Which Baptist Church Teaches.....

IF ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE WE CAN'T CHOOSE TO TURN OUR BACK ON GOD AFTER WE'VE KNOWN HIM AND ACCEPTED HIM YOU NEED TO READ THE 6TH CHAPTER OF HEBREWS.
AS LONG AS WE LIVE IN THIS BODY OF FLESH WE CAN CHOOSE, BUT AFTER WE HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO THE NEW BODY AND GO TO LIVE WITH THE SAINTS IN THE NEW HEAVEN & AND EARTH & OBTAIN ETERNAL LIFE WE WON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE ANYMORE.

 

I suppose that if I got my understanding about Jesus and his saving grace by looking up words in a dictionary rather than by studying the Bible I would be confused too!

However, for those who wish to get their understanding about Jesus and his saving grace by looking words up in a dictionary, I suggest that they use a SUBSTANTIALLY more appropriate dictionary than the one that RightFromWrong used. The very most appropriate one for this purpose is the 10 volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. This is by far the best dictionary to use if you care enough about the correct meaning of the words used in the Greek New Testament to REALLY study them.

P.S. You will find the definition of the Greek word translated “grace” in volume 9, on pages 373-402. Yes, that’s right—God’s grace is not such an extremely simple concept as some people who have never studied believe it to be.

 

I suggest that you study the concept of eternal life beginning with the Aramaic language (the language that Jesus almost for certain actually taught in), and then study how the relevant terminology was translated by the Apostle John when he wrote his Gospel in Greek. Having done that, you may want to study the difference between the eternal life which was the essence of Christ and our relationship to that life. Those who go to the trouble to study the word “eternal” as it was used and understood by both the Hebrews and the Greeks and the difference between the eternal life which was the essence of Christ and our relationship to that life will see for themselves the absolute and incontrovertible fact that the Bible does NOT teach that those who at a point or duration in time believed in Jesus but subsequently fell away continue to share the essence of Christ and that, therefore, they perish in Hell for eternity.

You might also want to considered the absolute and incontrovertible fact that the doctrine of eternal security is a man-made, 16th century doctrine derived not from the study of John’s writings regarding eternal life, but from the study of Paul’s writings—and not writings regarding eternal life, but writings regarding the sovereignty of God. And you might then want to consider that the key passages regarding the sovereignty of God are found in eulogistic rather than theological passages and then consider the nature and intent of the eulogistic passages versus the nature and intent of the theological passages in the New Testament

Those who take the time to study all of these things out for themselves will come to the very same conclusion that the Church came to regarding these things for 1500 years before the ear-ticklers deceived millions of Christians.

You can either believe what you WANT to believe, or you can study this out for yourself and learn for yourself who is telling you the truth and who is deceiving you. But of course if you should be less than thorough in your studies and come to the conclusion that I am deceiving you, that will also mean that the persons whom it pleased God to use to formalized the doctrine of the Trinity and to establish the New Testament Canon were also deceivers as they taught the same thing that I am teaching you!

 

Frances,

Thank you for your post and welcome to the Baptist Board!

 

RightFromWrong,

There is were I saw predestination in your previous post. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but the word PREDESTINED leeds me to think you are talkig about predestination. God knows what my final decision will be, but he didn't choose me any differently than he did all other people. I do not believe that God will only accept certian people. I believe he will accept all people who accept Him. His knowledge of our final decision is different than Him saying I will accept Bill, but not Bob no matter what Bob believes. If God only accepts the predestined then people he hasn't choosen have no chance of being saved. Jesus was the sacrifice for all of us not just some of us.

Your statement of us having to recieve Christ and Yeild to His will shows that we do have a decision to make. We can either accept God's Grace or not. I agree that is the ONLY part we have, but it is our part and without it we will not be saved.

Now that I have gone down the rabbit trail I'll be quite.

Bill

 

I suggest you get your facts right before you post such nonsense to folks like Trotter and RightFromWrong. Here's a couple for you to consider:
Word definitions taught by Jesus and others in the synagogue were not taken from the Aramaic. The Holy Scriptures (the Hebrew Canon) was written in Hebrew, as the name suggests. It was a sacred book to them, so sacred that they would not even write the name Jehovah. It was Hebrew not Aramaic, even though the lingau franca may have been Aramaic, the Scriptures were still Hebrew, and it would have been Hebrew words where definitions came from.

Secondly, words are primarily defined by the Bible itself. For example grace: Paul defines grace:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
A simple definition is "God's free unmerited favor," which any dictionary will give you. Paul illustrates that definition right here. It is free. If it involves any work at all it is not grace. Work cancels out the very definition of grace. This is what Paul is saying. Paul is defining grace in this verse. It would do you well to study the Scriptures rather than just a word here and there.

Eternal means what it says: eternal and not temporary. Any five-year old can figure that out.
DHK

 

I suggest you get your facts right before you post such nonsense to folks like Trotter and RightFromWrong. Here's a couple for you to consider:
Word definitions taught by Jesus and others in the synagogue were not taken from the Aramaic. The Holy Scriptures (the Hebrew Canon) was written in Hebrew, as the name suggests. It was a sacred book to them, so sacred that they would not even write the name Jehovah. It was Hebrew not Aramaic, even though the lingau franca may have been Aramaic, the Scriptures were still Hebrew, and it would have been Hebrew words where definitions came from.

Secondly, words are primarily defined by the Bible itself. For example grace: Paul defines grace:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
A simple definition is "God's free unmerited favor," which any dictionary will give you. Paul illustrates that definition right here. It is free. If it involves any work at all it is not grace. Work cancels out the very definition of grace. This is what Paul is saying. Paul is defining grace in this verse. It would do you well to study the Scriptures rather than just a word here and there.

Eternal means what it says: eternal and not temporary. Any five-year old can figure that out.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I do have MY facts straight and anyone who has studied linguistics can see for a fact that I do. I find it most unfortunate that there are those today who teach others but who have not invested the many years in Biblical studies that are required to have an opinion that is solidly based upon the facts rather than upon wishful thinking.

The everyday religious language for the Jews in the time of Jesus was Aramaic and Jesus, therefore, would have taught in Aramaic rather than Hebrew or Greek. The Hebrew was not well known to the Jewish masses and Greek was viewed by them as a secular language. However, the Greek language was understood by both the Jews and the Gentiles and God in His wisdom and providence chose to inspire the writing of the New Testament in the Greek language. This required that the words of Jesus be translated from the Aramaic language into the Greek language and, as is true of all languages, there are differences between Aramaic and Greek that cause some of the information in the donor language to be lost in the receptor language. These differences in the languages also cause some new information that was not in the donor language to appear in the receptor language. That is why it is absolutely necessary to study New Testament theological concepts in the language in which they were first developed, i.e. Hebrew, and then to study the transmission of those concepts through Aramaic into Greek. This is a very laborious job that requires familiarity with a vast amount of literature written in these ancient languages. Fortunately much of this work has been done by scholars who devoted their life to this work, and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament sums up for us the results of this work for each theological term used in the New Testament.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, although it comprises 10 large volumes, is, along with the Bible, the beginning place for a solid understanding of the theological concepts represented by English speaking people as the word “grace,” etc. (This dictionary was written in German and translated into English, further complicating the situation, but let’s not go there for the present time).

The failure of many to study before they teach is THE PRIAMARY REASON why we have so many denominations and interpretations today. And very many Baptists, rather than study, prefer to criticize those who have studied and accuse THEM of not knowing what they are talking about. What could possibly be more absurd and ridiculous and make more of a mockery of God and his sacred Word?

 

I doubt if your facts are straight at all.
It doesn't matter what the lingua franca of the day was. Your premise is founded upon your guesswork that all Jews were ignorant and uneducated. They didn't study, and couldn't possibly be educated enough to know more than one language. At least that is how you come across.

Did you ever think to wonder why Seminaries, such as the one that I studied in, required Greek and Hebrew, not Greek and Aramaic. The Scriptures were written in Greek (NT), and Hebrew (OT). There are only a few small parts of the OT that were written in Aramaic. 98% of the OT is written in Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
--If Hebrew was such a dead language why was it written on the cross so that all could understand?

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Acts 22:1-2 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
--The result of speaking in the sacred language of Hebrew silenced the Jews.

Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
--If Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew what makes you think that he wouldn't have spoken to others in Hebrew when he taught in the synagogues?

The Apostles (and most other Jews) knew fluently Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. They were not ignorant people.
DHK

 

How can Craig possibly come across that way when he explicitly said that the Jews spoke both Aramaic and Greek? I think he could only come across that way to someone who didn't take the time to read what he wrote before responding to it.

 

A technicality. I think you know that. The point is, that Craig believes that Hebrew was a dead language that the Jews did not understand at that time, and therefore Christ was forced to speak in either Greek or Aramaic.
DHK

 

I would call it a mischaracterization or a straw man, not a technicality. I think accurately representing those we disagree with is important in these discussions.

[ August 29, 2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Get back on topic. Instead of focusing on the messenger concentrate on the message. Was the Hebrew language used by the Jews of Christ time or not? If you fail to address that question, and attack the person instead your post will be deleted.
DHK

 

A technicality. I think you know that. The point is, that Craig believes that Hebrew was a dead language that the Jews did not understand at that time, and therefore Christ was forced to speak in either Greek or Aramaic.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HEBREW WAS A DEAD LANGUAGE AND I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANYTHING ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD THAT WOULD EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT I BELIEVE SUCH A REDICULOUS THING!

Here are the EXACT words on the matter from my most recent post of this subject,

These FACTS are well known to everyone who has completed a New Testament survey course in an accredited seminary and I can document these facts if you wish by posting quotes from very many Biblical scholars.

DHK wrote,

The everyday religious language for the Jews in the time of Jesus was Aramaic and Jesus, therefore, would have taught in Aramaic rather than Hebrew or Greek. The Hebrew was not well known to the Jewish masses and Greek was viewed by them as a secular language.

The seminaries that require Greek and Hebrew require these languages because they teach from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament. Those who complete their seminary education and earn their doctorate in New Testament studies now have the tools to begin studying the New Testament for themselves, and this study, in my case at least, involved many years of studying the languages and cultures relevant to the exegesis and interpretation of the New Testament as these things lay the foundation upon which we examine and evaluate Christian doctrine to determine which doctrines are truly Biblical, and which doctrines are not. And I have learned, as I have posted above and elsewhere on this board, that the doctrine of eternal security, and the peripheral doctrines related to it, were derived from Scriptures that were studied apart from their context and without due regard to the genre of literature in which they are found. If anyone would like to discuss these scriptures, their context, and the genre of Biblical literature in which they are found, I will be glad to discuss them provided that all of those in the discussion are fluent in Koine Greek and provided that they are knowledgeable regarding the various genres of Biblical ligature and the significance of these genres in interpreting the Bible, and the New Testament in particular.

Please read my posts carefully and prayerfully, and please do not misrepresent my words or my ideas when responding to them.