Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[studier]

Yes, man is unable because he's not spiritually capable of arriving at substantial and essential understanding of spiritual truth; for either God has blinded men's eyes and deadened their hearts (Jn 12:40), or the devil has blinded the minds of unbelievers (2Cor 4:40), or worse of all is that the spiritual dead (men w/o the Spirit) do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and they cannot understand them (1Cor 2:14). And Rom 1 bears this truth out because men actively suppress spiritual truth in their wickedness, not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. It's impossible for these kinds of men to please God because they have no desire to want to know him, to want to understand him, to want to draw close to him. Their darkened mind that is enslaved to the sin nature makes it impossible for them to please God (Rom 8:8), for such a mind is naturally hostile toward God (Rom 8:7)

To your second question: Because man bears the image of God, he can still understand some truth even though that image is badly marred. He can still see something through the darkness of his own soul, but not clearly. Plus Natural Revelation does not reveal the Gospel of Salvation.

I just redeemed some time looking at the Rom3 verses and context we've yet to go through. I'm finding the view of a general inability in unredeemed man to seek to be inconsistent with the Scripture. I'll explain why when you have the time to get into those verses.

I've also said a few things about 1Cor2 which seems to be on the Total Depravity list of proof-texts. As I've said already, I think this negates context in 1Cor2. If you'd like to go through this, I'm happy to put it on the list of things to review in context.

As part of what I will discuss re: Rom1 if and when we get back to that chapter, I'm also finding "Natural Revelation" to be a suspect term and will be going back to "General Revelation" since Rom1 is speaking of God revealing certain things about Himself to every man.

I will also suggest that there is some form of Special Revelation in Rom1 in the sense of "God revealed it to them" as the explanatory clause in Rom1:19 clearly says. IOW God personally makes His existence clear to men. Therefore this is beyond NR as God has not simply left men to observe and see from His [natural] creation that He exists. Rather, God personally makes His existence clear to all men. This is thus General (all men) and Special in the sense that God has not made or left His existence subject to men knowing by human reason. Thus, as Paul says, God holds all men liable for not rejecting Him - men have no excuse.

 

[studier]

We are not simply dealing with systems but with the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures

We are dealing with both a systematic theology as it may or may not be consistent with what Scripture says and means in both close context and in the context of the complete Text, as best we are able.

it is fundamental to know what happened to man after the Fall to realise that his salvation must be completely of the Lord who declared man to be "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5) and therefore it is only God who can raise man from his spiritual death by choosing to send His Son to secure the salivation of those He had chosen before the foundation of the world by His perfect life, death and resurrection and the Holy Spirit who seals them forever. These are the truths the Reformers made famous in the Five Solas below.

The Five Solas are once again a product of men interpreting what they've interpreted in the Text. I'm not opposed to any of them, but I've seen them abused by men just as men are prone to do with everything. They meant one thing to the Reformers and they have come to mean other things to other men. I simply don't live by the constructs of men apart from Sola Scriptura in Christ in Spirit.

So, if someone desires to speak about any of the Solas or any other point from a systematic theology, then we open up the Text per Sola 4 and review in detail of how God speaks of every concept. If we don't, then it seems unreasonable to assert the system. Not even everyone in the system agrees with everything in the system. What's the point?

 

[studier]

@Rufus: Correcting a typo in #5581

I will also suggest that there is some form of Special Revelation in Rom1 in the sense of "God revealed it to them" as the explanatory clause in Rom1:19 clearly says. IOW God personally makes His existence clear to men. Therefore this is beyond NR as God has not simply left men to observe and see from His [natural] creation that He exists. Rather, God personally makes His existence clear to all men. This is thus General (all men) and Special in the sense that God has not made or left His existence subject to men knowing by human reason. Thus, as Paul says, God holds all men liable for not rejecting Him - men have no excuse.

 

[Rufus]

If the natural man can still see something, enough to understand and believe God's deity and power, but not clearly, how do you know that he cannot see the truth of the gospel, enough to understand and believe that?

Read my 5575.

 

[Rufus]

Doing something outside of God's will does not mean you are greater than God, if God has the freedom to decree a world where creatures can do things He does not want them to do. Your God is not free to create such a world. Your God is not free.

On the other hand, Satan [somehow] made it into this "very good" world and succeeded grandly in getting our first parents to sin. How do you explain that?

Re the freedom of God: Has God ever been free? After all, there are things he cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot deny himself. He cannot sin. So...how free is his will?

 

[Rufus]

@Rufus: Correcting a typo in #5581

Yes, I agree that there is "spiritual truth" spoken of in Rom 1:18f. And, yes, men can observe the external world around them (Nature) and likely make many good (i.e. truthful) inferences from it -- inferences that would point to an All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good Creator...and even come to the only conclusion possible: There is Order, Purpose and Intentionality behind the observable universe. And that conclusion very likely triggers the naturally hostile minds men have towards the Creator to the reaction that Paul talks about in this passage -- suppression of truth because they don't want to retain God in their knowledge. Once a person reaches this Big Three in One Conclusion, that's when things start to hit home and produce very uncomfortable, uneasy feelings; for the next logical series of questions become: Well, if this all true, then why am I here? What is my purpose in life? What does God intend for me?, etc., etc. -- especially since Man is at the top of the "food chain" of this creation. This is when things start to become a little too personal for comfort.

So, yes, God certainly has revealed spiritual truths about himself through what he has made; but that doesn't mean that man's corrupt, darkened heart is equipped to accept the truth -- any more than the natural, hostile mind is capable of receiving Gospel Truth, as revealed in God's Special Revelation, apart from his effectual grace.

 

[PaulThomson]

On the other hand, Satan [somehow] made it into this "very good" world and succeeded grandly in getting our first parents to sin. How do you explain that?

Re the freedom of God: Has God ever been free? After all, there are things he cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot deny himself. He cannot sin. So...how free is his will?

So, your God is not free to change the future you believe He had to envision and create according to the dictates of His own nature. Your God is not truly personal, but is merely a programme that had to run exactly as it is running.

 

[PaulThomson]

On the other hand, Satan [somehow] made it into this "very good" world and succeeded grandly in getting our first parents to sin. How do you explain that?

Re the freedom of God: Has God ever been free? After all, there are things he cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot deny himself. He cannot sin. So...how free is his will?

Lucifer was originally a leader of worship among angels, put on earth to assist mankind. Lucifer fell in the garden. when He was tempted by pride in His own God-given glory to make a take-over bid for the new planet and tried to win the worship of mankind and lordship over the earth. I so doing He became Satan, the adversary. Lucifer's corruption was not something God had planned and decreed. It was a free choice of Lucifer.

God let Lucifer onto the planet as a good angel. Lucifer became Satan when He led an insurrection to be equal with God (on earth). Lucifer became the god/lord of this world when Adan ceded his authority and power to him by obeying him, and becoming the slave of the one he obeyed. He succeeded because, before acting, Eve, and then Adam, did not check in with God on the doctrine they heard that conflicted with what had already been given by God.

 

[Rufus]

So, your God is not free to change the future you believe He had to envision and create according to the dictates of His own nature. Your God is not truly personal, but is merely a programme that had to run exactly as it is running.

Well...you tell me. YOU brought in God's free will. But is God's will truly free, since he cannot do certain things? Can God, for example, will himself to not exist? Can He make square circles? Can he create an Immovable Object that would be able resist an Irresistible Force? Can He violate the Law of Non-contradiction? Can God sin? If God can't do any of these things, can you explain why God is not free to these things? What or Who is restricting him?

And why would a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise God have to change anything, such as the future? Why couldn't all temporal reality been perfectly decreed by him in eternity?

And just how does Satan fit into to your humanistic "theology"? You still haven't answered my question on how did he arrive on this planet: By accident? By design? By luck? Since he played such a huge role in the Fall of Man, one would think that you'd have the Devil problem sorted out by now.

And don't you find it a wee bit odd that God didn't protect his first image-bearers from the evil one, especially since AFTER the fall, he apparently "changed his mind" (perhaps) since he does now protect his chosen people from him (2Thes 3:3), apparently in answer to Jesus' High Priestly prayer (Jn 17:15)? Talk about a dollar short and a day late...

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5306042, member: 327121"]Lucifer was originally a leader of worship among angels, put on earth to assist mankind. Lucifer fell in the garden. when He was tempted by pride in His own God-given glory to make a take-over bid for the new planet and tried to win the worship of mankind and lordship over the earth. I so doing He became Satan, the adversary. Lucifer's corruption was not something God had planned and decreed. It was a free choice of Lucifer.

God let Lucifer onto the planet as a good angel. Lucifer became Satan when He led an insurrection to be equal with God (on earth). Lucifer became the god/lord of this world when Adan ceded his authority and power to him by obeying him, and becoming the slave of the one he obeyed. He succeeded because, before acting, Eve, and then Adam, did not check in with God on the doctrine they heard that conflicted with what had already been given by God.[/QUOTE]

Do you have chapter and verse on your theory that Lucifer first sinned on this planet?

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
So, your God is not free to change the future you believe He had to envision and create according to the dictates of His own nature. Your God is not truly personal, but is merely a programme that had to run exactly as it is running.

Well...you tell me. YOU brought in God's free will. But is God's will truly free, since he cannot do certain things? Can God, for example, will himself to not exist? Can He make square circles? Can he create an Immovable Object that would be able resist an Irresistible Force? Can He violate the Law of Non-contradiction? Can God sin? If God can't do any of these things, can you explain why God is not free to these things? What or Who is restricting him?

And why would a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise God have to change anything, such as the future? Why couldn't all temporal reality been perfectly decreed by him in eternity?

And just how does Satan fit into to your humanistic "theology"? You still haven't answered my question on how did he arrive on this planet: By accident? By design? By luck? Since he played such a huge role in the Fall of Man, one would think that you'd have the Devil problem sorted out by now.

And don't you find it a wee bit odd that God didn't protect his first image-bearers from the evil one, especially since AFTER the fall, he apparently "changed his mind" (perhaps) since he does now protect his chosen people from him (2Thes 3:3), apparently in answer to Jesus' High Priestly prayer (Jn 17:15)? Talk about a dollar short and a day late...

I didn't mention "God's free will".

But since you asked, "I will" in Greek is "thelO", I desire. "The will" in Greek is "hE thelEma" , the desire.

God has "free will" because He can desire whatever He wants to desire. God is also free to do whatever He desires.

Man has "free will" because man can desire whatever he wants to desire. But man is not free to do whatever He desires.

All temporal reality could be perfectly decreed by God in eternity, if God wanted to create such a world. But there is no evidence from scripture that God wanted to create such a world. He wanted to create a world in which man participates with him in creating the future. You don't believe God could create anything except one in which all temporal reality has been perfectly decreed fro eternity. You think to create any other world would make God imperfect. Your God is limited to behaving according to your own dictated preferences.

 

[PaulThomson]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5306042, member: 327121"]Lucifer was originally a leader of worship among angels, put on earth to assist mankind. Lucifer fell in the garden. when He was tempted by pride in His own God-given glory to make a take-over bid for the new planet and tried to win the worship of mankind and lordship over the earth. I so doing He became Satan, the adversary. Lucifer's corruption was not something God had planned and decreed. It was a free choice of Lucifer.

God let Lucifer onto the planet as a good angel. Lucifer became Satan when He led an insurrection to be equal with God (on earth). Lucifer became the god/lord of this world when Adan ceded his authority and power to him by obeying him, and becoming the slave of the one he obeyed. He succeeded because, before acting, Eve, and then Adam, did not check in with God on the doctrine they heard that conflicted with what had already been given by God.

Do you have chapter and verse on your theory that Lucifer first sinned on this planet?[/QUOTE]

Ez. 28:11-17; Is 14:12-14.

 

[maxamir]

We are dealing with both a systematic theology as it may or may not be consistent with what Scripture says and means in both close context and in the context of the complete Text, as best we are able.



The Five Solas are once again a product of men interpreting what they've interpreted in the Text. I'm not opposed to any of them, but I've seen them abused by men just as men are prone to do with everything. They meant one thing to the Reformers and they have come to mean other things to other men. I simply don't live by the constructs of men apart from Sola Scriptura in Christ in Spirit.

So, if someone desires to speak about any of the Solas or any other point from a systematic theology, then we open up the Text per Sola 4 and review in detail of how God speaks of every concept. If we don't, then it seems unreasonable to assert the system. Not even everyone in the system agrees with everything in the system. What's the point?

If you refuse to submit to the truth of Scripture laid out so simply in the Five Solas then why are you here if you refuse to listen to what others say whom God has ordained to speak truth to His people based upon those Scriptures? If you dispute any of those solas then please make your case.

 

[Burn1986]

for the Unjust/Nonelect/Unsaved whose names are not written in The Book of Life?

Revelation 21:27
There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb

Is Bigfoot real?

 

[studier]

Man's depravity (corruptness) is total in the quantitative sense; for man is not as [qualitatively] corrupt as he could be; nonetheless all his faculties (mind, passions, conscience and will) , which are seated in his heart, have been corrupted. Because of this corruptness or depravity or indwelling sin, if you will, Jesus declared that men are [inherently] evil (in their essence) and that only God alone is [inherently] good (in his essence).

So, herein is man's incurable problem stated in biblical principles:

"A little leaven (depravity, corruptness, sin, evil) leavens the entire loaf" (Gal 5:9)

-or-

"Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" (Jas 3:11). Can salt water produce fresh?

My apology for being slow. Daily life is consuming quite a bit of my time, so I'll be in and out of here.

I'm going to supplement your explanation of Total Depravity with this explanation which seem to have sufficient similarities to what you've said. I don't know if you'll agree with what it says, but it affords me the resource to read further and not have to bother you with some questions. If you'd like to provide a different resource, I'll look at it. I'm also looking at some of what @maxamir has provided graphically.

From: https://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/the-five-points-of-calvinism-by-w-j-seaton/

When Calvinists speak of total depravity, however, they do not mean that every man is as evil as he could possibly be, nor that man is unable to recognise the will of God; nor yet, that he is unable to do any good towards his fellow man) or even give outward allegiance to the worship of God. What they do mean is that when man fell in the Garden of Eden he fell in his “totality”. The whole personality of man has been affected by the Fall, and sin extends to the whole of the faculties — the will, the understanding, the affections and all else.​

Honestly, this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and I don’t think it ever has.

Man fell in his totality, meaning "sin extends to the whole of his faculties" (your “quantitively”).

Yet man is not "as evil as he could possibly be" (your “qualitatively”).

• Man can recognize God’s will.
• Man can do good towards his fellow man.
• Man can give outward allegiance to the worship of God

Proceeding in the above referenced article (not posted here), we’re told that man is:

• Dead Rom5:12
• Bound 2Tim2:25
• Blind & Deaf Mark4:1
• Uninstructable 1Cor2:14
• Naturally sinful Ps51:5

How can dead, bound, blind, deaf, unteachable, naturally sinful men do any of the [good] things listed in the qualitative section above?

How does such a devastated condition leave any room for any supposed “qualitative” abilities?

How can such a devastated creature do any of the [good] quality things listed above, yet have absolutely no ability to believe any absolute truth?

The quantitative vs. qualitative assertion seems contradictory. It looks like total does not mean total. The quantity of man is totally depraved, but the quality of man is not totally depraved? How evil does man have to be to be evil?

One thing I see quickly is that “uninstructable” based upon 1Cor2:14 looks more than suspect in interpretation. I’ve also noted that the seemingly favored reference to Lydia in Acts is suspect in interpretation.

In fairness, the above author’s references are not all the same as on the “Natural Inability” graphic @maxamir provided. But, what’s new? What is the source for a systematic theology today, the work of the one it’s supposedly based upon, or the work of the ones who have modified it over the next 500 years and divided into multiple denominations? Why are still debating all this stuff?

 

[studier]

If you refuse to submit to the truth of Scripture laid out so simply in the Five Solas then why are you here if you refuse to listen to what others say whom God has ordained to speak truth to His people based upon those Scriptures? If you dispute any of those solas then please make your case.

Seriously? Some observations for your consideration:

• I submit to our Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, His Spirit and His Word - that's a Sola for your consideration.
• I don't submit to any manmade theological construct apart from it agreeing with the Word as I understand it - that's Sola Scriptura - and Scripture and He is my authority on the meaning of Scripture.
• Apparently you're of the impression your denominational ordination is above another's denominational ordination? That would include mine.
• It seems you're of the impression others are bound to listen to and agree with what you teach - that's absurd.
• You posted the Five Solas. Please feel free to back them up by exegetically explaining their Scriptural basis - one Scripture at a time - in detail. Anyone can post lists of proof-texts. I've not seen you actually get into Scripture with me when I posted why I think some of your camp-based interpretations may be in error.
• Even the Solas are debated within. Faith Alone! - But Faith is never Alone!
• Honestly, this is one of the problems with denominational theological systems. Everybody thinks they're right but all cannot be right. Many on these forums are adept to various extents in arguing with their mantras and constructs and verse lists, and few are adept at actually getting into their proof-texts and discussing into much of any depth in context.

Please reconsider your approach to others, Pastor.

 

[studier]

Yes, I agree that there is "spiritual truth" spoken of in Rom 1:18f. And, yes, men can observe the external world around them (Nature) and likely make many good (i.e. truthful) inferences from it -- inferences that would point to an All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good Creator...and even come to the only conclusion possible: There is Order, Purpose and Intentionality behind the observable universe. And that conclusion very likely triggers the naturally hostile minds men have towards the Creator to the reaction that Paul talks about in this passage -- suppression of truth because they don't want to retain God in their knowledge. Once a person reaches this Big Three in One Conclusion, that's when things start to hit home and produce very uncomfortable, uneasy feelings; for the next logical series of questions become: Well, if this all true, then why am I here? What is my purpose in life? What does God intend for me?, etc., etc. -- especially since Man is at the top of the "food chain" of this creation. This is when things start to become a little too personal for comfort.

So, yes, God certainly has revealed spiritual truths about himself through what he has made; but that doesn't mean that man's corrupt, darkened heart is equipped to accept the truth -- any more than the natural, hostile mind is capable of receiving Gospel Truth, as revealed in God's Special Revelation, apart from his effectual grace.

In looking again into Romans 1 and further, this time due to our discussion, I think all men can and obviously do understand some spiritual truth and God makes certain of it and holds all men accountable for glorifying and thanking Him in response.

It looks to me like the issue for all men is not universally acceptance - whether or not they can or do accept it - but universally and generally that sinful man does not remain in that limited but sufficient (for God's purposes) understanding and cannot live it out no matter what he think or accepts. Some may have accepted it and some did did not, but under sin we all began and ended up in the same condition.

 

[PaulThomson]

The quantitative vs. qualitative assertion seems contradictory. It looks like total does not mean total. The quantity of man is totally depraved, but the quality of man is not totally depraved? How evil does man have to be to be evil?

Yes, Calvinist/reformed/doctrines of grace adherents do not really believe in Total Depravity or Total Inability. But it suits them to use the terms nonetheless, because the dishonesty/crass inaccuracy makes their claim of a need for pre-faith regeneration sound stronger than it would if they used a more accurate term, such as Omni-faceted Imperfection or Pan-aspectual Imperfection.

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:
So, your God is not free to change the future you believe He had to envision and create according to the dictates of His own nature. Your God is not truly personal, but is merely a programme that had to run exactly as it is running.

I didn't mention "God's free will".

But since you asked, "I will" in Greek is "thelO", I desire. "The will" in Greek is "hE thelEma" , the desire.

God has "free will" because He can desire whatever He wants to desire. God is also free to do whatever He desires.

Man has "free will" because man can desire whatever he wants to desire. But man is not free to do whatever He desires.

All temporal reality could be perfectly decreed by God in eternity, if God wanted to create such a world. But there is no evidence from scripture that God wanted to create such a world. He wanted to create a world in which man participates with him in creating the future. You don't believe God could create anything except one in which all temporal reality has been perfectly decreed fro eternity. You think to create any other world would make God imperfect. Your God is limited to behaving according to your own dictated preferences.

So, when God will's something, it's "merely" his desire? When he commanded the universe to come into existence ex nihilo, that wasn't God's decretive will? God did a lot more than just desire to create, for by the POWERFUL act of his sovereign will he actually commanded the universe to come into existence. We can desire many things, yet lack the [will] power to bring our desires to fruition. My next door neighbor is handicapped and wheel-chair bound for the rest of her life. She desires very much to be well again and live a normal life, but neither her or any of her doctors have the the [will] power to actualize their desires.

Also, you even conceded yesterday that God "let" Lucifer into this world. "Let", as in allowed? Permitted? But a week or so ago, you claimed there was no such thing as Permissive Will. So, how could God have "let" the evil one into this world?

And, yes, there is plenty of evidence that God decrees all things pertaining to HIS creation. He is the Sovereign Ruler over every aspect of Creation. You just don't want to acknowledge those scriptures. God is Sovereign over the natural world, over the rulers of nations, for he raises them to their positions of authority and he brings them down, over the people he has chosen to bring into his heavenly courts, etc. In fact, God himself decreed human government after the Flood. If God is not totally the Sovereign Ruler of this world, then what do you think Jesus meant when he taught his disciples the Lord's Prayer -- "Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done here on earth as it is in heaven." Evidently, only Gods' perfect will is done in heaven. So, Jesus prays that since that is the case, let it also be the same here on earth, which is God's footstool of his throne. Was this just an empty prayer of Jesus? Was He just blowing smoke? Did the Father hear his Son's prayer or not?

Since you deny that God's perfect will extends to every aspect of his creation, then this must include heaven, correct? Or if not, then do you also deny that God's perfect will does not extend to every aspect of life in heaven? Will there be any sinners in heaven? Will sin itself exist in heaven? Will it be possible for any saint to sin in heaven? If not, does that mean all the saints for all eternity lose their "free will", as God has apparently lost his? And would this inability mean that God would be forcing his will upon the saints for all eternity? What if his heavenly saints want to depart from God's perfect will, but yet cannot? Maybe heaven isn't the paradise that it's cracked up to be if all its occupants cannot freely choose to do what they want -- what they desire?

You say God has free will because he can desire anything he wants. Really? So God could desire to sin if he wanted to? But scripture doesn't teach that! The bible says that God CANNOT sin. There's a huge difference between "wanting" and the inability to want! The bible does not say God doesn't want to lie. It says, he CANNOT lie. The bible doesn't say that God doesn't want to deny himself; rather it says he CANNOT deny himself, etc. What if God's inability to sin is because he could never even have that kind of desire in his heart? Doesn't scripture teach that "God is Light and in him there is no darkness at all" (1Jn 1:5)? If God had the ability to want to sin -- the ability to desire to sin, would that not mean that there is darkness in him, since all sin springs internally from the desires of one's heart, and needs no external expression to become sin, according to Jesus?

 

[studier]

Yes, Calvinist/reformed/doctrines of grace adherents do not really believe in Total Depravity or Total Inability. But it suits them to use the terms nonetheless, because the dishonesty/crass inaccuracy makes their claim of a need for pre-faith regeneration sound stronger than it would if they used a more accurate term, such as Omni-faceted Imperfection or Pan-aspectual Imperfection.

IMO it's really just a matter of looking at Scripture together free of the systematic presuppositions, which I'm fine calling Sola Scriptura if someone's stuck on it. My concern has been and remains that too many cannot work in Scripture. We're taught systematic structures and phrases that are easier to digest, then we battle systems instead of actually getting into detail in the Text. I'm speaking more of the pews and many to most teachers these days. There are of course those who remain doing the exegetical work. But even there, the denominational battle lines are so strongly set.

I did listen to and then read the transcripts of a study earlier this year where a man was getting into some needed consistency in some of the NC language that he thought was not being heeded as it needs to be. He came to the conclusion that at least one of the Creeds was wrong and was causing an oversight of what the Text is saying.

I listened to another teaching also a few months back that showed how one of the Confessions that guides so much of the theological thinking of this time is likely wrong (of course as he interprets it and to me he made a lot of sense).

I don't think most are aware of just how much is being rethought and how much work is still going on to better understand things such as the extent to which Paul is being masterful in Hellenistic rhetoric to thread the needle between Jew and Greek to do his part in bringing the races together in Christ as the era was changing to the New.

Honestly, as I get older, I'm back down to resting on the only Foundation with whatever precious materials have been built upon it. I don't even retain my own translations anymore but look at the Text fresh most every time I'm looking at something. I had grammatical diagrams in Greek out for the past few days looking at things down to the basics again when I could with as fresh a set of eyes as I can and with the request of the Spirit again. I know and believe who and what Jesus Christ is and that we are all required to bow in faithful obedience to Him as best we know how at whatever part of our growth He may have us. I'm not sure I'll leave here with anything else as clear as this, nor that I need to. So goes Sola.