The "Yeah, but..." school of doctrine - Bible versus Bible

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
13,995
5,723
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From the OP.

We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?

[
 
J

Johann

Guest
There is just One Holy Spirit so he inspires and illuminates one truth. One group of Bible scholars come up with something different from the overall universal church, the body of Christ, you must ask where is the weight of the evidence? Is it the history of the church on its exposition or not, or some new group who claim to see something not before seen? Martin Luther and the Reformers constantly referred back to earlier pillars of the faith to support their reform going back to NT doctrine. Read the book Absolute Predestination written in the 16th century and notice the constant references to men in the earlier years of the church, usually Augustine:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" (Eph 4:11-15 KJV)

I made that last bold emphasis for myself. I fail in speaking in love too often, and I try to watch myself.
Question @Arthur81.

Do you believe in free will? Depending on your answer, we can take a trip down memory lane to explore the early Church Fathers and understand why Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will.

J.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Question @Arthur81.

Do you believe in free will? Depending on your answer, we can take a trip down memory lane to explore the early Church Fathers and understand why Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will.

J.
Johann, I believe Adam was created with a free will. Once Adam sinned, he had the sin nature which all men have now, just as Luther wrote in "Bondage of the Will", so he lost his free will. Yes, I do believe Luther was right, man's will is now bound to his sin nature which keeps him from having a true free will. Man now has "free agency", no one forces him from without so he can make choices, but just not for the good as needed to please God.

"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2Ti 2:24-26 NRSVue)
 
  • Like
Reactions: marks and Johann

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From the OP.

We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?

[
I do not believe the variance in the standard translations is the problem of differing beliefs, it is ignoring and not using standard principles of interpretation, proper hermeneutics. Over time, I developed enough skill in interpretation that when I read commentaries from various men of God, like Adam Clarke the Methodist, or John Gill the Particular Baptist and Matthew Poole the Presbyterian so I can evaluate the argument made for various interpretations. So, I'm a Particular Baptist, but I still use and gain knowledge from Clarke and Poole. I have developed enough experience with various commentaries of the men of God to have those I seem to have more confidence in overall.
 
J

Johann

Guest
Johann, I believe Adam was created with a free will. Once Adam sinned, he had the sin nature which all men have now, just as Luther wrote in "Bondage of the Will", so he lost his free will. Yes, I do believe Luther was right, man's will is now bound to his sin nature which keeps him from having a true free will. Man now has "free agency", no one forces him from without so he can make choices, but just not for the good as needed to please God.

"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2Ti 2:24-26 NRSVue)
Brother, please feel free to be open with me. I would never seek to harm or criticize the precious character you have, created in the image of God (Imago Dei) through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I was just wondering if you’re aware that Augustine initially believed in free will but later in life revised his stance on this. Additionally, many of the early Church Fathers did believe in free will.

I recall someone mentioning to you that Scripture can be paradoxical and dialectical, particularly on this topic-would you agree with that?


2Ti 2:26 kaiG2532 CONJ ananEpsOsinG366 V-AAS-3P ekG1537 PREP tEsG3588 T-GSF touG3588 T-GSM diabolouG1228 A-GSM pagidosG3803 N-GSF ezOgrEmenoiG2221 V-RPP-NPM upG5259 PREP autouG846 P-GSM eisG1519 PREP toG3588 T-ASN ekeinouG1565 D-GSM thelEmaG2307 N-ASN
May recover themselves (ἀνανήψωσιν)
Lit. may return to soberness. N.T.o. See on be sober, 1Th_5:6. A similar connection of thought between coming to the knowledge of God and awaking out of a drunken stupor, occurs 1Co_15:34.
Out of the snare of the devil (ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος)
Comp. Psa_124:7. The phrase snare of the devil, only here and 1Ti_3:7 (note). The metaphor is mixed; return to soberness out of the snare of the devil.
Who are taken captive (ἐζωγρημένοι)
Or, having been held captive. Only here and Luk_5:10 (note on thou shalt catch).
By him (ὑπ' αὐτοῦ)
The devil.
At his will (εἰς τὸἐκείνου θέλημα)
Better, unto his will: that is, to do his (God's) will.
The whole will then read: “And that they may return to soberness out of the snare of the devil (having been held captive by him) to do God's will.”
2 Timothy 2:26
MWS.

2Ti_2:26

And that they may recover [escape] themselves out of the snare [trap] of the devil, -- (1Ti_3:7). The term "devil" here refers to Satan, the enemy of God and His people. Deception is Satan’s trap. He is an inveterate, scheming, clever, and subtle purveyor of lies. See notes on Gen_3:4-6; Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:13-15; Rev_12:9.

The idea of being captured by the devil to do his will most likely refers to accepting and living according to the doctrine of the false teachers (compare 1Ti_3:6; 1Ti_4:1)

NASB = “they may come to their senses”

who are taken [held] captive by him at his will. -- Satan captures men, like catching fish Luk_5:10, (with deceptive traps) to do his (the devil's) will. Satan is a being who seeks to recruit support for his will (his agenda) . In contrast, the Lord's followers are to daily pray and desire, “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Mat_6:10).


They may recover themselves (ananēpsōsin). First aorist active subjunctive of ananēphō, late and rare word, to be sober again, only here in N.T., though nēphō is in 1Th_5:6.
Out of the snare of the devil (ek tēs tou diabolou pagidos). They have been caught while mentally intoxicated in the devil’s snare (1Ti_3:7). See note on Rom_11:9 for pagis.
Taken captive (ezōgrēmenoi). Perfect passive participle of zōgreō, old verb, to take alive (zōos, agreō), in N.T. only here and Luk_5:10 (of Peter). “Taken captive alive.”
By him unto his will (hup' autou eis to ekeinou thelēma). This difficult phrase is understood variously. One way is to take both autou and ekeinou, to refer to the devil. Another way is to take both of them to refer to God. Another way is to take autou of the devil and ekeinou, of God. This is probably best, “taken captive by the devil” “that they may come back to soberness to do the will of God.” There are difficulties in either view.
RWP.


Who are taken captive by him at his will - Margin, “alive.” The Greek word means, properly, to take alive; and then, to take captive, to win over Luk_5:10; and then, to ensnare, or seduce. Here it means that they had been ensnared by the arts of Satan “unto (εἰς eis) his will;” that is, they were so influenced by him, that they complied with his will. Another interpretation of this passage should be mentioned here, by which it is proposed to avoid the incongruousness of the metaphor of “awaking” one from a “snare.” It is adopted by Doddridge, and is suggested also by Burder, as quoted by Rosenmuller, “A. u. n. Morgenland.” According to this, the reference is to an artifice of fowlers, to scatter seeds impregnated with some intoxicating drugs, intended to lay birds asleep, that they may draw the snare over them more securely. There can be no doubt that such arts were practiced, and it is possible that Paul may have alluded to it. Whatever is the allusion, the general idea is clear. It is an affecting representation of those who have fallen into error. They are in a deep slumber. They are as if under the fatal influence of some stupefying potion. They are like birds taken alive in this state, and at the mercy of the fowler. They will remain in this condition, unless they shall be roused by the mercy of God; and it is the business of the ministers of religion to carry to them that gospel call, which God is accustomed to bless in showing them their danger. That message should be continually sounded in the ears of the sinner, with the prayer and the hope that God will make it the means of arousing him to seek his salvation.
Barnes.
"leading to the knowledge of the truth" The path to truth (alçtheia) and full knowledge (epignôsis) is not found in (1) Jewish genealogies or (2) Gnostic speculations but in the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. 2Ti_3:7; 1Ti_2:4; Tit_1:1). See Special Topic: Truth at 1Ti_2:4.
2Ti_2:26 "they may come to their senses" This is the aorist active subjunctive compound form (ana + nçphô) of the term nçphalios ("be sober") used metaphorically for "be alert" (cf. 1Ti_3:2; 1Ti_3:11; Tit_2:2).

"having been held captive by him" This is a perfect passive participle of the compound term "to catch" + "alive" which was used of hunting animals. Here it is used of taking a prisoner of war captive. The passive voice and the immediate context identify Satan as the agent and the false teachers and their followers as the prisoners! As the gospel catches humans (cf. Luk_5:10), so too, the evil one (cf. 1Ti_3:7).


Maybe we could help each other?
Johann.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Brother, please feel free to be open with me. I would never seek to harm or criticize the precious character you have, created in the image of God (Imago Dei) through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I was just wondering if you’re aware that Augustine initially believed in free will but later in life revised his stance on this. Additionally, many of the early Church Fathers did believe in free will.

I recall someone mentioning to you that Scripture can be paradoxical and dialectical, particularly on this topic-would you agree with that?


2Ti 2:26 kaiG2532 CONJ ananEpsOsinG366 V-AAS-3P ekG1537 PREP tEsG3588 T-GSF touG3588 T-GSM diabolouG1228 A-GSM pagidosG3803 N-GSF ezOgrEmenoiG2221 V-RPP-NPM upG5259 PREP autouG846 P-GSM eisG1519 PREP toG3588 T-ASN ekeinouG1565 D-GSM thelEmaG2307 N-ASN
May recover themselves (ἀνανήψωσιν)
Lit. may return to soberness. N.T.o. See on be sober, 1Th_5:6. A similar connection of thought between coming to the knowledge of God and awaking out of a drunken stupor, occurs 1Co_15:34.
Out of the snare of the devil (ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος)
Comp. Psa_124:7. The phrase snare of the devil, only here and 1Ti_3:7 (note). The metaphor is mixed; return to soberness out of the snare of the devil.
Who are taken captive (ἐζωγρημένοι)
Or, having been held captive. Only here and Luk_5:10 (note on thou shalt catch).
By him (ὑπ' αὐτοῦ)
The devil.
At his will (εἰς τὸἐκείνου θέλημα)
Better, unto his will: that is, to do his (God's) will.
The whole will then read: “And that they may return to soberness out of the snare of the devil (having been held captive by him) to do God's will.”
2 Timothy 2:26
MWS.

2Ti_2:26

And that they may recover [escape] themselves out of the snare [trap] of the devil, -- (1Ti_3:7). The term "devil" here refers to Satan, the enemy of God and His people. Deception is Satan’s trap. He is an inveterate, scheming, clever, and subtle purveyor of lies. See notes on Gen_3:4-6; Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:13-15; Rev_12:9.

The idea of being captured by the devil to do his will most likely refers to accepting and living according to the doctrine of the false teachers (compare 1Ti_3:6; 1Ti_4:1)

NASB = “they may come to their senses”

who are taken [held] captive by him at his will. -- Satan captures men, like catching fish Luk_5:10, (with deceptive traps) to do his (the devil's) will. Satan is a being who seeks to recruit support for his will (his agenda) . In contrast, the Lord's followers are to daily pray and desire, “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Mat_6:10).


They may recover themselves (ananēpsōsin). First aorist active subjunctive of ananēphō, late and rare word, to be sober again, only here in N.T., though nēphō is in 1Th_5:6.
Out of the snare of the devil (ek tēs tou diabolou pagidos). They have been caught while mentally intoxicated in the devil’s snare (1Ti_3:7). See note on Rom_11:9 for pagis.
Taken captive (ezōgrēmenoi). Perfect passive participle of zōgreō, old verb, to take alive (zōos, agreō), in N.T. only here and Luk_5:10 (of Peter). “Taken captive alive.”
By him unto his will (hup' autou eis to ekeinou thelēma). This difficult phrase is understood variously. One way is to take both autou and ekeinou, to refer to the devil. Another way is to take both of them to refer to God. Another way is to take autou of the devil and ekeinou, of God. This is probably best, “taken captive by the devil” “that they may come back to soberness to do the will of God.” There are difficulties in either view.
RWP.
When it comes to understanding the "will" of 2 Tim. 2:26; I believe the translators of our English versions side with it meaning the devil's will. So, on the grammar in the NT Greek, I'll go with the NET2.1 Bible translator's note and the reasoning and comparing scripture with scripture in the various commentaries as I'll quote.

"...and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2Ti 2:26 NRSVue) Note -Or by him, to do his (that is, God’s) will

I notice that the translations having the note making this "God's will", have it only as the alternate, but not the preferred that is in the translation. Therefore in English, and I trust the translators, the natural reading is obviously "the devil's will." *I would never choose the 'second best' of anything.

From Baker's NT Commentary -
"Through the work of the ministry may the adversaries be brought back to their senses; may they be aroused from their dull stupor, being delivered “out of the snare of the devil,” that is, out of the snare set by the devil, the snare into which he had lured them, that they might do his will (see on 1Ti_3:7). That this is the meaning is clear from the words which immediately follow: “by whom they had been taken captive to (do) his will” (literally, “having been taken captive by him (that is, by the devil), for that one's (the devil's) will”)."

"Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil." (1Ti 3:7 NRSVue)

From NET2.1 Bible
"tn Grk “for that one’s will,” referring to the devil, but with a different pronoun than in the previous phrase “by him.” Some have construed “for his will” with the earlier verb and referred the pronoun to God: “come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap (though they have been captured by him) in order to do His will.” In Classical Greek the shift in pronouns would suggest this, but in Koine Greek this change is not significant. The more natural sense is a reference to the devil’s will."

Paul Kretzmann Commentary (Lutheran)
"The moral condition of unbelievers is that of people that are captives of the devil, who has so thoroughly enslaved them as to use them for his willing tools in the execution of all his wicked schemes and works, Eph 2:2."

"...in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient." (Eph 2:2 NRSV)

Joseph Benson Commentary (Methodist)
"Greek, εζωγρημενοι, caught alive. The word denotes the action of a fisher, or hunter, who takes his prey alive in order to kill it; which is properly applied to Satan’s insnaring men in order to destroy them. And the snares in which he takes them are those prejudices, errors, lusts, and vices, in which he entangles, and by which he detains them his captives, in the most shameful bondage, danger, and misery, while they have been dreaming, perhaps, of liberty and happiness."

Albert Barnes Commentary (New School Presbyterian)
"Margin, “alive.” The Greek word means, properly, to take alive; and then, to take captive, to win over Luk 5:10; and then, to ensnare, or seduce. Here it means that they had been ensnared by the arts of Satan “unto (εἰς eis) his will;” that is, they were so influenced by him, that they complied with his will."

The verse to me is clearly referring to the will of the devil. Also, I know Augustine came to a strong predestinarian view and embraced the bondage of the will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
13,995
5,723
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The verse to me is clearly referring to the will of the devil.
Seems clear in the NIV.

2 Timothy 2:25-26 NIV
Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will
grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the
trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

[
 
J

Johann

Guest
When it comes to understanding the "will" of 2 Tim. 2:26; I believe the translators of our English versions side with it meaning the devil's will. So, on the grammar in the NT Greek, I'll go with the NET2.1 Bible translator's note and the reasoning and comparing scripture with scripture in the various commentaries as I'll quote.

"...and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2Ti 2:26 NRSVue) Note -Or by him, to do his (that is, God’s) will

I notice that the translations having the note making this "God's will", have it only as the alternate, but not the preferred that is in the translation. Therefore in English, and I trust the translators, the natural reading is obviously "the devil's will." *I would never choose the 'second best' of anything.

From Baker's NT Commentary -
"Through the work of the ministry may the adversaries be brought back to their senses; may they be aroused from their dull stupor, being delivered “out of the snare of the devil,” that is, out of the snare set by the devil, the snare into which he had lured them, that they might do his will (see on 1Ti_3:7). That this is the meaning is clear from the words which immediately follow: “by whom they had been taken captive to (do) his will” (literally, “having been taken captive by him (that is, by the devil), for that one's (the devil's) will”)."

"Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil." (1Ti 3:7 NRSVue)

From NET2.1 Bible
"tn Grk “for that one’s will,” referring to the devil, but with a different pronoun than in the previous phrase “by him.” Some have construed “for his will” with the earlier verb and referred the pronoun to God: “come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap (though they have been captured by him) in order to do His will.” In Classical Greek the shift in pronouns would suggest this, but in Koine Greek this change is not significant. The more natural sense is a reference to the devil’s will."

Paul Kretzmann Commentary (Lutheran)
"The moral condition of unbelievers is that of people that are captives of the devil, who has so thoroughly enslaved them as to use them for his willing tools in the execution of all his wicked schemes and works, Eph 2:2."

"...in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient." (Eph 2:2 NRSV)

Joseph Benson Commentary (Methodist)
"Greek, εζωγρημενοι, caught alive. The word denotes the action of a fisher, or hunter, who takes his prey alive in order to kill it; which is properly applied to Satan’s insnaring men in order to destroy them. And the snares in which he takes them are those prejudices, errors, lusts, and vices, in which he entangles, and by which he detains them his captives, in the most shameful bondage, danger, and misery, while they have been dreaming, perhaps, of liberty and happiness."

Albert Barnes Commentary (New School Presbyterian)
"Margin, “alive.” The Greek word means, properly, to take alive; and then, to take captive, to win over Luk 5:10; and then, to ensnare, or seduce. Here it means that they had been ensnared by the arts of Satan “unto (εἰς eis) his will;” that is, they were so influenced by him, that they complied with his will."

The verse to me is clearly referring to the will of the devil. Also, I know Augustine came to a strong predestinarian view and embraced the bondage of the will.
No problem here, as I have all the quoted commentaries. The real question is-do you believe regeneration precedes faith, or that a person "dead in trespasses and sins" needs to be regenerated first before hearing the Word of God, since faith comes by hearing? @Arthur81

J.
 

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No problem here, as I have all the quoted commentaries. The real question is-do you believe regeneration precedes faith, or that a person "dead in trespasses and sins" needs to be regenerated first before hearing the Word of God, since faith comes by hearing? @Arthur81

J.
"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13 NRSV)

Too many churches memorize v12 but skip the last half of the sentence in v13 which makes clear one is born of the will of God, not man nor the flesh. So, there is no spiritual life until the birth from above. I see faith as the first grace arising from the new saint of God.

"A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul." (Acts 16:14 NRSV)

Again, God opened Lydia's heart before she had a positive response.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life." (Eph 2:4-10 NRSV)

Being born from above, born again or anew comes from God prior to any faith. I see no way to avoid that without ignoring major sections of the scriptures.
 

Arthur81

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2023
721
454
63
82
Tampa, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No problem here, as I have all the quoted commentaries. The real question is-do you believe regeneration precedes faith, or that a person "dead in trespasses and sins" needs to be regenerated first before hearing the Word of God, since faith comes by hearing? @Arthur81

J.
Johann, I tried to Reply on another thread but it is locked, so I'll ask my question here. I'm curious about your response to the following scriptures:

Your first reference is to Matt. 28:18-20, but that is addressed to the evleven apostles -

"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'” (Matt 28:16-20 NRSV)

Twice Paul seems to have indicated that the eleven disciples carried out the commission given to them by Christ:

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world." (Rom 1:8 NRSV)

"...provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel." (Col 1:23 NRSV)

Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist, so apparently the work of spreading the gospel now comes though the local churches. The so-called "Great Commission" has been fulfilled.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
15,034
4,468
113
70
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I find it arrogant and prideful to come up with unique and weird doctrinal ideas that cannot be found in the history of the church in the past, through commentaries, Creeds, Catechisms and Confessions. What individual believer has more illumination of the Holy Spirit that the body of Christ in agreement through the centuries. What person goes to a doctor who does not have proven qualifications? Who strikes out on their own trying to get to a destination without the aid of correct maps?
Does that mean you hold to many Roman doctrines because they had learned scholars for th elongest?
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
15,034
4,468
113
70
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?
The safest approach to understanding Scripture is to take the topic (doctrine) and find verses about it through the New Testament (for church doctrine) and go from there.

There are two basic schools of understanding SCripture (hermeneutics) the literal/historical/grammatic ap[proach, and the allegorical approach.

The former relies on the intent of the authors and accept they wrote what was meant while the allegorical method will often redefine words due to a belief in "hidden meanings". these are simplistic views and are far more complicated, but I am a firm believer in accepting the authors intent as Valid especially Scripture. they were the ones inspired not those who comment on them afterwards
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen
J

Johann

Guest
"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'” (Matt 28:16-20 NRSV)
I'll give you one @Arthur81 and you'll probably disagree.

Modern-day Christians are understood to continue the task laid out in the Great Commission, which is to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them to obey the commands of Christ. This command, originally given to the eleven disciples, is seen as ongoing because of several factors derived from both the context of Matthew 28:16-20 and the broader New Testament teachings.

1. Christ's Authority Is Universal and Eternal
Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18), signifying His lordship over every age and people group. The Great Commission is rooted in this all-encompassing authority, which has no expiration. As Christ’s dominion over heaven and earth continues, so does the mission that flows from it. This means that as long as there are nations and people groups who need to hear the Gospel, the task remains relevant.

2. The Command to "Make Disciples" Is Ongoing
The Greek verb μαθητεύσατε (mathēteúsate, "make disciples") is a direct and imperative command. There is no indication in Scripture that this command was limited to the first-century disciples alone. Instead, the New Testament emphasizes that every believer is called to participate in the ministry of spreading the Gospel. For instance, Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 refers to Christians as "ambassadors for Christ," tasked with reconciling the world to God through the message of Christ.

3. Jesus' Promise of His Presence "Until the End of the Age"
Jesus' promise in Matthew 28:20, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, synteléias toû aiônos), suggests that His presence and the accompanying mission will last until the consummation of the present age. This implies that the task of disciple-making will extend to future generations of believers, not just the original apostles.

4. The Book of Acts and Early Christian Practice
The book of Acts and the epistles demonstrate that the apostles understood this commission as an ongoing mission for the early church. In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells His disciples that they will be His witnesses "to the ends of the earth." This phrase signifies a mission that reaches beyond the immediate context of the first-century world, suggesting a long-term effort to spread the Gospel globally.

5. The Call for the Church to Be "Salt and Light"
Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:13-16 describe believers as the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world." These metaphors indicate the ongoing role of Christians in preserving and illuminating the truth of the Gospel in the world. Being "light" implies that Christians are to continue pointing others toward the truth and demonstrating the way of salvation, a task consistent with making disciples.

6. Paul's Letters and Church Instruction
Paul repeatedly exhorts the churches to continue proclaiming the Gospel and discipling others. For example, in 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

This shows a chain of discipleship that extends beyond one generation, with the goal of perpetuating Christ’s teachings through successive waves of believers.

Modern-day Christians are certainly called to carry on with the task of the Great Commission. The global, timeless scope of Jesus' command, His eternal authority, and the ongoing work of the early church all suggest that making disciples, baptizing, and teaching are responsibilities that belong to all followers of Christ, regardless of the age they live in. As the Church continues to proclaim the Gospel and teach obedience to Christ, it fulfills its mission in partnership with the Holy Spirit, ensuring that Christ's presence and message are carried to every corner of the world.

Shalom
J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
8,573
11,706
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The real question is-do you believe regeneration precedes faith, or that a person "dead in trespasses and sins" needs to be regenerated first before hearing the Word of God, since faith comes by hearing?

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13 NRSV)

Too many churches memorize v12 but skip the last half of the sentence in v13 which makes clear one is born of the will of God, not man nor the flesh. So, there is no spiritual life until the birth from above. I see faith as the first grace arising from the new saint of God.
And here I would disagree. The logical flow of John 1:11-13 is that receiving Christ logically precedes being born of God. Receiving "The Word Made Flesh" is contrasted with not receiving Him in verse 11.

The Greek word translated as "received" (Strong's G2983) means to associate oneself with, give personal access to when applied to human relationships. (Jesus is a person, not a thing.) While God has shown Himself to be both capable and willing to "open someone's heart" as in the case of Lydia, I would argue that the act of receiving another person is a common one. A person can choose to associate with a friend, a person can choose to associate with a relative, a person can choose to associate with a business colleague, a person can choose to associate with Jesus Christ.

But to stay on-topic: The tensions inherent in the Biblical text have led to a pair of mutually incompatible theological systems, both claiming Biblical support, that have been debated for over 400 years.
 
Last edited:
J

Johann

Guest
And here I would disagree. The logical flow of John 1:11-13 is that receiving Christ logically precedes being born of God. Receiving "The Word Made Flesh" is contrasted with not receiving Him in verse 11.

The Greek word translated as "received" (Strong's G2983) means to associate oneself with, give personal access to when applied to human relationships. (Jesus is a person, not a thing.) While God has shown Himself to be both capable and willing to "open someone's heart" as in the case of Lydia, I would argue that the act of receiving another person is a common one. A person can choose to associate with a friend, a person can choose to associate with a relative, a person can choose to associate with a business colleague, a person can choose to associate with Jesus Christ.

But, theologians have been arguing this ever since the Articles of Remonstrance. Overy 400 years. I don't expect anyone to change their mind.
I believe that having a respectful discussion starts with understanding where the other person is coming from, which includes asking about their denominational background. I agree with you on that point.

For Calvinists, the go-to passage often highlights being "dead in trespasses and sins," which they interpret as meaning there is no free will to accept the Messiah. Then there’s the topic of who the "elect" are, which leads deeper into Calvinist doctrine-a perspective I personally don't hold as correct.

Joh_1:12 "But as many as received Him" This shows humanity's part in salvation (cf. Joh_1:16). Humans must respond to God's offer of grace in Christ (cf. Joh_3:16; Rom_3:24; Rom_4:4-5; Rom_6:23; Rom_10:9-13; Eph_2:8-9). God is certainly sovereign, yet in His sovereignty He has initiated a conditional covenant relationship with fallen humanity. Fallen mankind must repent, believe, obey, and persevere in faith.
This concept of "receiving" is theologically parallel to "believing" and "confessing," which denoted a public profession of faith in Jesus as the Christ (cf. Mat_10:32; Luk_12:8; Joh_9:22; Joh_12:42; 1Ti_6:12; 1Jn_2:23; 1Jn_4:15). Salvation is a gift that must be received and acknowledged.
Those who "receive" Jesus (Joh_1:12) receive the Father who sent Him (cf. Joh_13:20; Mat_10:40). Salvation is a personal relationship with the Triune God!

J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lambano

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
8,573
11,706
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe that having a respectful discussion starts with understanding where the other person is coming from, which includes asking about their denominational background. I agree with you on that point.

For Calvinists, the go-to passage often highlights being "dead in trespasses and sins," which they interpret as meaning there is no free will to accept the Messiah. Then there’s the topic of who the "elect" are, which leads deeper into Calvinist doctrine-a perspective I personally don't hold as correct.
Indeed, and following your example of respectful discussion (and staying on topic out of respect to the OP), I have rewritten the final paragraph of my post.

I must confess that I am reacting emotionally to other users (not Arthur81) who have recently used the Reformed understanding of "election" as a pretext for mistreating those whom they perceive as "not-elect". "If God hates them, why shouldn't I?" But I need to keep my emotions under control.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: St. SteVen
J

Johann

Guest
Indeed, and following your example of respectful discussion (and staying on topic out of respect to the OP), I have rewritten the final paragraph of my post.

I must confess that I am reacting emotionally to other users (not Arthur81) who have recently used the Reformed understanding of "election" as a pretext for mistreating those whom they perceive as "not-elect". "If God hates them, why shouldn't I?" But I should keep my emotions under control.
Here’s the issue-we all read the same Bible, but when it comes to exegesis, we often reach different conclusions.

Just look around: there are so many diverse and even heterodox views on various questions. And when my theology doesn’t "fit" with what someone else believes is correct, there’s often tension or conflict. I’ll admit, eschatology isn’t my strongest area, but I see disagreements on major doctrines all the time, @Lambano.

Everyone claims they’ve got it right-but clearly, someone must be wrong.

J.
 

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
8,573
11,706
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here’s the issue-we all read the same Bible, but when it comes to exegesis, we often reach different conclusions.

Just look around: there are so many diverse and even heterodox views on various questions. And when my theology doesn’t "fit" with what someone else believes is correct, there’s often tension or conflict. I’ll admit, eschatology isn’t my strongest area, but I see disagreements on major doctrines all the time, @Lambano.

Everyone claims they’ve got it right-but clearly, someone must be wrong.

J.
Years ago, a Catholic brother challenged me to read through one of their catechisms. I burned out somewhere around article #1500; God help me, I tried. I noticed that they supported each precept with a biblical quote, yet the hermeneutical principle seemed to favor an interpretation that supported the power of the Church institution. (Which is a mean thing to say, but it's what I observed.)

When the same process forms mutually incompatible theological systems, should we not reexamine the underlying assumptions of the process itself? That is what @St. SteVen has been doing.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
14,005
21,590
113
66
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
We have all been there.

You present your doctrinal position and give biblical support for it.
The response is, "Yeah, but..." and then your "opponent" gives their differing doctrinal position with biblical support.
So basically, Bible versus Bible. (who will win?)

Ironically, the WORDS "Yeah, but..." are an agreement, "Yeah" means "Yes" in proper English.
Shouldn't they say, "No, but...", if they disagree? (nope) That doesn't even make sense.

This is a strange little dance that we do with each other.
Since our opponent gave scriptural support, we are compelled to agree while we disagree.

Has this happened to you? How do you handle it?
What do you do with the "Yeah, but..." response?
The truth is far more subtle than what a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist can grasp. Dogmatism gives people a bent...a simplistic bent that denies the truth.

Sometimes a "yeah, but" is actually trying to bring a right balance to a tilted understanding. I would say.."on the other hand"...

The idea of balance is when there are seemingly opposing statements...held together by an understanding of context.

For example...we are to love our wives. But we are also to hate them for the sake of Christ. Which is correct? Both.

We are to fear the Lord. And yet He says "fear not"!

here is an even more subtle and misunderstood one is... all who believe not in (are indifferent to) Jesus are under wrath...and yet the bible says that Jesus is the saviour of ALL men...especially of them that believe. There is a marked subtlety here that few if any can discern.

For a final example that is not understood by dogmatic people... Jesus says all who believe in Him will be saved. And yet, many will say on that day Lord Lord, we did many things in your name (obviously believers) and Jesus says...go away from Me I never knew you.

Etc...
 
  • Love
Reactions: St. SteVen