Reformed Baptist

My personal distaste is not a good enough reason for me to reject a realiltly. Hadn't they? What About Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. - the sin their belongs to the person conceived! Does it bother - yes it certainly does and that is why I try to share the gospel with people including my children. I want to see my children going to hell, but if I allow my personal distaste for that to could my judgement I might not be quite so clear in my warnings to them of the danger they are in - imagine the scene on the day of judgement, 'dad, why didn't you tell me?' 'Well son, it's like this, I just didn't want it to be true!' How horrible would that be!

The question is, are you prepared to submit to your eldership or not?

And of course, quoting two verses in that way is not esiegesis?

I take it you are against 'traditional Christianity's perception'? It helps to remember that actually every single person born is deserving of hell from the moment of their conception, the amazing thing is not that God condemns sinners, no the amazing thing is that he saves sinners. I am not amazed by the numbers going to hell, I am amazed by the numbers going to heaven and I call it amazing grace upon amazing grace that God has provided a way of salvation so that Hell is not the end of all.

Who else's children could they possibly be? Thinking about this logically they have to have at least one parent in common with Jesus don't they? And as Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit within Mary that means he only had one biological parent - hence these brothers and sisters must her offspring. Now, we can quote: Matthew 12:46-47--"While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." Matthew 13:55--"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Mark 6:2-3--"And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" John 2:12--"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days." Acts 1:14--"These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." 1 Cor. 9:4-5--"Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Gal. 1:19--But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." And ask ourselves the question, 'if the bible wanted us to know Jesus had biological siblings how would it say it?' and of course the answer to that question is, 'in exactly the way it does say it' But there is another very important point to notices, Matthew 1:24-25--"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Notice that word 'until' it is significant, it means that once Jesus was born Joseph entered into a sexual relationship with Mary, the natural result of which (especially pre modern contraception) is virtually inevitably pregnancy. Now, you may call this 'slipshod' reading of the Bible if you wish, but I would challenge you instead to actually interact with the arguments presents and offer an alternative exegesis that is more reasonable then the one I have put forward

Thanks for the response, however Ezra all these texts refer to single events, which is not what I asked you establish. The death of Jesus Christ was spread over several hours, but it was still a single event. And whilst I am not going to get into the whole tribulations and great tribulation thing in this thread, even if that is the case the reference is still to a single event however in 1 John 5:28 you want to make it refer to separate events one that occurs at the end of one age of the earth and one that occurs at the end of another age of the earth - how is that exegetically tenable? Lets return John 5:28 for a second and break the phrases down. Command: Do not marvel Reason: For the hour is coming in which Topic: all who are in the grave will hear his voice Subsequent: and come forth 1st Qualification: those who have done good Location: to the resurrection of life 2nd Qualification: and those who have done evil Location: to the resurrection of condemnation Now, ask yourself this question, if Jesus Christ had wanted to make it as clear as he possibly could that there was only going to be physical resurrection that included both the saved and the unsaved what would be the best way for him to say that, and what would be the best way for John to record his words, is there a better way then: μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο, ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα ἐν ᾗ πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκπορεύσονται οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν κρίσεως.? Consider our language again if I was to say: 'don't be surprised the time is coming when the bus will arrive, the red one for me to get on and the black one for you to get on' how would you understand me? By speaking in the singular (whilst a little awkward in English) I have made it clear that I am speaking about a single event therefore you would expect the buses to arrive at the same time - that is how the Greek works here - it signifies a one event in which the righteous and the unrighteous are raised. However, Ezra, I do thank for explaining your understanding of the text and for your efforts in supporting that understanding but I can't help expressing the point that you seem to desire to go anywhere else in scripture (and yes I know I asked to you on that last point) rather then actually exegete the text in hand. We cannot hind behind the concept of progressive revelation to ignore previous texts, rather what we expect is that newer texts will spread more light on older texts, nor yet do we ignore the fact that the whole bible is God's word and he knows the end from the beginning, therefore it is possible that an older text can shed light on a newer text - indeed we rely upon that in our biblical exegesis, we turn to Gen 1-3 to shed light on the gospels and the reason for the coming of the messiah for example. Furthermore, an answer to half a question is not really an answer to the question, whilst I am sure you feel the answer you gave is adequate it neglected the key point, you want to separate the resurrections that Jesus refers to into separate events separated by an age of the earth, so, you need to establish that the idiom ὥρα (singular and no article) can refer to two separate events separated by a period of time, rather then one event that transpires over a period of time (which I fully agree the idiom can refer to)

Can you point to any other place in scripture where the idiom 'the hour' is used in this same way to refer to two separate events separated by an age of the earth? By that I mean what exegetical reason (as opposed to presuppositional reason) do you have to understand the phrase in that way or, in other words, can you present a linguistic/ exegetical argument rather then bare assertion that this is how we should understand it? Bear in mind my friend that the text speaks of only one resurrection, not two "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice" - how can that be understood to refer to two separate events separated by 1000 years? As for progressive revelation I agree with that to a point - but at the same time we are not Muslims and we do not believe later texts supersede earlier ones - a later text cannot supply a meaning that grammatically impossible to an earlier text, John 5:28-29 is clear that in 'the hour' all are going to hear his voice who are in the graves - the only sense that can be made of that (if words have any meaning) is that. Again I agree with the basic premise, except to state that we must take the clear and straightforward passages to explain the ones that are more difficult to understand. In regards to the idea of a resurrection representing 'a Hebrew harvest' that is an interesting idea but can you support it? I will come onto your 'proof text' in a moment however first i need to point out that I don't see the relevance - it is interesting however to see how I want to talk about a specific text and so far I have been directed to other texts and the text i am talking about is pretty ignored - why is that? Actually there is only the first fruits and the harvest there, again you are inserting a whole age of the earth that you have absolutely no exegetical warrant to include in your interpretation of that verse. The word 'then' is significant, it means 'following directly on' or 'next' so, we have Christ, then the harvest, immediately followed by the presentation of the kingdom - no 1000 years for a gleaning I am afraid before the kingdom is presented - again your understanding of the text is presuppositional rather the exegetically consistant. Anyway Ezra I am grateful for your interaction, and for everybody's, it speaks volumes to me - it seems to me the desire is mostly to explain away John 5:28-29 rather then actually get to grips with what it has to say

I know, that is why i worded it as I did - it is a hypothetical illustration

How do you know if you love that woman you see in the office more then you love you wife? Maybe by seeing that when you are with your wife you are thinking about the woman at the office, or maybe by the way you try more and more time with the woman at the office - do you see where I am going with this? The thing our hearts and minds dwell on is the thing(s) we love most. However, lets be careful as well we have a proper understanding of the first commandment, when God says, Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me." One has to consider the pagan practices of the time, think about the incident at the temple of Dagon with the Ark. A victorious army would carry off the idols of those they had conquered and put them in their own temples 'before' there own gods as if those idols were now forced to worship their gods. When God says "You shall have no other gods before Me." he is not simply saying 'you shall not have anything in front of me in your life' he is actually saying 'you shall not have anything in my presence at all' So go back to my illustration of the marriage - how do I know when that woman in the office is 'before my wife' well it is as soon as I look at her like I might look at my wife, or as soon as I begin to think about her as I might think about my wife. In regards to a computer then if you are thinking do I love having anew computer more then i love God maybe it is time to repent.

I quite agree, it isn't a literal hour Again I am in complete agreement with you Yes, again I agree that Jesus was proclaiming that there would be "a resurrection [Singular] for both the saved and the lost." That is the point, he refers to one period of time (one moment in history) when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come out, and to paraphrase his words he says "and when I say all, I mean all the saved and all the unsaved" If I was to say to you 'there is time coming when everyone in my hometown will hear my voice' how would you understand that - would you think I was speaking about two different times separated by a long period of time or would you understand me to be referring to one one moment in history?

Thank you for the response, however if that was the case and he is referring to two separate events separated by an age why does he say 'the hour' rather then 'the hours' - the word is singular and he says in that in this singular period of time all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth, he then goes onto explain what he means by 'all', by 'all' he means both those who have done good and those who have done evil.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. and you say So, do you understand the 'all' in John 5:28 when Jesus refers to 'all who are in the graves' does not include the church because they have already been raised and raptured? and therefore 'those who have done good' is those who have done good in the millennium - am I understanding you correctly? Whilst I can see how that might make sense of the text within pre-mil standpoint, I guess my problem is that I am not convinced the context allows it. I find it strange that Jesus would miss out the 'first resurrection' to which you refer. If what you say is correct Jesus goes from dealing with the here and now (v24-27) and then jumps post millennium without giving us any clue that he has done so, wouldn't a literal reading suggest that Jesus is discussing this age, and then he goes on to what is going to happen next (rather then after several over things have happened that he doesn't mention), in other words doesn't one have to insert a lot into the text that Jesus doesn't say to get to what you are saying, and is that perhaps why you have to begin with Rev 20 to answer a question about John 5? Anyway, once again thanks for your answer to my question, i found it very interesting

I am fairly certain I am in the minority here in regards to my eschatology as I am a historic recapitulationist (Amillenial) and it seems the majority view here is futurist so my question is one of understanding addressed to those who hold to the view that there is a separate resurrection of godly and the ungodly separated by a millennial age, so here is the question: In John 5:28-29 we read these words, John 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. Jesus speaks of a single hour when everyone who has died will, hear his voice and leave there graves to face the judgement, and he makes it very clear what he means by that phrase all who are in the graves as he qualifies with these two statements, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. How does one who believes that there is period of time between these two resurrections handle this text?

So it's let go and let God - I wonder why the Bible (including the New Testament) is so packed full of things we should be doing then?

Quite right The expression taken as a whole is meant to encompass the whole of our being - everything that we are is to love the Lord our God.

I think that answers the question very well - more then you or I can count!

Absolutely nothing, and that is precisely my point. However you asserted the following: I was merely pointing that that if your claim is correct then the KJV must be wrong it is translation in those texts because it is not translated "only begotten" but rather a different phrase with a semantic overlap is used. Absolutely nothing, but they do pertain to your assertion that there is only one way to translate μονογενής which is what I was addressing. Or maybe I am hoping we can all learn something about language and how it works that will help us all in getting a better grip on the word of God. Words and phrases have semantic domains (ranges of meaning) and context often dictates where in that range the word/phrase settles, furthermore when it comes to translation there is very a word/ phrase in the 'go to' language that is exactly the same semantic range as the word/ phrase being translated - hence there is always more then one way to legitimately translate any word/ phrase from one language to another. Now, personally I find it very helpful and useful to know I need to take the time to study a word/ phrase in context if I want to get to what it means Really, then why does God employ the anthropomorphism to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son? Indeed why employ the terms Father and Son either? These terms are used to show us the relationship that exists between these two persons of the Godhead - they help to convey to our poor and limited minds something of the relationship that exists between these two persons, furthermore they suggest that the Son is who he is because of who the father is (and not the other way around), the same idea is suggested by the use of the phrase "only begotten" (John 1:14; 18; 3:16;18), the Son owes his 'generation' to the Father, but the same cannot be said the other way around. In relation to this, notice also the use of 'firstborn' (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6) Of course any anthropomorphism can be taken too far (as all idiom can) and so the Bible also provides checks and balances, for example were are told the the word was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), we are told the Son and the father 'are one' (John 10:30) etc. Hence we speak of the 'eternal generation' to make sure we are not been misunderstood. The point being that the bible is using terms of human relationships and birth to help us grasp with finite minds something of the nature of the infinite God, so actually 'human begetting' does have a relevance to the the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead for us - which is precisely why the Bible uses them

Again i see no relevance in your post to mine!

If that is what you think then you need to go back and read it carefully, I was very clear that the the unbeliever needs to repent! Firstly you need to look again at your definition of believer and unbeliever - an unbeliever is not someone who simply denies the Son of God, an unbeliever is someone who does not faith in the son of God to save them. Secondly, again I repeat, my post was clear and you are misreading it. Now I have spoke clearly once, and I have clarified my position twice, if you continue to refuse to acknowledge what I am saying and insist on taking your 'perceived' meaning to be what I actually meant then there is nothing I can do about that however to my mind it is bearing witness.

I'm not sure I am following your post, your response seems to bear little relevance to what I wrote for there is no way my post can be read in a way that would lead someone to think I am advocating such as you seem to be suggesting I am advocating.

Why does a theological term in modern usage have to be found in the bible? The word Trinity isn't in the bible is that therefore also theological nonsense? Now, the term certainly has some redundancy in it, but it is most commonly used to differentiate between nominal and real Christianity within our societies, it also functions as a term of derision as well - however I still wish to know why a term needs to be in the bible in the exact expression we use in modern English before it is valid for our use?

So the KJV gets it wrong in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 then? In a sense I agree with you - it is the gospel that is the power of God unto Salvation, but unless we are neognostics surely that proclamation has to be in a language the people can understand? Remember when Paul writes to the Galatians he speaks of Christ been 'clearly portrayed' to them Gal 3:1 No, really he didn't, he said used the shrine to the unknown God to explain who the one true God is - mankind is quite capable of comprehending the Godhead what mankind can never achieve is fully comprehending the nature and character of the Godhead. So, whilst I am in full agreement that we should not philosophize beyond the teaching of scripture in regards the the mystery of the Godhead I do believe we have a responsibility to put the gospel out there in the language of the people we are seeking to witness to.

Because it's an English word, why would you be looking for an English word in Greek manuscripts? As has already been explained 'begotten' is a translation of the Greek word μονογενής as well as John 1:14;18; 3:16; 3:18 it is also found Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, beyond the gospels it is used in Heb 11:17; 1 John 4:9. Contrary to common belief though the English phrase 'only begotten' was always meant to be understood in the sense of 'specially chosen' or 'unique' as becomes clear when we see that KJV translators use to describe Isaac in Heb 11:17 - Isaac was not Abraham's only child but he was a unique child in that he was the child of promise - whereas Ishmael was not.

Because it's an English word, why would you be looking for an English word in Greek manuscripts? As has already been explained 'begotten' is a translation of the Greek word μονογενής as well as John 1:14;18; 3:16; 3:18 it is also found Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, beyond the gospels it is used in Heb 11:17; 1 John 4:9. Contrary to common belief though the English phrase 'only begotten' was always meant to be understood in the sense of 'specially chosen' or 'unique' as becomes clear when we see that KJV translators use to describe Isaac in Heb 11:17 - Isaac was not Abraham's only child but he was a unique child in that he was the child of promise - whereas Ishmael was not.

I desire wings so that i can fly like a bird, can my mind create that?