as, even so;" but we do not encounter the grammatical structure of "because of, thus also."  

Furthermore, (since I actually own Mr. Boice's commentary on Romans) I took note that you skipped a few paragraphs between the two paragraphs that you quoted above.  Indeed, above you quoted the paragraph wherein Mr. Boice referenced Romans 5:19 as saying, "[1] For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, [2] so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."  However, you skipped the paragraph wherein Mr. Boice referenced Romans 5:18 as saying, "[1] Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, [2] so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)  Indeed, you quoted the paragraph that referenced the verse which referred to the MANY; but you did not quote the paragraph that referenced the verse which referred to ALL MEN.  Yet our present dispute is not over the usage of the "many" in the context, but rather over the usage of "all men" in the context.

Now, I will acknowledge that you then proceeded to quote what appears to be another commentator.  Yet since you did not include from where you acquired the quote, I was unable to check the original source.

21 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

At first glance this chart suggests all men will be justified (made righteous) but the context of Romans and the NT clearly indicates the reference is all men who are justified by faith alone. Paul is not teaching universalism or that all men will be justified (saved). Recall that in Romans 5:17 (note) Paul speaks of life for those who receive it. The point is that you don't have to do anything to be condemned. Condemnation is Adam's "gift" to you. But if you want to be justified, you must receive God's free gift by grace through faith.

All men… all men - Paul is using all men with two different meanings for the sake of parallelism, a common practice in the Hebrew Old Testament, which is similar Paul's repetition of the phrase the many in Romans 5:15 (note). The first all covers all humanity who are born into Adam. The second all refers to that part of the first all who by grace through faith are reborn into the Last Adam, Christ (Paul repeatedly emphasizes righteousness and faith - see notes Romans 1:16; 17; 3:22; 3:28; 4:5; 4:13. To reiterate - Paul is not teaching universal salvation.)

Even so, I would contend that with this portion we encounter the greatest falsehood of your posting.  Now, the quotation above begins by referencing some chart that you did not include in your quote.  However, IF the chart indicated that "all men" would be justified/made righteous, then the chart was NOT accurate to the Biblical text.  Throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21, the phrase "made righteous" is employed one time in the second half of verse 19 - "So by the obedience of one shall MANY be made righteous."  The Biblical statement is precisely accurate.  By the obedience of our one Savior Jesus Christ MANY (not all men) shall be made righteous.  Scripture most definitely does NOT teach universalism, that all men will be justified/saved.  Indeed, within this very context Romans 5:17 most definitely does teach that "they which RECEIVE abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."  Since not all men RECEIVE, not all men shall be made righteous.  

Yet this is not the point of dispute between us.  Rather, the point of dispute concerns the direct statement of God the Holy Spirit in Romans 5:18 - "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life."  Here is where the second paragraph that you quote above presents outright falsehood.  It is grammatical falsehood to claim that Paul is using the phrase "all men" "with two different meanings" in the context.  It is truth to claim that the first "all men" "covers all humanity;" but it is grammatical falsehood to then claim that the second "all men" "refers to that part of the first all who by grace through faith are reborn into the Last Adam, Christ."  God the Holy Spirit did not indicate this.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit inspired the precise phrase "ALL MEN" (all of human-kind) for BOTH parts of Romans 5:18.  Now, the second half of Romans 5:18 most certainly is NOT teaching universal salvation, for such would stand in clear contradiction to the teaching of God's Word as a whole, and even to the teaching throughout the rest of Romans.  Yet whatever the second half of Romans 5:18 is teaching, it IS applying it to "ALL MEN" (to ALL of human-kind).  The real problem here is that your Calvinistic system of belief desires to change the direct statement of God the Holy Spirit because as it stands it contradicts the Calvinistic teaching of a limited sacrifice by Christ only for the elect.  

Even so, I quote my earlier warning yet again:

On 5/14/2022 at 12:10 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus anyone who attempts in any manner to lessen the total inclusion of this designated group stands in direct conflict with God the Holy Spirit Himself, and thus stands in the place of falsehood. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

...

Now, these four truths may require some Biblical definition in order for us to acquire a Biblical understanding of their teaching; however, any attempt to deny the application of these four truths for the entire total completeness of human kind stands in contradiction to that which God the Holy Spirit directly inspired. (emphsis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

21 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Regarding the somewhat difficult to understand phrase justification of life Kenneth Wuest writes that "The words of life are genitive of description in the Greek text, describing the quality of the righteousness bestowed upon man. It is a righteousness which is connected with the impartation of spiritual life. In itself, this righteous standing is a purely legal matter and does not impart life nor change character. But it is accompanied by the life that God is, imparted to the believing sinner in regeneration. (Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans )

All men does not mean all men will be saved, because Scripture amply attests to the truth that salvation is only for those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ (Ro 1:16-17, 3:22, 28, 4:5, 13-see notes Romans 1:16-17, 3:22, 3:28, 4:5, 4:13; cp similar phrase the many in Romans 5:15 [note])

I have no conflict with the quotation from Mr. Wuest above.  Furthermore, I agree that the phrase "all men" in the second half of Romans 5:18 "does not mean all men will be saved."  Rather, the second half of Romans 5:18 teaches us, NOT that "justification of life" has come upon all men, but that "THE FREE GIFT" which is "UNTO justification of life" has come upon (been made available unto) all men.  Yet a gift, by its very nature, must be received (as per Romans 5:17) in order to be applied.  The truth of Romans 5:18 does indeed teach something that is for "all men" (all of human-kind), but most certainly does NOT teach universal salvation.  And this can be seen WITHOUT changing what God the Holy Spirit directly and precisely inspired.

On 5/13/2022 at 9:33 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Mr. Iconoclast,

Since thus far you have only engaged one of my past postings in this thread discussion (as per the above quote), for the moment I shall remain focused on your thoughts concerning Romans 5.  Yet you have indeed added one further posting concerning your understanding of Romans 5 (although not directly to me), and that posting presents some of your understanding concerning the broader context of the entire chapter, as follows:

Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1 begins the context of Romans 5 with a focus upon those who are "justified by faith" in Christ, and that it employs first-person, plural pronouns to designate this contextual focus -- "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."  Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1-11 (which is where in your above posting you stopped presenting examples) employs the first-person, plural pronouns "we," "us," and "our" multiple times (18 times, if my count is accurate).  However, you gave instruction that we should read through the entire chapter.  So, what do we find when we actually do this?  We find something quite noticeable.  First, we find a different contextual focus presented in Romans 5:12 (than that of Romans 5:1) -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."  Thus it appears that the focus of Romans 5:12 and the context that follows is no longer upon those who are "justified by faith," but upon the "all men" of this world.  Furthermore, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-20 we do not encounter even a single first-person, plural pronoun (which is quite noticeable, considering how many of them we encountered throughout Romans 5:1-11).  In fact, we do not encounter another first-person, plural pronoun until the end of Romans 5:21.  Finally, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-21 the more common designations are bound up in the words "all" and "many."  Even so, we are able to recognize that grammatically and contextually Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 5:12-21 are describing two different designations of people.  Thus your attempt above to draw the contextual focus of Romans 5:1-11 into the contextual focus of Romans 5:12-21 is grammatically and contextually false.  Indeed, I agree - "read through the chapter" as a whole and "see who is being addressed" in each contextual portion.

Recognizing that the pronouns of Romans 5:1-11 are not at all the same as those of Romans 5:12-21, and recognizing that the primary pronouns of Romans 5:12-21 are the words "all" and "many," we now must consider to whom these words "all" and "many" actually refer within the context of Romans 5:12-21.  Throughout this passage we encounter the word "all" four times in two verses, in Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:18.  In addition, throughout this passage we encounter the word "many" in reference to individuals (not including the reference to "many offences" in Romans 5:16) also four times in two verses, in Romans 5:15 and Romans 5:19.  Since we encounter the word "all" first throughout the passage, in this posting let us consider its usage first --

Basically the word "all" means "a total completeness."  In a given context the word "all" can be limited to a designated group, such that the word "all" in that context would not necessarily include other groups; however, in that given context the word "all" would still include "a total completeness" of that contextually designated group.  So then, in the context of Romans 5:12-21, what is the designated group for the usage of the word "all"?  As we have noted above, the word "all" is employed in this context four times in two verses.  So, let us consider the Holy Spirit inspired statements of those two verses.

Romans 5:12 -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Herein we find that of the four usages for the word "all" in this context, God the Holy Spirit chose to include a specific designation for the word "all" in three of those occurrences.  That Holy Spirit inspired designation for those three occurrences is "all men."  Furthermore, the close grammatical relationship of the second usage for the word "all" in Romans 5:12 with the first usage of the word would indicate that it also references the same designation of "all men."  Thus by the Holy Spirit inspired grammar, we may recognize that the word "all" throughout the context of Romans 5:12-21 refers to the particular group of "all men."  Now, this designated group would not necessarily include any angelic kind or any animal kind or any divine kind, but by grammar and definition this designated group would definitely include "all" human kind "in total completeness."  Indeed, this is the grammatical construction that God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired in this context.  God the Holy Spirit did not limit the "all" of this context to "all believers" (as opposed to unbelievers) or to "all saints" (as opposed to the lost) or to "all in Christ" (as opposed to all in the world).  Rather, God the Holy Spirit inspired the designation to be "all men" (all of human kind).  Thus anyone who attempts in any manner to lessen the total inclusion of this designated group stands in direct conflict with God the Holy Spirit Himself, and thus stands in the place of falsehood.

What then do these four usages of the word "all" in this context teach us concerning "all men" (all human kind)?

1.  That death has "passed upon all men" (upon all human kind).
2.  That "all" (all human kind) "have sinned."
3.  That "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men [upon all human kind] to condemnation."
4.  That "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men [upon all human kind] unto justification of life."

Now, these four truths may require some Biblical definition in order for us to acquire a Biblical understanding of their teaching; however, any attempt to deny the application of these four truths for the entire total completeness of human kind stands in contradiction to that which God the Holy Spirit directly inspired.

All of human kind are under the curse of death.  All of human kind have committed sin against the Lord our God.  All of human kind are under the condemnation of divine judgment, and that because of the one man Adam's first sin.  And all of human kind are under the offer of God's free gift unto justification of life, and that because of the One Savior Jesus Christ's righteousness. 

23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmm.  It appears that the debate over the teaching of Calvinism concerning the doctrine of salvation has exploded in this thread over the past few hours. 

Mr. Iconoclast,

Since thus far you have only engaged one of my past postings in this thread discussion (as per the above quote), for the moment I shall remain focused on your thoughts concerning Romans 5.  Yet you have indeed added one further posting concerning your understanding of Romans 5 (although not directly to me), and that posting presents some of your understanding concerning the broader context of the entire chapter, as follows:

Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1 begins the context of Romans 5 with a focus upon those who are "justified by faith" in Christ, and that it employs first-person, plural pronouns to designate this contextual focus -- "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."  Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1-11 (which is where in your above posting you stopped presenting examples) employs the first-person, plural pronouns "we," "us," and "our" multiple times (18 times, if my count is accurate).  However, you gave instruction that we should read through the entire chapter.  So, what do we find when we actually do this?  We find something quite noticeable.  First, we find a different contextual focus presented in Romans 5:12 (than that of Romans 5:1) -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."  Thus it appears that the focus of Romans 5:12 and the context that follows is no longer upon those who are "justified by faith," but upon the "all men" of this world.  Furthermore, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-20 we do not encounter even a single first-person, plural pronoun (which is quite noticeable, considering how many of them we encountered throughout Romans 5:1-11).  In fact, we do not encounter another first-person, plural pronoun until the end of Romans 5:21.  Finally, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-21 the more common designations are bound up in the words "all" and "many."  Even so, we are able to recognize that grammatically and contextually Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 5:12-21 are describing two different designations of people.  Thus your attempt above to draw the contextual focus of Romans 5:1-11 into the contextual focus of Romans 5:12-21 is grammatically and contextually false.  Indeed, I agree - "read through the chapter" as a whole and "see who is being addressed" in each contextual portion.

8 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Those who are described in verses1-11, are the many who are in the last Adam.

Federal headship is the unifying principle. 

Mr. Iconoclast, your answer here presents no actual consideration of or work with the grammar and context throughout Romans 5:12-21.  Thus your answer appears to be based simply upon your system of belief.  As for myself, I would prefer an answer that is actually based upon the actual grammar and context of the passage, since that is what God the Holy Spirit actually inspired.  Even so, in a future posting (when I have a little more time) I will engage that very grammar and context.

Hmmm.  It appears that the debate over the teaching of Calvinism concerning the doctrine of salvation has exploded in this thread over the past few hours. 

On 6/23/2020 at 10:21 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Indeed, I must agree that "ALL men" are under judgment to condemnation (yea, condemned already), not due to their own sin, but due to Adam's sin.  However, the very same statement of God's Holy Word ALSO declares that "the free gift" of salvation has come upon (is available to) "ALL men" as well.  Now, if contextually the "all men" phrase in the first half of the verse refers to every single human individual who enters the world, then contextually the "all men" phrase in the second half of the verse would refer to the same - to EVERY SINGLE human individual who enters the world.

10 hours ago, Iconoclast said:

Hello pastor Scott,

I think this is not accurate in this way;

All men ever born, sinned and died in Adam...YES. They are in Adam by natural birth.

All that are IN Christ only get there by New birth, being born from above....Spiritual birth....NOT ALL MEN GET THAT.

Mr. Iconoclast,

Since thus far you have only engaged one of my past postings in this thread discussion (as per the above quote), for the moment I shall remain focused on your thoughts concerning Romans 5.  Yet you have indeed added one further posting concerning your understanding of Romans 5 (although not directly to me), and that posting presents some of your understanding concerning the broader context of the entire chapter, as follows:

1 hour ago, Iconoclast said:

A careful examination of Romans5 reveals it is speaking about those who are justified by faith...Roman's 5:1

Take note in Roman's 5

We have peace...vs1

We have access...vs2

We stand, rejoice in hope,,vs2

We glory in tribulations knowing..vs3

The love of God is shed abroad in OUR hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to US...vs5

WE..vs6

toward us, we,...vs8

 Being now justified  ,We shall be saved...vs9

We were enemies, we were reconciled, we shall be saved..vs11

We joy in God, we have received the atonement. Vs11

I would just suggest you read through the chapter and see who is being addressed. Vs19 says many will be made righteous, not all.

Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1 begins the context of Romans 5 with a focus upon those who are "justified by faith" in Christ, and that it employs first-person, plural pronouns to designate this contextual focus -- "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."  Indeed, you are correct that Romans 5:1-11 (which is where in your above posting you stopped presenting examples) employs the first-person, plural pronouns "we," "us," and "our" multiple times (18 times, if my count is accurate).  However, you gave instruction that we should read through the entire chapter.  So, what do we find when we actually do this?  We find something quite noticeable.  First, we find a different contextual focus presented in Romans 5:12 (than that of Romans 5:1) -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."  Thus it appears that the focus of Romans 5:12 and the context that follows is no longer upon those who are "justified by faith," but upon the "all men" of this world.  Furthermore, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-20 we do not encounter even a single first-person, plural pronoun (which is quite noticeable, considering how many of them we encountered throughout Romans 5:1-11).  In fact, we do not encounter another first-person, plural pronoun until the end of Romans 5:21.  Finally, we find that throughout Romans 5:12-21 the more common designations are bound up in the words "all" and "many."  Even so, we are able to recognize that grammatically and contextually Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 5:12-21 are describing two different designations of people.  Thus your attempt above to draw the contextual focus of Romans 5:1-11 into the contextual focus of Romans 5:12-21 is grammatically and contextually false.  Indeed, I agree - "read through the chapter" as a whole and "see who is being addressed" in each contextual portion.

1 hour ago, E Morales said:

is this written in stone, in the early days, were the services so organized that it would not go over a certain time or order. 

First, the "traditional" order of service is certainly NOT "written in stone," or even more importantly is NOT written in God's Word.  Therefore, if a church does not follow the "traditional" order of service, that church is not necessarily breaking a requirement of God's Word and is thus not necessarily committing sin against the Lord God.  On the other hand, since this order of service is also not forbidden in God's Word, a church that follows such an order of service is also NOT necessarily breaking a prohibition of God's Word and is thus not necessarily committing sin against the Lord God.  Indeed, Romans 14:4 states, "who art thou that judgest another man's servant?  To his own master he standeth or falleth.  Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."  To this Romans 14:10 adds, "But why dost thou judge thy brother?  Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?  For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."  

1 hour ago, E Morales said:

I understand there must be order, but what I don’t understand is that some are just to boring.

1. 11:00 Praise to open the service

2. 11:15 welcome and announcements that are already on the bulletin they give out

3. 11:20 more praise music

4. 11:30 tithes and offerings

5. 11:40 Pastor comes to preach

6. 12:30 service is over

Second, according to the order of service that you have presented above, there is approximately 20 minutes of singing praises unto the Lord our God (in which we believers as a congregation are commanded to do) and approximately 50 minutes of the preaching and teaching of God's Word.  Now, if the singing of praises unto the Lord God is truly that of godly, righteous singing, then the spiritually minded individual will NOT find this practice to be boring.  Furthermore, if the preaching and teaching of God's Word is truly that of Biblically faithful preaching and teaching, then the spiritually minded individual will certainly NOT find this reality to be boring.  Indeed, if these matters truly are godly and Biblical, then if an individual finds them to be boring, this is not evidence that there is something wrong with the "order of service," but that there is something wrong with the heart of the individual.

Philippians 1:14-18 -- "And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.  Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.  What then?  Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

First, let us recognize that the preaching about which the apostle Paul rejoiced in Philippians 1:18 was indeed the true preaching of Christ.  It was NOT the preaching of a false gospel or of some false doctrine.  In other places throughout his Holy Spirit inspired writings, the apostle Paul clearly condemns the preaching of falsehood, either of a false gospel or of false doctrine.  Therefore, in this context we may recognize that the doctrine about Christ which was being preaching, in which the apostle Paul was rejoicing, was TRUE DOCTRINE.

Second, let us recognize that the apostle Paul did NOT hesitate to "judge" the false motivations in some of those preachers.  Under inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, the apostle clearly stated, "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife."  Furthermore, he added the explanation, "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds."  Based upon what we find throughout the New Testament Scriptures concerning the attitudes and motivations of envy, strife, contention, and insincerity, the apostle was certainly expressing a "judgment" about the attitudes and motivations of these preachers.  Indeed, he was NOT justifying their attitudes and motivations in any way.  Rather, he was clearly indicating that their attitudes and motivations, at least in relation to the apostle himself, were definitely ungodly and unrighteous.  As such, he was clearly indicating that their character was ungodly and unrighteous.

Third, let us recognize from the above two points that the apostle Paul was NOT rejoicing in the ungodly, unrighteous attitudes and motivations of envy, strife, contention, and insincerity among some.  As for myself, I am quite certain that the apostle was deeply grieved by these ungodly, unrighteous motivations among these preachers.  Indeed, I am quite certain that he was spiritually grieved by their offense against the Lord God, and even personally grieved by their offense against himself.  Yet in spite of these ungodly, unrighteous attitudes and motivations among these preachers, the apostle still DID rejoice - specifically because the doctrine about Christ that they were preaching was TRUTH.  He did not and could not rejoice in their ungodliness of attitude, for godly charity does NOT rejoice in iniquity (see 1 Corinthians 13:6a); but he did and could rejoice in their preaching of truth, for godly charity DOES rejoice in the truth (see 1 Corinthians 13:6b).

15 hours ago, E Morales said:

One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Where did this come from, did someone take it from using the Bible. Do you believe it’s true, this verse when it’s applies to people.

"One bad apple spoils the whole bunch" is NOT a Biblical statement; therefore, I am NOT compelled to hold it as a principle of absolute truth.

However, the following are Biblical statements; therefore, I AM compelled to hold them as principles of absolute truth:

Proverbs 13:20 -- "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed."

Proverbs 22:24-25 -- "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul."

1 Corinthians 5:6 -- "Your glorying is not good.  Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"

1 Corinthians 15:33 -- "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."

I have access to the Textus Receptus. Why do you ask?

32 minutes ago, Jerry said:

What do you think?

I have read this and will consider it more.  At present there are some elements that do not "feel" quite right, but I believe it does move the thought process closer to accurate.  (Note: I am not providing more at this point because I am not sure that I can clearly communicate what does not quite "feel" right, or clearly communicate what would be better.)

13 hours ago, Jerry said:

I found another reference to the throne in chapter 3:

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Though I admit, here it sounds like different thrones - one He reigns with His Father (which it already sounds like He is currently reigning on, going by the wording, as this is written to the churches/occuring during the church age), and the throne we will share will Christ. This verse I need to study out more.

In my word study throughout the Book of the Revelation for the word "throne(s)," I also took notice of Revelation 3:21.  My present understanding for Revelation 3:21 is that our Lord Jesus was not talking herein about the same throne "seat," but was talking about the same throne "authority."  Frist, I would see this as a correlation with other New Testament passages wherein we learn that at His exaltation our Lord Jesus Christ "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (See Hebrews 1:3, etc.)  Second, our Lord's statement in Revelation 3:21 indicates that we believers might be granted to sit with Him in His throne in the same manner that He is (presently) set down with God the Father in God the Father's throne.  If we take the second part as meaning that the central throne of heavenly is singular with both God the Son and God the Father sitting upon that one same throne, then we would also have the possibility that we believers could also sit with God the Son (and thus also God the Father) upon that same singular, central heavenly throne.  To me this does NOT seem to fit with the rest of Scripture.  On the other hand, if we take the statement of Revelation 3:21 as meaning, not the same throne "seat," but the same throne "authority," then we can correlate the second half of the verse with God the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father; and we can correlate the first half of the verse with passages such as 2 Timothy 2:12 & Revelation 20:4.

13 hours ago, Jerry said:

In regards to the Son being on the throne in Revelation 22, is He not reigning on the throne during the events of the Tribulation (which had not yet unfolded in chapters 4-5) and the Millennium to come?

From my understanding the Tribulation Period is presented throughout Revelation 6-19.  Within those chapters the One sitting upon the throne appears to be still God the Father, with God the Son still standing in the midst of the throne. (See Revelation 6:16; 7:9-17; 12:5; 14:1-5; 16:17; 19:4-5.

On the other hand, Scripture does teach us that God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, WILL reign from His throne in Jerusalem throughout the Millenium.  In the Book of the Revelation this would correlate with Revelation 20:4.  Yet I would contend that this is not presented as God the Father's throne in heaven, but as God the Son's throne on earth. 

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

Yes, Scott, you are considering some of the possible meanings of the various colours now, but originally you questioned if or why they necessarily signified anything, and this verse comes to mind in that regard:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Several dictionaries, including Webster's 1828, state that to signify means to declare by signs (expressing in my own words). That in itself doesn't mean a particular person has the right meaning, just that to believe they DO symbolize something is in accordance with the phrase the above verse uses.

Brother Jerry,

I pray that you understand that while I have expressed some disagreement, questions, and arguments against your originally position, I have NOT done so with any desire to "attack" you.  

Concerning the word "signified" in Revelation 1:1, I am aware of its usage therein and of its meaning; however, I do not necessarily believe that the inclusion of the word "signified" in Revelation 1:1 is intended to mean that everything throughout the Book of the Revelation is symbolic.  I believe that some of that which is presented in the book means directly what it says without any intended symbolism.

Concerning the idea of symbolism in the colors of Revelation 4:3, I became convinced that some symbolism was intended through a comparison with Revelation 21:11.  Your interactions with me did indeed "push" me to greater study and consideration of this matter.  For that I express my appreciation.

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

Second yes, I do agree 100% that it is the Father on the throne in chapters 4-5. Don't know how I missed that or did not specifically focus on it 17 years ago when I actually wrote out this explanation of that type.

I appreciate your recognition of this contextual point and your acknowledgement of "growth" in this regard.

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

However, these verses come to mind:

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

There is ONE throne the Father and the Son share throughout eternity (it does not say throneS, but throne). I agree that it is the Father on the throne in chapters four and five, and that according to various commentators the Old Testament shows these colours and stones represent various things about the Lord God (in Exodus and Ezekiel especially). But because this is also the throne that the Son will share after that point in the book of Revelation, I think that it is possible and even likely that those colours and stones also represent various things about the Son, as various commentators have pointed out by looking at the stones and colours on the breastplate of the high priest in the book of Exodus and the birth order of the children of Israel.

In my recent studies I did indeed take note of those verses in Revelation 22.  In fact, I did a word study of the word "throne(s)" throughout the Book of the Revelation.  Through that study it appears to me that the One sitting upon the throne continues to be God the Father throughout the entire book, until the coming of the new heaven, new earth, and New Jerusalem.  Then it appears that the throne (singular) is "possessed" by BOTH the Father and the Son.  I DID find that a bit instructive.  (On the other hand, I am not aware of any passage anywhere throughout Scripture which placed God the Holy Spirit UPON a throne.)

On 2/15/2022 at 4:48 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The ONE sitting on that heavenly throne is God the Father.
The colors that are presented reveal something about God the Father.
We must discern what they teach about God the Father.

Concerning the jasper color clear as crystal, I would contend from Revelation 21:11 that it represents the GLORY of God the Father.

Concerning the sardius color and the emerald color, I am not yet sure.

The following post is NOT intended to be argumentative or to carry forward my above disagreement any further.  Rather, it is intended to express some of my ponderings on this subject; for my ponderings have been engaged more highly since this discussion began.  

First, I have lately been pondering more on what that heavenly scene would have looked like:

1.  It seems that a heavenly throne was at the very center of this heavenly scene, and the One sitting upon that throne would have been the central focus of the scene. (See 4:2)

2.  Concerning the colors of 4:3, I wish to present my present ponderings on them after the rest of the scene has been formulated.

3.  Round about this heavenly throne in what I imagine was a half-circle formation were twenty-four seats, with twenty-four elders sitting upon those seats, each wearing all white raiment and a gold crown upon their heads. (See 4:4)  Based upon how these twenty-four elders respond later toward the One sitting upon the throne, I image that these twenty-four elders sat facing toward that central heavenly throne. (See 4:9-11)

4.  Along with the central colors of the One sitting on the throne and of the rainbow around the throne, there proceeded forth from that central heavenly throne lightning flashes and thundering sounds and vocal speech. (See 4:5a)

5.  At the very foot of that central heavenly throne were seven lamps of burning fire (possibly ancient Jewish style lamps, or possibly just the appearance of burning fire itself), which are not simply intended to represent, but are presented as actually being the seven-fold Holy Spirit of God. (See 4:5b) (Because these seven burning fires are the Holy Spirit, I presently lean toward there being seven burning flames without any specific lamps, that it was not seven lamps which were burning with fire, but that it was seven burning fires which were themselves the lamps, not lamps with fire, but lamps of fire.)

6.  On the ground at the front of that central heavenly throne (possibly between the throne and the twenty-four seats of the twenty-four elders??), there was a sea of glass that shined and sparkled like crystal. (see 4:6a)

7.  Around that central heavenly throne in the midst of it (that is -- within the throne's immediate "bubble") were the four seraphim-angels continually shouting forth the message, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (See 4:6b-8)

8.  Then this heavenly scene shifts slighty; for John sees that as the seraphim-angels shout forth their message of glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, the twenty-four elders fall from their seats to bow on their faces in worship of the One sitting on the throne, casting their crowns before the foot of the throne. (See 4:9-11)

9.  Then this heavenly scene shifts again; for John sees a book in the right hand of the One sitting on the throne, a book (probably a scroll-book) written on both sides, inside and outside, and sealed with seven seals.  Furthermore, a mighty angel stands forth to ask in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals thereof?"  Yet initially no one is found worthy anywhere throughout the creation, and John weeps over this matter. (See 5:1-4)

10.  However, then one of the twenty-four elders comforts John, indicating that the Lion of the tribe Juda has indeed prevailed to open the book and loose the seals thereof.  Then the heavenly scene shifts again as an individual appears in the midst of the seraphim-angels and in the midst of the central heavenly throne, not sitting upon the throne, but standing (I imagine) right in front of the throne (within the "bubble" of the throne).  This individual bears the appearance of "a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God (the seven-fold Holy Spirit of God) sent forth into all the earth." (See 5:5-6)

11.  This heavenly Lamb (clearly God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ) takes the book from the right hand of the One sitting on the throne.  When He does this, the four seraphim-angels and the twenty-four elders all fall down upon their knees in worship of Him, holding harps and golden perfume vials containing the prayers of the saints, and singing a song of praise and thanksgiving unto the Lamb. (See 5:7-10)

12.  Following this song of praise and worship unto the Lamb by the seraphim-angels and twenty-four elders, a multitude of righteous angels, and the four seraphim-angels, and the twenty-four elders add a further shout of glorious praise unto the Lamb. (See 5:11-12)

13.  Finally, the scene concludes with every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea proclaiming blessing and praise unto the One sitting upon the throne and unto the Lamb standing in the midst of the throne. (See 5:13-14)

Second, I have been pondering more about the colors that are described concerning the One sitting upon that central heavenly throne:

1.  Best I can discern from both the Greek and the English construction, Revelation 4:3 presents the jasper and the sardine stone, not as two separate stones, but as two colors merged in relation to a single stone.  Best I can discern, it is not the color of a jasper stone and of a sardine stone (the plurality of two stones), being distinctly separate from one another.  Rather, it is the color of a jasper and a sardine stone (a singular stone), being merged and mixed together.  For us the most common color of jasper is a shade of red; but jasper can come in various colors, such as red, yellow, brown, and blue (more rarely).  Jasper colors can also include white, black, gray, and orange, and can even come in a somewhat clear coloring.  Since Revelation 21:11 references "a jasper stone, clear as crystal," I would lean toward this being the same for Revelation 4:3.  The sardius color is a shade of red.  Thus I would image that the coloring of the One sitting on that central heavenly throne was the shining and sparkling shades of crystalline jasper and reddish sardius mixed together in their brightly shining sparkles.  As to the symbolism of this singular mixture and merging of these two shining and sparkling colors, I would consider this to be the representation of the Glory of God.  I would take this from the description of Revelation 21:11, wherein the New Jerusalem is described as "having the GLORY OF GOD: and her LIGHT was like unto A STONE most precious, eve like A JASPER STONE, CLEAR AS CRYSTAL."  This verse appears to connect the Glory of God with this crystalline jasper color.

2.  On the other hand, the rainbow round about that central heavenly throne is described as being "in sight like unto an emerald."  Since the color of emerald is some varying shade of green, I image that this rainbow (color halo around the throne) would be some vivid sparkling shade of green.  Since the primary symbolism of green in Scripture seems to be that of life and lively health (due to the color's connection to healthy vegetation), I would presently lean toward the symbolism of this emerald color to be that of God the Father's eternal reality and of His life-giving grace.  Because we are sinful beings, the glory of God as rooted in His holiness would bring us to a place of condemnation, wrath, and death.  However, without tempering His holiness in any manner, the Lord our God desires to present Himself as a God of life and grace.  Thus the symbolism of the emerald rainbow around the crystalline jasper and reddish sardius of God's glorious manifestation upon the heavenly throne.

3.  Maybe there is a connection between the description of Revelation 4:3 and the declaration of Revelation 4:8:

"Like a jasper and a sardine stone" -- "Holy, holy, holy" -- God the Father's glorious holiness
"The throne" -- "Lord God Almighty" -- God the Father's sovereign authority
"Like unto an emerald" -- "which was, and is, and is to come" -- God the Father's eternal reality
          or
"Like unto an emerald" -- "For thou hast created all things . . . ." (4:11) -- God the Father's creative pleasure

2 hours ago, Jerry said:

All that we see here is color, beautiful color like precious stones. We do not get a picture of God at all—He never has been photographed. Our attention is directed to the One who is seated on the throne. Although He is God the Father, we should understand this to be the throne of the triune God. Nevertheless, the three persons of the Trinity are distinguished: (1) God the Holy Spirit in verses 2 and 5; (2) God the Father here in verse 3; and (3) God the Son in verse 5 of chapter 5. What we have before us here is the Trinity upon the throne.

Herein I wish to examine the precision of Mcgee's statements above.

1.  Correct, what is presented in Revelation 4:3 is not a specific form, but is "beautiful color like precious stones."  Yet it is still clear to John that there IS an individual sitting on the throne; for he reported in verse 2, "And, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and ONE SAT ON THE THRONE."  John under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit was NOT uncertain about this.  There was indeed ONE sitting on that heavenly throne; and He is presented as ONE, not as three.

2.  Correct, the ONE sitting on that heavenly throne IS God the Father, as per the whole context of Revelation 4-5.

3.  Not precisely correct; for although God the Holy Spirit is certainly represented in relation to that heavenly throne, He is NOT represented in verse 5 as being upon the throne, but as being before (at the foot of) the throne.

4.  Correct, the three Persons of the eternal Godhead are indeed DISTINGUISHED throughout Revelation 4-5.

5.  Correct, God the Holy Spirit is represented in Revelation 4:5 by the seven lamps of burning fire before the throne.

6.  Correct, God the Father is the ONE represented in Revelation 4:3 as the ONE sitting on the throne; and He continues to be the ONE represented throughout the entire two chapters as the ONE sitting on the throne.

7.  Correct, God the Son is not represented in this heavenly scene until Revelation 5:5-6; but then He is represented in the form of a Lamb throughout Revelation 5:6-13.

8.  Not precisely correct; for although each member of the triune Godhead IS represented in the heavenly scene of Revelation 4-5, neither God the Son nor God the Holy Spirit are ever represented as being UPON the throne.

From my perspective and understanding of the context throughout Revelation 4-5, the attempt to make the ONE sitting on the throne somewhat nebulous is an attempt to place God the Son on the throne, when in fact the context throughout places God the Father on the throne.  Thus I would contend that it is a Biblical mistake to place one Person of the Godhead on that heavenly throne, when the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures place a different Person of the Godhead on that heavenly throne.  What God's Holy Word presents precisely is presented for a reason, and we ought not seek to change it in any way.

The ONE sitting on that heavenly throne is God the Father.
The colors that are presented reveal something about God the Father.
We must discern what they teach about God the Father.

Concerning the jasper color clear as crystal, I would contend from Revelation 21:11 that it represents the GLORY of God the Father.

Concerning the sardius color and the emerald color, I am not yet sure.