out of context...

[3in1]

the scriptures mentioned are taken out of context on many occasions, especially the 'judge not' ones. how many times have you heard someone reply who is having premarital sex(for example), "hey, you are not the judge of me, doesnt the bible say do not judge!"

i would also like to add 1Cor 3:16 to the mix. this is often used to say that Paul was referring to the treatment of our bodies, or the temple. not the idea Paul was getting at here.

i have heard this one only once, but it was pretty bad IMO. the preacher was talking about when Jesus was a young boy teaching in the temple and his parents went and left Him. he said,(paraphrasing)"if you guys dont watch out, you will get on your way and not even realize Jesus isnt even w/ you." he was talking about our walks and individual ministries. again, his intentions may have been good, but im not sure that is what the text is getting at.

in Christ

[tsth]

Yes, and we've become so paranoid about "being judgmental" that we now judge nothing at all! No wonder we're in a mess of tolerance. We are commanded to make RIGHT judgments.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[pretzelperson]

Number one misunderstood verse, IMHO: John 3:16

Tell me what it means, please.

[Ovedya]

Number one misunderstood verse, IMHO: John 3:16

Tell me what it means, please.

I don't believe that there is a contextual misunderstanding of John 3:16 at all. I do believe that the term "Only Begotten Son" in this verse is largely misunderstood, however.

The term "only begotten son" does not refer to the Lord's incarnation, but to His eternal position in the Trinity. With regard to the Trinity He is and always was the only begotten son. Therefore, when you consider this fact, the verse takes on a deeper meaning. God did not merely give His only begotten son from incarnation, but He gave Him from eternity past.

Actually, during the 33.5 years that Jesus walked the earth He held many titles - both heavenly and earthly. The main two titles He used while on the earth, however, were "Son of Man," and, "Son of God." In His humanity, the Lord Jesus was the Son of Man, but in His divinity He was the Son of God.

Now, consider this: it was only in the Lord's resurrection that His humanity was exalted to become the Begotten Son of God (Acts 13:33; cf. Psa. 2:7; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). This is specifically related to the Lord's humanity, because, up until the Lord's resurrection, humanity was fallen and divided from God (That is not saying that all of humanity was resurrected with Him, mind you. Man, through repentance and believing needs to be joined to the Lord's resurrection - identified with it, through faith). In His resurrection, the Lord Jesus became the Begotten Son of God in His humanity, being the firstborn among many brothers, becoming the Firstborn of all creation (That is, the new creation), and the Firstborn among the dead (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:9; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5). Having been joined to the Lord's death and resurrection through faith (Rom. 6:5), we have become brothers of the Lord and sons of God (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11-12; cf. 2:10; Gal. 4:6), and a new creation with a new life (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).

[Guest LadyC]

personally i think one of the most prime examples of scripture being taken out of reference is the story of onan, because it's twisted by people to support multiple doctrines. by some it is used to support opposition to birth control, to others it is used to support opposition to masturbation. but what the story of onan is all about is greedy disobedience, plain and simple... onan wanted his brother's share of the inheritance for his own family, and spilt his seed to prevent giving his brother an heir through his widow. the sad part is, it seems like the true 'moral of the story' is rarely even considered, because people are so busy picking the story apart to fit their own agenda!

i can't think of any other passage in scripture that is used out of context to support more than one opposing doctrine!

[BobTriez]

Number one misunderstood verse, IMHO: John 3:16

Tell me what it means, please.

I don't believe that there is a contextual misunderstanding of John 3:16 at all. I do believe that the term "Only Begotten Son" in this verse is largely misunderstood, however.

The term "only begotten son" does not refer to the Lord's incarnation, but to His eternal position in the Trinity. With regard to the Trinity He is and always was the only begotten son. Therefore, when you consider this fact, the verse takes on a deeper meaning. God did not merely give His only begotten son from incarnation, but He gave Him from eternity past.

Actually, during the 33.5 years that Jesus walked the earth He held many titles - both heavenly and earthly. The main two titles He used while on the earth, however, were "Son of Man," and, "Son of God." In His humanity, the Lord Jesus was the Son of Man, but in His divinity He was the Son of God.

Now, consider this: it was only in the Lord's resurrection that His humanity was exalted to become the Begotten Son of God (Acts 13:33; cf. Psa. 2:7; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). This is specifically related to the Lord's humanity, because, up until the Lord's resurrection, humanity was fallen and divided from God (That is not saying that all of humanity was resurrected with Him, mind you. Man, through repentance and believing needs to be joined to the Lord's resurrection - identified with it, through faith). In His resurrection, the Lord Jesus became the Begotten Son of God in His humanity, being the firstborn among many brothers, becoming the Firstborn of all creation (That is, the new creation), and the Firstborn among the dead (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:9; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5). Having been joined to the Lord's death and resurrection through faith (Rom. 6:5), we have become brothers of the Lord and sons of God (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11-12; cf. 2:10; Gal. 4:6), and a new creation with a new life (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).

Wow Awesome post Beau

Thankee much!

Bob

[stevehut]

Number one misunderstood verse, IMHO: John 3:16

Tell me what it means, please.

I do believe that the term "Only Begotten Son" in this verse is largely misunderstood, however.

This is not the part that I had in mind. The "begotten" part is another can o' worms altogether.

My point was, that many people cite this verse to make the argument that salvation is gained through merely believing in Jesus. Seems to me that "believing" is certainly the starting point, but just that - a start, not the whole process.

[Ovedya]

Number one misunderstood verse, IMHO: John 3:16

Tell me what it means, please.

I do believe that the term "Only Begotten Son" in this verse is largely misunderstood, however.

This is not the part that I had in mind. The "begotten" part is another can o' worms altogether.

My point was, that many people cite this verse to make the argument that salvation is gained through merely believing in Jesus. Seems to me that "believing" is certainly the starting point, but just that - a start, not the whole process.

There are only two conditions given in the Bible for eternal salvation, brother; and there is one act that signifies the transfered life. These are: believing with the heart, confessing with the mouth, and the testimony of public baptism.

I find in the bible no other condition or act that secures our eternal position before the throne of grace.

[stevehut]

There are only two conditions given in the Bible for eternal salvation, brother; and there is one act that signifies the transfered life. These are: believing with the heart, confessing with the mouth, and the testimony of public baptism.

Two? I count three in your post there, bro.

Just for fun, recently, I looked up some other passages about salvation. And no, I don't intend to invent a whole new Gospel, but these were interesting. In order to be saved, you must:

1) Mat 19:16-22 Obey the commandments and give to the poor

[Ovedya]

The two conditions I mentioned were "believe" and "confess." The other, baptism, I stated was givn as "the one act that signifies a transferred life."