|
| |
ISREAL'S REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
SINCE ISREAL HAS REJECTED THE MESSIAH AND HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY DISOBEDIENT TO GOD, DOES THEIR WILLFUL REJECTION OF THE SAVIOR NULIFY THEIR RIGHTS TO THE LAND OF CANNAN ( ISREAL) ? |
| |
ISREAL'S REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
God makes it pretty clear in ROM 11:1-2 "I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew."
God's promises to Israel are based upon God's faithfulness not Israel's. |
| |
ISREAL'S REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
the LOrd states in His word that his Gifts are without repentance.but as you see that proverbs 16:7 says that if if your ways please the Lord even your enemies will be at peace with you. Look at their fruits.they were and still are disobedient children.peace comes with obedience.obedience is better than sacrifice.YIC. |
| |
Give definition of gift of H.S. |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
How does the New Testament define a "gift" of the Holy Spirit? |
| |
Give definition of gift of H.S. |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
The New Testament Defines Gifts of the spirit in Romans 12, I Corthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4:11-12. |
| |
Is there middle ground? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
I came across this quote and I had to append it to the forum after all the discussion on Election – Free Will and Calvinism - Arminianism
“… in Romans 9, which deals with one of the thorniest theological problems in the Bible: predestination. It comes on very strongly on the side of divine election, which may lead you to conclude that Paul was a Calvinist and not an Armenian. I, however, believe he was both. You see, I believe that in most of the great theological controversies that have separated the Church, there has been light on both sides. Each side quotes the Scriptures that support them and ignores the Scriptures that are against them. I personally believe that it is logically possible to find an interpretation that affirms both truths. I believe it is the inevitable choice you have to make if you believe the whole Bible.” Quote by Derek Prince in the Summer 2001 issue of Christians for Israel Today.
Could we all search for that middle ground Derek Prince talks about? I like his last sentence it is something you have to do if you believe the whole Bible.
|
| |
Is there middle ground? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Since both views contradict each other, they both cannot be true. If one view is in error, what "middle ground" can there be? What is the middle ground between truth and error. I think Prince's suggestion is part of the tripe our secular culture has been trying to feed us. Yes, the issue is complicated, but on the ponts the two views disagree, there is clearly no compromise possible. Just thank God that his word is truth. We may not agree sometimes what that truth is, but both sides agree where it can be found. |
| |
Is there middle ground? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Lionstrong your assuming one side is wrong and one is right. Could it be they are equally wrong and the correct understanding is something else?
I think I know just about every verse the Calvinist use and I also know just about every verse Arminians use. If you compare them one for one you come out with a tie unless you are predisposed to read into either something that is not there.
Then if you take the verses used to prove predestination and those that show free will or choice, you again come out for all intents and purposes tied. I submit to that proves something is wrong.
As you said both can't be right, and we know the Bible does not contradict itself therefore we must be doing something wrong. What could that be? Are we tainting our reading by with prejudiced and presumed ideas?
Before you answer think about it. Men of equal intelligence, equal sincerity, equal hunger for the truth have debated this topic for over 500 years. Yet they reach no satisfactory answer.
Why? I contend they have been trying to prove their point rather than find the real answer.
I can listen to the arguments of the Calvinist and see their point, however if I remove their bias, their slant to scripture then I can also read the scripture to mean something entirely different. I can then listen to the arguments of the Arminians and see their point. And again if I remove their bias and slant I can see an entirely different reading to scripture.
Is Mr. Prince so far off? No, I think not. He is not asking for or suggesting a compromise. He is saying there has to be true doctrine that answers each sides questions, which neither Calvinism nor Arminianism presently does. Therefore there has to be another answer.
Lionstrong I thought Derek Prince spoke with wisdom you don’t. Your sure what he said was an attempt to weaken or compromise doctrine. I see him saying there has to be an answer that responds or addresses each side of this debate with a non changing, read nothing into it answer. You see him saying let’s agree to disagree and reach a compromise. I think the fact that we both see Derek Prince saying something different says one of us read what he said with a preconceived notion. Maybe that is how we are reading the scriptures also.
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Various translations of the Bible interchange the terms "homosexual" with "homosexual offender," "sodomite," and "pervert." Is this just semantics and the words are intended to be synonymous, or is there a real difference between the terms? Is homosexuality itself actually forbidden in the New Testament? |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Greetings Dean!
There are several words which can refer to homosexuality. This is why you see a range of translations, but basically the words are synonymous.
Yes, Scripture is very clear about homosexuality. Consider the following verses from both the Old and New Testaments.
1) Lev. 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
2) Lev. 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
3) Romans 1:26-27 - "26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
4) 1 Cor. 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
5) 1 Tim. 1:9-10 - "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts (perverts is the word for Homosexual offenders), for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"
Homosexuality is not the unparondable sin. It is a sin like any other sin. However, Scripture is clear that it is sin. It is also clear that one can be practice a homosexual lifestyle (even a monogamous one) and be a Christian. Those who practice such a lifestyle are listed among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
I hope this helps! |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
I agree that the Old Testament is clear on the subject. I question whether the prohibitions in Leviticus are still applicable, given the penalty listed, and given how much Levitical law was intended for the Israelites only. That's why I specified prohibitions in the New Testament.
Re: 1 Romans... my question here is on the use of the phrases "natural relations" and "unnatural (relations)." Does this mean homosexuality is unnatural, that is not according to nature? Which nature? Human nature? The nature of life? Certainly homosexuality occurs in nature, there are numerous examples of animals engaging in homosexual acts. Of course we are held to a different standard than animals. But if homosexuality is not according to human nature, why do people engage in it? What is meant by "natural relations" in these verses?
Re: 1 Cor 6:9-10... I find a number of questions here. On a not-quite-relevant note, why are male prostitutes singled out? Isn't prostitution a sin regardless of the gender of the prostitute? Why are female prostitutes omitted?
I also question why the qualifier "offender" is added ("homosexual offender" as opposed to "homosexual"), when the word "homosexual" is used by itself in other references in this same translation? It seems some difference is indicated, hence the qualifier. What is the difference between a homosexual and a homosexual offender?
Re: 1 Tim... Is a homosexual a pervert? Where is the word pervert as it is used here defined, in terms of what is included under the word?
It may seem from my challenges that I have an agenda. Please be assured I do not. These questions have been painfully puzzling to me, and I welcome the chance to discuss them. |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Greetings Dean!
Thanks for your response! Allow me to attempt to answer some of your questions.
1) You wrote: " I agree that the Old Testament is clear on the subject. I question whether the prohibitions in Leviticus are still applicable, given the penalty listed, and given how much Levitical law was intended for the Israelites only. That's why I specified prohibitions in the New Testament. "
I would agree that we are no longer bound to Levitical law. However, I do believe that where Levitical law touches on moral issues that the morality in question is still binding. Thus, the 10 Commandments are still enforce simply because they are based upon God’s character and nature. I believe the same is true of the prohibition against homosexuality. While the penalty may not be binding, the morality is.
2) You wrote: "Re: 1 Romans... my question here is on the use of the phrases "natural relations" and "unnatural (relations)." Does this mean homosexuality is unnatural, that is not according to nature? Which nature? Human nature? The nature of life? Certainly homosexuality occurs in nature, there are numerous examples of animals engaging in homosexual acts. Of course we are held to a different standard than animals. But if homosexuality is not according to human nature, why do people engage in it? What is meant by "natural relations" in these verses? "
This one is actually quite easy. Even though homosexuality may occur in some instances in nature, it is a biological dead end. Thus, it is against nature. It also is against God’s plan for us. We were created to in such a way that it is natural for men and women to engage in sexual intercourse. Romans clearly defines natural relations as relations between a man and a woman. Why do people engage in it? Look at Romans 1! They turned from God and gave themselves over to depravity.
3) You wrote: "Re: 1 Cor 6:9-10... I find a number of questions here. On a not-quite-relevant note, why are male prostitutes singled out? Isn't prostitution a sin regardless of the gender of the prostitute? Why are female prostitutes omitted?
I also question why the qualifier "offender" is added ("homosexual offender" as opposed to "homosexual"), when the word "homosexual" is used by itself in other references in this same translation? It seems some difference is indicated, hence the qualifier. What is the difference between a homosexual and a homosexual offender?"
Allow me to quote from a commentary concerning your first question:
"The list of offenders was similar to that noted earlier (1 Cor. 5:10-11), which no doubt corresponded to problems in Corinth and in other large cities of the day (cf. Eph. 5:3-6). Homosexuality and male prostitution, for example, were especially characteristic of Greco-Roman society. Plato lauded homosexual love in The Symposium (181B). Nero, emperor at the time Paul wrote this letter, was about to marry the boy Sporus (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 6. 28), an incident bizarre only in its formality, since 14 of the first 15 Roman emperors were homosexual or bisexual."
Concerning the translation of the word ‘arsenokoites’ as "homosexual offender," the word is only found here and in 1 Tim. 1:10. It simply means "a sodomite." I’m not sure why they choose this particular translation, but the meaning is clear.
4) You wrote: "Re: 1 Tim... Is a homosexual a pervert? Where is the word pervert as it is used here defined, in terms of what is included under the word?"
See above for the word used. But yes, I would say a homosexual would be a pervert, along with a host of other sexual sinners.
It might be easier to discuss a smaller section. So, if you have any particulars you want to discuss, focus in on them.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
This is the crux of my problem. The original verses seem ambiguous, their meaning open to debate. And most of the clarifications I've been given so far seem to favor predigested interpretations over examinations of the texts themselves. I've yet to receive a translation of the original Greek which is also not agenda-driven. Debating from a stance of "This is clearly the meaning" doesn't help me because the meaning isn't that clear to me. Is somebody willing and able to examine the texts with me from a neutral stance? I appreciate it. |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Dean Graf, The origin is very clear.
In my Interlinear Bible, I see the original to be very clear. I have the Greek, an the English word on top of it. On the side I have the translation, sometimes in a different order that the Greek. But, it carrys the meaning. If not exact, very close. In this case all the passages on homosexuality say it is wrong.
On online is Interlinear Bible at:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/ ... copy and paste the text, then click each the Greek word to see the English word and put that word on top of the Greek. There is not always a 1:1 ratio. It is painstaking work, just ask those who study that way. This was is neutral.
Steve |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Correction - This way is neutral.
Also as you study the text in the context.
-Study each word
-Study the pharse
-Study the paragraph
-Study the chapter
-Study the book
-Study the NT or OT, as applicable
-Study the whole Bible
... see how it all fits and it will be clear to you.
Steve
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
in the book leviticus 18:22 God has told us this is a abomination. (thou shalt not lie with mankin, as with womankind:it is abomination
lev 20:13(niv) If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death' their blood will be on their own head.
then it was a physical death. now Jesus teaches us this will be a physical and spiritual death
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Greetings amhcountry! Here's a little 'insight' on Leviticus 18:22..
"18:22 Homosexuality here is labeled an abomination, something detestable to God both ritually and morally. Ritually, it was detestable partly because it was practiced in Canaanite religion, which God had commanded Israel not to follow." (Nelson Study Bible)
"18:22 Homosexuality is clearly forbidden. Also see 20:13, where the penalty is death, and Gen. 19:5, note; and 1 Cor. 6:9, note." (Ryrie Study Bible)
"Mankind Lev 20:13; Rom 1:27" (New Scofield Study Bible)
"..All forms of sexual impurity or irregularity are to be avoided (18:19-23), including intercourse with a woman during menstruation, homosexual relations.." (Cambridge Annotated Study Bible)
"Romans 1:24: Homosexuality is pictured by Paul not as the ultimate sin but as the ultimate distortion of God’s creative genius. When the human family indulges in sexual behavior antithetical to that for which they were biologically, psychologically, and emotionally designed, the “futile” imagination has so “darkened” the foolish heart (v. 21) that it is virtually impossible to view anything as God intended. To these awesome sins of homosexuality and sodomy, Paul applies six terms of evaluation: (1) “uncleanness” (v. 24), (2) “lusts” (v. 24), (3) “dishonor” (v. 24), (4) “vile passions” (v. 26), (5) “against nature” (v. 26), and (6) “shameful” (v. 27). After listing a host of other iniquities, Paul concludes the section with the promise of the certainty of God’s judgment against all such sin. Additional passages demonstrate that homosexuality is a hideous sin which falls under the scope of God’s judgment (Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9)." (Believer's Study Bible)
"lie with a man. See 20:13, where the penalty for homosexual acts is death." (NIV Study Bible)
"18:22 not lie with a male. This outlaws all homosexuality (cf. 20:13; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)." (MacArthur NKJV Study Bible)
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
read romans 1 and see that it is actually forbidden |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Greetings Dean!
Which text do you want to examine. I know Greek. But, I'm not sure what you mean about examining the text from a neutral stance! The word 'homosexual' means 'homosexual.'
Let me know and I'll interact with you.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Dean: I say this with no personal criticism of or animosity toward you. I am merely addressing the question you asked. The bottom-line answer to your question is: If anyone thinks he will find that the Bible condones homosexual activity in any way, he will be disappointed.
One may intellectualize from now until the end of the century, but if one honestly searches the Scriptures, he will come up with nothing but condemnation of homosexual activity.
Churches that condone homosexual activity and ordain homosexual clergymen are in error and disobedience to the Word of God. I seriously doubt if the leadership of such churches even believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God or that it is the sole authority for all faith and practice. |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction (Part One in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)
by Joseph P. Gudel
Christian Research Institute
STATEMENT DH055-1
Summary
"If homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle — as I believe this article demonstrates — then the most loving thing we can do is to help homosexuals realize this and offer them our help and encouragement. But millions of people in our society believe that homosexuality is a healthy and acceptable alternative lifestyle. This debate over the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is one that has been clouded with many misrepresentations and inaccuracies. These misrepresentations include the assertion that ten percent of all Americans are gay (the figure is actually closer to one or two percent), that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists believe homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle (the majority do not), that homosexuals are born that way (most therapists disagree) and cannot change their sexual preference (disproven by numerous accounts where gays have converted to heterosexuality). It is the Christian's task to point out that while homosexuality is a sin, we are all sinners and there is forgiveness and deliverance for all who turn to Jesus Christ.
""People should live and let live!" "To each his own, let them live as they wish." "Let the gays have their freedom." "Whatever makes you happy, live with it."
"Comments like these are commonly heard when the topic of homosexuality comes up for discussion. The debate over homosexuality and homosexual rights has steadily grown over the past two decades and will only continue to do so.
"In the course of this debate, however, numerous inaccuracies, half-truths, fallacies, and overt propaganda have been disseminated to the public as uncontested truth. It is the purpose of this article to examine these claims and separate fact from fiction. Before anyone can give intelligent and compassionate answers, the questions must be clarified and brought into focus. I believe that when this is done the impartial reader will be able to agree with the analogy made by Dr. James D. Mallory, a psychiatrist and the director of the Atlanta Counseling Center: "A physician would be guilty of malpractice if he didn't warn a diabetic of his condition because he didn't want to hurt his feelings. Simply letting the person continue eating excessive carbohydrates without proper treatment condemns him to a worsening physical condition. The most loving act one can do is point out that an abnormality exists, and offer help. This needs to be done — but not in a spirit of condemnation — with homosexuality."
(to read the rest of the article, go to http://www.equip.org/search/)
--JVH0212
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
THAT WHICH IS UNNATURAL: Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture (Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)
by Joseph P. Gudel
Christian Research Institute
STATEMENT DH055-2
Summary
"The gay rights movement does not just want the right to privacy and to be left alone. Attempting to promote their cause as a civil rights instead of as a moral issue, they want special legal protection for, and cultural acceptance of, their lifestyle. Even many Christian churches have condoned or are sympathetic to homosexuality, ignoring the Bible's teachings concerning our sexuality. In the Old Testament we find heterosexuality to be proclaimed as God's natural order of creation, a teaching Jesus upheld in the New Testament. Biblically, homosexuality is described as both an "abomination" and "unnatural." God calls us to reject sin, but to love and value all people.
"How can anyone dare to speak out against another person's lifestyle? Especially within the church, are not Christians called to be loving and inclusive? Does not the Bible itself tell us that we are to reach out to people instead of being judgmental and self-righteous?
"Questions like these come up whenever the Christian or the church takes a stand on a moral issue, especially homosexuality. I realize that it is not "politically correct" to speak critically concerning any person or group. Nonetheless, true Christian love does not ignore immorality and the lives ruined by it, but speaks out in the hope of helping those individuals.
"This is particularly true when militant pro-homosexual groups, both within society and the church, have attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of this important issue. Thus this article is written, not as an attack on homosexuals, but in defense of the biblical teaching on this topic and to help those ensnared in this lifestyle. "
(to read the rest of the article, go to http://www.equip.org/search/)
--JVH0212
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
|
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
OK. It has been my experience that the wording of the Bible is very deliberate. Rarely if ever is a word or phrase chosen over another purely for poetic reasons. So when wording differs from passage to passage on the same subject, I have been taught to question the reason for the difference. Thus I find it difficult to accept that qualifying a word by adding another word -- "homosexual" to "homosexual offender" -- is purely a matter of poetic license, because that argument would not be acceptable elsewhere in the Bible.
Since you know the original Greek -- is the phrase translated as "homosexual" identical to the phrase translated as "homosexual offender?"
Thank you. |
| |
Is homosexuality actually forbidden? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Greetings Dean!
Let's focus on 1 Cor. 6:9. The word translated "homosexual offender" in the NIV is the Greek word 'arsenokoites.' The definition of the word is "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual." It is only used twice in the New Tesament, here and 1 Tim. 1:10.
You said in your last post:
"Thus I find it difficult to accept that qualifying a word by adding another word -- "homosexual" to "homosexual offender" -- is purely a matter of poetic license, because that argument would not be acceptable elsewhere in the Bible."
If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that the word "homosexual" has been added. However, the word used in 1 Cor. 6:9 is "homosexual." The NIV simply choose to translate the word as "homosexual offender."
You last question was:
"Since you know the original Greek -- is the phrase translated as "homosexual" identical to the phrase translated as "homosexual offender?"
Good question! There are actually two words that refer to homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9.
The first (arsenokoites) refers primarily to the active partner in a homosexual encounter. This is the word that is translated as "homosexual offender."
The second word (malakos) refers primarily to the passive partner in a homosexual encounter. This is the word translated as "homosexual."
So there are two words used here. Both refer to homosexuality, but one is active and one is passive in nature. Both are sin.
I hope this helps!
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran
|
| |
Romans Definitions |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Definitions for the book of Romans
Greetings all! Does someone have any good definitions for some terms Paul uses in Romans (especially chapters 6 and 7):
1. Old man
2. Sin nature
3. Indwelling Sin
Are these all the same thing or are there distinctions between them? |
| |
Romans Definitions |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
All are the same thing, or very close. Our old man (6:6) (xref Gal 5:24, Eph 4:22) is our sin nature ... and our indwelling sin is something we battle (7:14 ff). |
| |
Romans Definitions |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
1. Old man
"6:6 our old man. A believer's unregenerate self. The Greek word for "old" does not refer to something old in years but to something that is worn out and useless. Our old self died with Christ, and the life we now enjoy is a new divinely-given life that is the life of Christ Himself (cf. Gal. 2:20). We have been removed from the unregenerate self's presence and control, so we should not follow the remaining memories of its old sinful ways as if we were still under its evil influence." (1)
2. Sin nature
"Essentially synonymous with "our old man." Paul uses the terms "body" and "flesh" to refer to sinful propensities that are intertwined with physical weaknesses and pleasures (e.g., 8:10,11,13,23). Although the old self is dead, sin retains a foothold in our temporal flesh or our unredeemed humanness, with its corrupted desires (7:14-24). The believer does not have two competing natures, the old and the new; but one new nature that is still incarcerated in unredeemed flesh. But the term "flesh" is not equivalent to the physical body, which can be an instrument of holiness (v. 19; 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:20)." (1)
3. Indwelling Sin
"Sin no longer controls the whole man (as with an unbeliever; cf. 6:6), but it does hold captive the believer's members, or his fleshly body (v. 23; cf. v. 18). Sin contaminates him and frustrates his inner desire to obey the will of God."
(1) - taken from The MacArthur NKJV Study Bible, copyright 1997 Word Publishing, pages 1703 and 1705.
--Nolan |
| |
Which promises? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
How do we know which promises in the Bible are for us and which ones are for the Jews and/or Israel? |
| |
Which promises? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
If you are a born again child of God then you are a joint-heir with Jesus. God is not a respecter of persons. All the promises made in the Bible are for everyone.Rom 2:11 says For there is no respect of persons with God.
Look at Rom 8:17 And if children,then heirs; heirs of God,and joint-heirs with Christ;if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. We are intitled to everything that Jesus has. |
| |
Which promises? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Hi Tracyrobeson and welcome to the forum! You said something that is not always true. God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation. You really don't believe you can claim that promise? God also told Abraham to walk and all the land encircled by his steps would be his, you don't believe you can walk a parcel of land and claim it for yours do you?
As I said before in response to JoeRick's question you have to look at the context of the promise, some were only for a particular people.
Your right God isn't a respecter of persons Roman 2:11, however that means God doesn't give a man special treatment because of his position or rank. God did have favorites, has he ever shown you any portion of His being? He did Moses. Has he given you wisdom like no man has ever had? He did Solomon. Has he made you the king of Israel? He did David, Saul. Has he ever promised you your lineage would be on the throne of Israel forever? He did David.
That is a false teaching that we can claim the promises that are made to other men.
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
